The British Ministry of Defence (MoD) has released a new report on the issue of women in land combat titled: Women in Ground Close Combat (GCC) Review Paper − 01 December 2014.  Even though the 29-page document appears to have been written by one faction and edited by another, the report includes specific, highly-relevant  information that should be reviewed by Congress, policy makers, and everyone who supports our military nationwide.

Unlike previous MoD reports on the same subject, issued in 2002 and 2010, this one includes conflicting views that provide even more perspective when analyzed separately.

For purposes of comparison and clarity, the Center for Military Readiness (CMR) has prepared a two-part analysis of the 29-page British report.  Both are linked here:

• Section A: Higher Risks and Costs Do Not Justify Assignments of Women to Ground Close Combat 
  

This section sets forth multiple findings and data from the British report, which clearly defines close combat, its physical requirements, and gender-specific physiological differences that would have an effect on combat effectiveness (CE).  Citations refer to empirical evidence based on actual experience, not theory. 

• Section B: "Claims that Problems Cited in New British Co-Ed Combat Report Can Be Mitigated Are Not Credible

Suggestions on how to "mitigate" problems lace the document throughout, reflecting social theories and unrealistic expectations that are contradicted by science and data presented in the same British report.  Many of these incongruous statements, which appear to have been inserted to soften the impact of facts in the report, beg the question by assuming truth without evidence other than the statement itself.

The word "mitigate" is usually paired with words like "damage" or "harm."  Frequent use of the word throughout the British report suggests consequences that are negative, not positive.  Logic would argue that major problems affecting combat effectiveness could and should be avoided by retaining current policies that exempt women from direct ground combat units such as the infantry, armor, artillery, and Special Operations Forces. 

Speculative claims and beliefs cannot compare with documented data and findings in the new British report.  The burden of proof is on advocates of unprecedented changes affecting military effectiveness.  The case for women in direct ground combat still has not been made.

* * * * * * *

To help spread the word about information in this article, and to learn more as events develop, please consider "liking" the Facebook page of the Center for Military Readiness, or make a tax-deductible contribution by clicking here.