    |
 |
|
|
|
|
Comment
by the Women
in Combat: Operational Capability Must Remain The Australian Defence Force (ADF)
has employed women in a wide range of ‘frontline’ and combat roles since the
mid 1990s. It is particularly insulting to these women professionally and
personally when uninformed commentators or sloppy media reporting incorrectly
states or implies that women in the ADF supposedly do not serve (or somehow
cannot serve) on the ‘frontline’ or in combat. It is simply incorrect, insensitive
at best and generally rude and thoughtless to claim that women in our defence
force, or each Service individually, are somehow not serving on the
‘frontline’ or in combat roles and situations. It is also incorrect to claim
that they are somehow not permitted to do so at all for reasons other than
operational capability criteria based on bio-mechanics and/or physicality (as
discussed below). What really is the
current situation? No-one on modern battlefields is shielded from some exposure to combat. All ADF personnel may have to fight as at least a secondary task in their employment, especially in the case of the Army and particularly during counter-insurgency campaigns. About half the US Army and Marine Corps casualties in Iraq, for example, occurred in other than combat manouvre units and similar trends apply in Afghanistan. In
the Royal Australian Navy women are employed in all roles (including combat
ones) on all ships, submarines and minor war vessels, except as clearance
divers. The limitation on clearance diving (a very small number of positions
in the Navy) is based on the physical strength and stamina levels needed to
perform such protracted tasks underwater. In
the Royal Australian Air Force women can fly all aircraft, and are employed
in all roles (including combat ones), except for the ground (infantry)
defence of operational airbases in war zones, and a very small number of
support positions involving the frequent use of chemicals known to be
injurious during pregnancy (especially in its early stages where the women
concerned might be unaware they are pregnant). In
the Australian Army, women can be employed everywhere in the air and on the
ground and in all units, including on the ‘frontline’ and in combat roles,
with only a few exceptions concerning matters of specific individual
employment skills and required attributes not geographic area, combat status
or general combat tasking. The
best way to understand how employment in the Army works is to look at it
using the classifications in which the types of ground-force unit are grouped
for organisational and tasking purposes: ·
Broadly speaking, specialist employment categories (and
their fostering Corps) and units within the Army are divided into ‘the Arms’
and ‘the Services’. ·
Arms units are the ones tasked and organised to fight
and are sub-divided into two types: § combat-manouvre
arms units ― infantry (light infantry, mechanised infantry and
parachute battalions, and commando and special air service regiments) and
armour (tank and cavalry regiments); and § combat-support arms
units ― artillery, aviation, signals and engineer regiments and
intelligence battalions. ·
Since 2005 female soldiers can serve in every type of
unit in the Army – including on the ‘frontline’ and during combat ― but
in combat-manouvre arms units and some combat-support arms units they
serve only in the unit headquarters and with the unit’s logistic-support
sub-unit. Females do not serve in the fighting sub-units of combat-manouvre
arms units such as the rifle companies of infantry battalions, the tank
squadrons of armoured regiments and the reconnaissance or armoured personnel
carrier (APC) squadrons of cavalry regiments. Nor do they serve in all the
sub-units of some types of combat-support arms unit such as the gun
batteries of medium and field artillery regiments or the field squadrons of
combat engineer regiments. ·
Women have long served in all other types of
combat-support arms unit such as aviation, intelligence, signals,
construction engineers, air defence artillery and electronic warfare
elements. This includes where such elements are co-located and work alongside
and with combat-manouvre arms sub-units when supporting them in battle and
other ‘frontline’ situations. It is likely with increasing modernisation, mechanisation
and automation (and consequently less reliance on individual physicality)
that female soldiers who are up to it physically will also eventually serve
more widely in field artillery and combat engineer regiments. ·
Female soldiers also serve in ‘frontline’
service-support units such as transport, supply, maintenance engineering,
medical and military police elements which are also often co-located and work
alongside combat-manouvre arms and combat-support arms units when supporting
them in battle. Why is there so
much community confusion on this issue? Why
does confusion arise so readily on this issue? Part of the problem is that
commentators fixate on the Army and ignore the Navy and Air Force. Another
part of the problem is that many people do not realise that in the Army a
combat-support arms unit is actually a type of combat unit, and that
mixed-gender elements of such units usually operate on the ‘frontline’
― as indeed can many mixed-gender elements from logistic-support or
health-support units. A
large contributor to confusion is mindless repetition of myths
(below) about women, war or how other countries supposedly employ females in
their armed forces and a failure to find out the facts instead. Often there
is also a failure to appreciate the complexity of the issue and adequately
define the contexts, nuances and terminology involved. It would also appear
much incorrect analysis or commentary is driven or exacerbated by ignorance
of defence force service and military matters generally, a poor understanding
of the specifics of military terminology, and mistaken, vague or ambiguous
description of concepts such as what constitutes ‘combat’ or the ‘frontline’. Sadly
and too frequently, popular confusion on the subject of women in combat can also be driven by ideological motivations and
other biases not directly connected to the topic. Moreover, much media,
political and academic commentary on the subject of women in combat also
seems motivated by ‘opinionating’ or a desire for individual publicity or
sensationalist media splashes rather than being based on genuine enquiry,
intellectual objectivity or journalistic or academic professionalism. Principles
based on experience What
are the facts, contexts and nuances actually involved? First,
operational capability is the prime determinant of any employment policy in
the defence force and should always remain so. Too many forget this and
forget why service in our defence force has to be different in many regards
to other types of employment. In particular, the battlefield is not just
another workplace and our defence force is an unlimited liability company in terms of the men and women who
serve in it and the voluntary risk of death or wounds involved. Second,
the following facts are essential to understanding the issue but are too
often ignored: ·
Women have long been employed in combat roles in all
three Services where force is applied from a distance (especially in
the Navy and the Air Force). ·
For even longer, in all three Services, females have
undertaken combat roles where you might have to fight directly and in
a physical person-to person sense occasionally. Examples of
such jobs include boarding parties in the Navy, aircrew and ground crew in
the Air Force when on the ground in contested areas, and in the Army’s
combat-manouvre, combat-support or service-support units respectively, where
women work in the headquarters or logistics company of an infantry battalion,
an electronic warfare detachment directly supporting that battalion, or a
logistics element resupplying any frontline combat-manouvre unit. Third,
some combat roles in the Army in particular involve more than these criteria applying
force from a distance or fighting person-to-person only occasionally.
For reasons discussed further below, there are some restrictions placed on
the employment of women in every role in such units, chiefly (but not wholly)
to avoid the risk of disproportionate female casualties where direct,
physical, close-in force generally needs to be applied much more continually
(rather than only occasionally). ·
The longstanding principle involved concerning the
potential employment of women in ground combat-manouvre arms units (including
ground defence units in the Air Force) is that, because of the physical
differences between men and women, female soldiers should not be employed in
battlefield roles where, most of the time, the core business
and prime purpose of the element concerned is direct combat
with the enemy in an up-close, physical and person-to-person sense. ·
This operational employment principle therefore
includes five distinct but inter-related criteria ― but with the focus
on the frequency of direct, physical, person-to-person fighting rather
than on the existence, purpose and likelihood of combat itself. Moreover, the
criteria are related only to physicality and bio-mechanical differences
between the genders. They are based on battlefield lessons and other
empirical testing over many years, not mere beliefs about what female and
male soldiers supposedly can and cannot do. ·
Current moves to scientifically re-test the physical
conditions involved, and the physicality criteria and judgements arising from
them, are likely to validate not invalidate the principle concerned. They are
also likely to highlight the separate importance and specific applicability
of relevant bio-mechanical differences between men and women. Moreover, an
objective scientific study is to be welcomed because it will again disprove commonplace myths and help eradicate the misunderstandings
and profound ignorance that so often complicates effective public debate on
the women in combat issue. Fourth,
the principles concerning female employment in combat-manouvre, field
artillery and combat engineer units are based on experience and facts. The
battlefield is an unforgiving environment where the laws of physics and
bio-mechanics apply without necessarily respecting gender-equity theory in
its ideological or academic sense or in its civil contexts. Furthermore,
bio-mechanical differences between men and women also have significant
effects on military service. Even in carefully planned peacetime training
among fit and healthy individuals in the ADF, the ratio of incapacitating
injuries to backs, knees, ankles, etc., between females and males runs at a minimum
of 5:1 due to bio-mechanical differences in load-bearing abilities between
women and men. Proven operational needs mean there is little scope to lighten
basic load-carrying tasks at an individual level, especially in ground
combat, so while the physicality levels required can be gender-neutral to an
extent, there remain gender-specific factors involved in the capacity to
undertake certain types of combat function. Finally,
there is the risk of disproportionate female casualties and the obvious
equity implications. For a range of operational, moral, and occupational
health and safety reasons, it would not be fair to our female soldiers to
expect them to fight enemy male soldiers continually in a person-to-person
physical sense and as a permanent and core part of their job. Some
would win such intense, person-to-person physical confrontations to the death
but more, probably many more or most, would lose – even if only eventually –
when such direct forms of combat are prolonged in duration. ·
Female casualties in such situations are therefore
likely to be disproportionate to male ones because they would be unfairly
exposed to higher risks than our men doing the same job under the same
conditions. ·
This has obvious operational, leadership, practical
equity and fairness, moral responsibility, and (even in war) occupational
health and safety implications. ·
It would, in fact, be genuinely discriminatory to place
female ADF personnel in situations of higher risk purely because of their
gender, especially if this was based on ideological beliefs with no regard
for ADF operational capability, respect for the women concerned as
individuals or acknowledgement of the science involved. ·
Community support for the ADF is also important. It is
likely that most Australians would consider it highly unfair for their
daughters, sisters, wives or female friends to be placed in situations with
a disproportionate risk of casualties just because they are women. Even
more to the point, community concern is very likely if women were placed at
such a disproportionate risk of casualties only to satisfy inapplicable
theories that it would somehow be ‘discriminatory’ not to put them at much
higher risk than men in this regard. This risk of disproportionate female
casualties is undoubtedly a genuine gender equity aspect of the women in
combat issue and certainly not an inapplicable and old-fashioned ‘chivalry
attitude’ as some more senior and perhaps out-of-touch feminist spokeswomen
have mistakenly maintained. Is how women serve
in combat really a gender equity matter at all? Given
the complexities and nuances of this issue, the question really needs to be
asked whether employment policies that seek to prevent unfairness in the risk
of death, wounds or injury for male and female soldiers serving in combat are
actually even gender equity issues at all. There are some who see the issue of women in combat as a supposed gender equity matter only. They view the problems involved in absolute, abstract or idealistic terms and fear that women are somehow being unlawfully or unethically discriminated against because they are not employed in every combat role. Many on this extreme appear unwilling to accept that there are any or any significant bio-mechanical differences between women and men. Similarly, many on this extreme appear unwilling to recognise that fighting wars can be an extreme test of biological or physical differences in gender, especially where these differences are not evident or not relevant in office, factory or other civilian environments. As but one of many examples to illustrate the effect of bio-mechanical differences between men and women, ejection seat characteristics in fighter and strike aircraft need to cater for the different effects on human bodies ejected explosively at high speed and under major stress. In men the major risk is hernias. In women it is prolapsed uteruses. There are numerous other effects across the Services in how equipment is operated or carried because women and men tend to have different centres of gravity. On the opposite extreme of the issue are those who see the employment of women in any form of combat as somehow inherently destructive of the moral fabric of society, especially ideal motherhood and the sanctity of the family and society. Some also argue against the employment of women in any combat role based on outmoded views of what women supposedly can and cannot do physically or emotionally. Often these latter objections ignore modern military experiences where women have long served at sea, in the field and in the air with little or no problems. They also ignore foreign military experiences that indicate female personnel are actually often more suited psychologically than men in the operation of automated weapon systems that kill remotely. In the middle of this question are those who approach the issue of female employment in combat roles from a strictly utilitarian basis – what is best for Australia’s defence, and for the men and women directly concerned, based on empirical analysis of the issues. After all, we invest large sums and significant personal efforts in our national defence and the operational requirements of the defence force should primarily influence any decision on force composition and employment. Demographic pressures also mean the employment of women in the ADF, and career opportunities for them, must be maximised not minimised. Too
many advocates on the extremes of the debate in the first and second
categories above seem to forget or ignore why we have a defence force and why
it is quite a different organisation to virtually all others in our society.
Many of the comments calling for markedly increasing, or lessening, the
involvement of women in combat come from those pushing political hobbyhorses
rather than being based on any real military knowledge or experience of what
combat actually entails. It
is particularly noteworthy that those calling for women to serve in all
combat roles rarely have any military experience themselves. In at least some
cases those advocating the employment of women in all combat roles appear to
be doing so for ideological purposes essentially unconnected with the issue
itself, and would not serve in the ADF themselves or encourage their family
members of either gender to do so. This is illustrated by the contrast that it is very rare to meet women with experience of service in the ADF who disagree with the principles and practical approach underlying current policy. This is because they understand what is involved and consider current employment policies are not discriminatory in the civilian gender equity sense. What is our defence
force for? The
Australian Defence Force (ADF) primarily exists to deter or win wars by
efficiently applied violence. A large part of this role involves a readiness and capacity to engage in actual battle. Even the most modern battlespace involves abnormal and often prolonged conditions of physical effort, psychological trauma, destruction, death, injury and general mayhem. Some modern battle involves killing by the operation of complex technology or the indirect or longer-range application of force. This is gender-neutral operationally and enables females to join the fray as fighter pilots or aboard submarines for example. Much battle, however, still depends on direct, physical, to the death, close confrontations, often on an individual-to-individual basis. As discussed above, this is rarely gender-equal. Dispelling myths
and misunderstandings Commonplace
myths based on beliefs about emotional differences between men and women
include: ·
Female soldiers are
somehow inherently less willing or less able emotionally to kill than men
when the need arises. Both Australian and overseas military experience does
not support this belief. Furthermore, some foreign military experiences
indicate women can be more suited than men to operating weapon systems that
kill by remote control. ·
Women are always
likely to be emotionally more prone to the shock of battle and its aftermath,
and therefore become ineffective, especially where violent death and horrific
wounds are involved.
There is, however, little modern empirical evidence either way concerning
infantry combat, but the performance in other combat of existing mixed-gender
units with combat, logistic or health support roles indicates that potential
problems, even where they might exist, can be overcome by leadership,
training and battle inoculation. ·
In the extreme
conditions of battle, mixed-gender units might be compromised when the men
seek to protect the women, however subconsciously, rather than concentrate on
the priority collective task at hand. Again the so-called ‘chivalry problem’
does not appear to have been a significant problem in existing mixed-gender
units with combat or logistic support roles. A
second group of commonplace but often contradictory myths about sexuality,
physicality or the complete absence of bio-mechanical differences include: ·
Sexual relations or
tensions between men and women in a team will impede morale and operational
effectiveness, especially at small-group level. Again this has
not generally been an unmanageable problem in existing mixed-gender units
with combat, logistic or health support roles, or in the mixed-gender
headquarters and logistic support elements of combat-manouvre arms units.
Extensive Canadian and British testing in peacetime with both all-female and
mixed-gender infantry sub-units has shown some teamwork maintenance, group
durability and unit cohesion problems but whether these are unmanageable in
modern infantry combat is effectively unknown as it is untested. ·
Any differences
between men and women concern only physical strength or stamina. This leads to the
belief that some women therefore can and should be qualified to undertake any
battle or related task using tests based purely on physicality rather than
gender. This belief unfortunately ignores those differences that are
bio-mechanical as well as, or rather than, physical in cause or effect. The
different or more prevalent injuries under battlefield and training
conditions between men and women, such as lower back, knee and ankle problems
indicate otherwise. As do bio-mechanical differences affecting injuries from
the use of ejection seats. A
third group of commonplace myths revolve around the mistaken belief that
modern war is somehow now different and that this supposedly means it is
easier for women to participate: ·
The nature of war
has somehow changed and changed for the better. But despite the
modernisation of weapon systems the nature of war itself remains brutal.
Modern battle can be just as brutal as in the past. ·
Modern wars are
somehow now fought in artificial or antiseptic environments with little or no
personal inter-action. The reality is that where such human inter-action in
battle does occur it is still a physical fight for personal and team
survival, especially in direct person-to-person confrontations. ·
The
gender-segregated lessons of everyday contact sports are irrelevant because a
battlefield is somehow easier than a sporting field. In fact (as
discussed further below), battle is a far
more lethal contest than sport so if teams and competitions in top-tier
physical contact sports continue to be organised along single-gender lines
why is this commonsense and well-accepted approach not accepted when
discussing potential physicality problems in employing females in every
combat role. Finally,
there are widespread myths due to erroneous beliefs about how other countries
supposedly employ females in their military forces compared to Australia: ·
Other countries are
very different to us in how they employ women in their military forces. Contrary to this
particularly prevalent and recurring myth, the ADF employs female personnel
in a far wider range of roles than most of the world’s armed forces
(including Israel which actually has very strict limits). We have female
sailors on all our warships, female fighter and helicopter pilots, and female
diggers in nearly every part of our ground forces. Australian employment
policies concerning female personnel do not differ much, if at all, from the
most comparable countries such as the USA, UK, Canada, New Zealand or indeed
from most ‘Western’ countries. Where they do differ, this tends to be because
we employ women more broadly or more flexibly ― or the other countries
employ modern automated weapon systems (such as self-propelled medium
artillery) that we do not yet have and such systems are more gender-neutral
in the physical sense than our older un-automated equipment. ·
Other comparable
countries that supposedly employ women more broadly than Australia have
tested and proved their policies in combat. Those countries alleged to have broader
employment of women, and to have done so with purported success, are
invariably ‘Western’ countries and ones (with the exception of Israel) with
little or no modern experience of combat. In many cases, such as Germany
which conscripts only men, or Israel where women do not serve in
combat-manouvre arms units, the examples often cited are simply wrong. ·
The principles
underlying ADF policies are based simply on old-fashioned perceptions of
gender differences not science or empirical testing. In fact the ADF
employment categories limited to males are only those in which the primary
and permanent duties involve frequent, direct, person-to-person physical
combat as a core requirement ― such as the infantry. As discussed
above, the rationale for this is essentially based on operational needs for
levels of physical strength, physical power and load-carrying stamina not met
by most women (and many men). ·
The women in the
ADF feel discriminated against and are demanding to serve in every combat
role.
In fact, women do serve in virtually every combat role in the Navy and the
Air Force and most combat roles in the Army. Moreover, there is little
clamour for significant change among female ADF personnel because they do not
regard this as a gender discrimination or indeed gender equity issue. This is
because they are best placed to understand the operational logic and context
behind current policies and have confidence in the principles involved. They
also understand that the implementation of these principles evolves over time
as technological change affects how women can be employed effectively, fairly
and with due regard to their survival in battle ― in both absolute
terms and in comparison to males. Battle
means playing for keeps and battlefields are much tougher than sporting
fields, not least because deliberately inflicting or resisting immediate
death is involved. But the overall situation of where, and where not, to employ women in combat is strongly analogous to premier-grade and national-level sporting teams in physical contact sports. After all, even the most ardent feminist ideologue does not bat an eyelid in protest that first-grade Australian rules, rugby union and rugby league teams have no female players or that our top boxers are all men. Similarly, no one appears to seriously question that even in non-contact sports such as netball when mixed-gender teams can be involved such competitions have rules limiting the number of men allowed in each team on bio-mechanical grounds. Furthermore,
where hard-contact sports are played by women, such as rugby and boxing, some
of the physical contact rules are modified for safety reasons or to account
for bio-mechanical differences between men and women. Similarly, although at
first glance non-contact competitive sports such as target pistol shooting
could and should be open to both genders on an equal basis, Olympic
competition in this sport is now segregated again to offer female contestants
the opportunity to compete at such a level. If we commonly accept why there are usually gender-based teams on a sporting field based on bio-mechanical or physicality requirements, what makes this commonsense approach somehow inapplicable to the much tougher conditions of a battlefield? Moreover, the sporting field has rules and sporting contests are not fought to the death literally. The battlefield in contrast is an environment largely without rules governing the extent of close physical combat. Even the most fervent or well-intended ideals for absolute gender equality cannot change battle’s complex physical realities and long history. Some strategic and
cultural realities Finally, it is also an unfortunate fact of history, culture and Australia’s strategic situation that many of our past, current and potential adversaries do not come from societies and cultures imbued with our beliefs in the rule of international humanitarian law, civilised behaviour and modern ideas of gender equality. This aspect was not discussed in the myths category above because it is not a myth. The
types of people we tend to have to fight are not those who make allowances
for our national sensitivity to gender-equality issues. In many cases they
simply do not understand them or regard them with contempt as a sign of
weakness or a vulnerability to be ruthlessly exploited. As an example, during
the UN-endorsed war to liberate Kuwait in 1991, most of the US female
personnel captured in Iraq were sexually assaulted or raped. Our female
soldiers already face this additional danger during combat. Whether
we should necessarily increase the numbers facing such dangers and risks
needs to be carefully considered, particularly if the reason for doing so
depends more on general ideas of gender equality in a civil environment in
Australia rather than operational effectiveness requirements in a military
setting in overseas war zones. This said, and once Australian society as a whole has properly considered this matter, a person’s decision to join the ADF necessarily involves an individual decision to risk the dangers of combat ― including any extra risks that might be involved due to family composition, physique, ethnicity, religion or gender. If, after being properly appraised of such risks, female ADF personnel are individually willing to face a greater risk of rape or sexual assault after capture by an enemy then this should remain a matter of individual choice. Facts and logic not
theory There are sound moral, operational and equity reasons why Australia employs females so broadly in our defence force. For the same balance of reasons such employment, by necessity, is not total.
|
|
Home
|
Latest Comment
|
Issues Index
|
Defender |
Defence Brief |
Membership |
Subscriptions
To preserve its independence and ensure transparency the corporate
administrative structure of the
Copyright
© 1997-2010
Australia Defence
Association.
All Rights Reserved. |