That this announcement even qualifies as a milestone is indicative of a larger problem as far as gender equality within the armed forces is concerned. There should be no question that American women are entirely able to serve closer to the front lines – and even on them.

Well I know the US Air force already has sentry snipers. Though I personally don't think it will prove a good idea to put us on the actual front line.


The real question is not whether women have the capacity to serve to a greater extent, (actually that's still very much in question, one can want to do something all day long but it still doesn't mean one can do it) it is whether the US military, both in its policies and its prejudices, has the capacity for them to do so. Since the American revolution, women have toiled alongside men in America's armed forces. Their jobs, however, remained entirely outside the realm of combat. Women in earlier wars served as nurses, civil service pilots, cooks and mechanics, among other positions. Since 2001, the roles of women in the military have changed. More than 225,000 women have deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and women now comprise 15% of America's armed forces. Many of these women served unofficially in combat roles. Women in the navy have, for the first time, served aboard submarines. An estimated 144 women fighting in these two wars have died.

I can see us serving in roles that do not require us to go on 10 mile route marches packing 80 pound rucksacks.


Historically, the limitations imposed on women have been justified by top brass for a single primary reason: a woman's physical and psychological stamina simply could not withstand the rigours of direct combat. (this article counterpoints itself with this presumption later) But today, even the department of defence has recognised – at least on paper – the archaic nature of this presumption. A recent report from the office of the undersecretary of defence recommended "the elimination of gender-restricted assignment". That report also mandated the development of "gender-neutral physical standards" so that women could be evaluated head-to-head with their male colleagues. (unfortunately this almost allays means lowering the overall standard to accommodate women at least in the gross physical areas... additionally where the standard cant be lowered: for instance female candidates for Army officer basic, also routinely receive unwarranted scores simply to be allowed to pass so the Army can meet its quota of women officers)

In conjunction with that report, Pentagon officials earlier this year announced plans to open an estimated 14,000 additional military jobs to women – many of them of a more dangerous nature than what is allowed now (but top brass stopped short of permitted women to serve in combat, offering as rationale little more than that they continued to study the prospect).

They might do better to study the Israeli model, they have after all had women serving in a far wider variety of roles for a longer time.


This week's two-pronged marine corps announcement is of a similar nature: women (who comprise a mere 10% of the marines) can now participate in its gruelling infantry officer course, a three-month programme that's the necessary precursor to joining the infantry. But there's a catch: once women complete the programme, they still won't actually be allowed to join the infantry. Another 40 women will be assigned to roles previously held exclusively by men. But again, none of those roles will entail combat service. No doubt, any advancements in the regulations that govern women in the military is cause for celebration. But the sluggishness of the Pentagon's progress is difficult to understand, and also incredibly frustrating especially when, unofficially, women have increasingly found themselves in the very combat roles they're barred from. "Women are being shot at, are being killed, are being attached to these combat arms units," Anu Bhagwati, executive director of the Service Women's Action Network, told the BBC. "The policy has to catch up to reality."

I agree they should get better training especially in base defense and convoy defensive roles...but I believe honestly that they would be a determent to unit integrity in front line "infantry" capacities (something also determined by others who have tested out women serving in such capacities)


Before it does, however, the military would be wise to make additional changes to accommodate any enhanced role for women in the armed services. For decades important issues that pertain to women in the context of military service – sexual assault, reactions to trauma and compensation, among others – have not been assigned the attention they both require and deserve. An astounding 3,192 women reported a sexual assault in 2011, according to a Pentagon report issued last year. Even worse? That figure is only 13.5% of the total assaults on women that likely occurred. Regardless of combat exposure, recent studies have concluded that deployed women in Iraq and Afghanistan are more than twice as vulnerable to post-traumatic stress disorder than their male peers. (most likely because we are not as evolutionarily suited to the environment is my guess) Women are also much less likely to qualify for disability benefits related to physical injury or trauma. Why? Because "officially" they aren't exposed to combat.

No doubt, thousands of enlisted women would tell the US military that they're more than ready to serve their country in the same capacity as men. Whether the military is ready for women, however, remains an open question.

Also whether or not we are ready, honestly ready our selves should be too.