Women in the Military

Women in the Military

Background & Overview

The documents linked below provide information that is essential for understanding the changing role of women in the military – particularly in direct ground combat units, such as the infantry, which engage in deliberate offensive action against the enemy. Researchers are invited to review these documents, as well as articles available in the CMR Issues & Analysis and CMR E-Notes sections of this website, www.cmrlink.org.

2015: Rules on Women in Combat Changed, Despite Research Confirming Harmful Consequences:

CMR: CMR Files Comprehensive Statement for the Record for Senate Armed Services Committee Hearing on Women in Direct Ground Combat

CMR: Statement for the Record, Senate Armed Services Committee, Submitted by CMR President Elaine Donnelly, Feb. 2, 2016

CMR Statement, pages 18-54

Paul O. Davis, Ph.D. Statement, pages 55-59

The CMR Statement for the Record linked above analyzes many of the flawed expectations incorporated in the Army plan to comply with administration orders:

CMR Policy Analysis - Defense Department Drive to Force Women into Direct Ground Combat: Why Congress Should Intervene, April 2013.
CMR: Sound Policy for Women in the Military, April, 2013

From 2013-2015, the military services conducted research on the capabilities of women in the combat arms, and Some of the Women in Service Restriction Review (WISRR) documents are posted here, but CMR has learned that about half were omitted from the list posted on the Defense Department website:

Department of Defense: Women in Service Restriction Review (WISRR) Studies, 2015.

USMC Research on Women in Combat, 2012 – 2015

This Memorandum, which was leaked to the San Diego Union-Tribune and published, was not officially released or posted on DoD websites. The August 18, 2015, Memorandum signed by then-Brig. Gen. George W. Smith was subsequently deleted from the San Diego newspaper website. The document may reflect the rationale behind General Dunford’s request that some direct ground combat units remain all-male.

Brig. Gen. George W. Smith, Jr., USMC Memorandum to the Commandant, August 18, 2015.

Marine Corp. Force Integration Plan Summary (4 pages, based on three years of scientific research.
CMR: Marines Set Sound Priorities: Survivability & Lethality in Battle, Oct. 13, 2015.
Interim CMR Special Report, Part II, November 2015: Marine Corps Research Findings: Where is the Case for Co-Ed Ground Combat?, Dec. 2015.
Executive Summary, Interim CMR Special Report – Part II, Dec. 2015.
USMC Research ˗ 4-Page Executive SummarySept. 10, 2015.
USMC Research ˗ Infantry Course Completion Rates, 2012-2015.

Interim CMR Special Report, Part I, U.S. Marine Corps Research Findings: Where Is the Case for Co-Ed Ground Combat?, Oct. 2014.

This heavily redacted Memorandum, signed by then-Marine Commandant General Joseph Dunford, blocked out Gen. Dunford’s specific rationale for exercising his right to request that certain physically demanding military occupational specialties (MOSs), such as the infantry and Special Operations Forces, remain all-male. The Marine Corps has refused to release an unredacted copy of the historic document, despite numerous FOIA requests and even litigation brought by Judicial Watch.

General Joseph Dunford, USMC, Memorandum: USMC Assessment of Women in Service Assignments, Recommendations to the Secretary of the Navy, 17 September, 2015.

There is no evidence that Marine women want to be eligible for the combat arms on an involuntary basis. Exhibit D in the CMR Special Report Part I, posted above, highlights the voices of women interviewed by an academic researcher when the push for women in the infantry was just beginning in 2012. A number of surveys have shown that women Marines want to serve their country, but do not want to be treated like men in the combat arms:

CMR Policy Analysis: Co-Ed Combat Tests Hazardous to Women’s Health, Aug. 2015
CMR Policy Analysis: New British Report Shreds Case for Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC), Feb. 20, 2015.

These veteran female Marines have questioned the wisdom of forcing women to deploy with men in a close combat environment, where the physical demands and medical penalties are more severe for women than men:

Capt. Katie Petronio, USMC, Marine Corps Gazette: Get Over It -- We are Not All Created Equal, Jul. 5, 2012
Jude Eden, Stream.org: Ashton Carter Betrays Military Women & Combat Effectiveness, Dec. 4, 2015

Jude Eden, Stream.org ˗ A Tale of Two Combat Integration Tests – Army vs. Marines, Nov. 8, 2015

The Obama Administration announced its intention to revoke women’s exemptions from direct ground combat assignments in 2013, citing the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) report as justification, even though there was no evidence of discrimination against women in the military:

MLDC Final Report: From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21^st Century
CMR: Defense Department Deliberately Moving to Implement Policies Known to Harm Military Women, Mar. 2014.
CMR: Statement to House Armed Services Committee Personnel Subcommittee, July 14, 2013
RADM Hugh Scott, USN (Ret.), June 22, 2012, letter titled "Physical and Physiological Issues Associated with the Assignment of Women to Direct Ground Combat Units."

Army Technical Bulletin, TB MED 592, "Prevention and Control of Musculoskeletal Injuries Associated with Physical Training," May 2011.

Average combat loads during Operation Enduring Freedom ranged between 63-137 pounds. (pp. 13-14 Army Technical Bulletin) According to the same report, women are approximately 64% more likely than men to receive a physical disability discharge of any type and approximately 67% more likely than men to receive a physical disability discharge for a musculoskeletal disorder. (p. 10)

On July 24, 2013, CMR President Elaine Donnelly submitted a comprehensive statement raising still-unanswered questions about Defense Department plans to order female personnel into direct ground combat battalions. The 24-page document, which includes links to footnoted sources, is posted on the website of the House Armed Services Committee:

Statement of Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness - House Armed Services Personnel Committee - Hearing on Women in Service Review, July 24, 2013.

During this time, the House and Senate did not have public hearings on the results of research being conducted by the Army and Marine Corps, even though the House had not conducted a hearing on the subject since 1979 (not counting 5 minutes of testimony from Commissioner Donnelly in 1993) and the Senate had not heard testimony since 1991.

CMR Policy Analysis - Defense Department Drive to Force Women into Direct Ground Combat: Why Congress Should Intervene, April 2013.
CMR: The Amazon Myth - Natick Study Stretches Science, April 1996
CMR Policy Analysis: Double-Think About Double Standards - "Gender-Neutral Training to Include Gender-Normed Scores, November 2013CMR: Seven Reasons Why Women-in-Combat Diversity Will Degrade Tough Training Standards, April 2013

Additional Information issues affecting Army women and men is provided here:

AP: Few Army Women Want Combat Jobs, Feb. 25, 2014
CMR Policy Analysis: Co-Ed Combat Tests Hazardous to Women’s Health, Aug. 2015

2001-2004: Direct Ground Combat More Than Being "In Harm's Way"

The media and many otherwise informed people often confuse "direct ground combat" (DGC) with the experience of being in harm's way" or subject to incidental combat under fire in war zones.

No one has questioned the bravery of American women who have served with skill and courage in recent wars. Female engagement and cultural support teams have performed valuable work with civilian women and children in Middle East warzones that were “in harm’s way.” CMR has reported unprecedented losses of military women in wars occurring after the attack on America on September 11, 2001:

CMR: Grim Toll of Military Women Killed in War

In a war zone, everyone is serving "In Harm's Way." But as stated in long-standing regulations promulgated by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin in 1994, direct ground combat" (DGC) involves deliberate offensive action to attack the enemy under fire:

1994 DoD Regulations Re Assignments of Women in the Armed Forces
Application of the Definition of Direct Ground Combat and Assignment Rule - William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense (published July, 1994)
Army Policy For The Assignment Of Female Soldiers - Army Regulation 600-13 (published March 1992)

Even with advanced technology under “asymmetric” battlefield conditions, offensive direct ground combat “tip of the spear” infantry and Special Operations Forces missions have not changed. Because physical requirements are very great, in that environment women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive.

1992:

The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces published findings that included the various armed services’ definitions of direct ground combat. Some of the Commission’s findings have been overtaken by events, but many remain valid. The “Alternative Views” Section of the Presidential Commission Report provided a consistence case against the assignment of women in most combat arms occupational specialties:

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces - Selected Findings

Unit Cohesion

Many news reports construe "cohesion" as being well-liked in a given unit. But that is not the correct definition in armed forces combat units. The Report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces includes this definition of cohesion, which was explained in detail by Dr. William Daryl Henderson, a member of the commission, who wrote a book on the subject. (Nov. 15, 1992, Finding 2.5.1, p. C80) Note that the definition uses the word "survival" three times in one short paragraph and stresses the importance of bonds among a group of people, not individuals:

“Cohesion is the relationship that develops in a unit or group where (1) members share common values and experiences; (2) individuals in the group conform to group norms and behavior in order to ensure group survival and goals; (3) members lose their personal identity in favor of a group identity; (4) members focus on group activities and goals; (5) unit members become totally dependent on each other for the completion of their mission or survival; and (6) group members must meet all standards of performance and behavior in order not to threaten group survival.” (Emphasis added)

Background & Essential Definitions

This peer-reviewed article by Elaine Donnelly, published in the Duke University Journal of Law & Policy, cites hundreds of contemporaneous sources.

Elaine Donnelly, Duke University Journal of Gender Law & Policy, Gender, Sexuality & the Military, Constructing the Co-Ed Military, Vol. 14, Issue 2, May 2007, pp. 815-952.

The following documents provide more contemporaneous background on this issue:

CMR Policy Analysis - March 2007: New Army Policy on Women in Land Combat: Almost Anything Goes (published March 2007)