Women Removed From Army RSTA Squadrons     6/5/2002

Women Removed From Army RSTA Squadrons
But Many Servicewomen Remain in Combat Positions
By

Army leaders have removed women from Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA) squadrons, reversing a Clinton-era policy change that placed women in perilous combat positions.

The RSTA squadrons, which will not be operational until next year, are part of the Army’s rapid deployment units.

CWA President Sandy Rios said she was thrilled with this reversal of Clinton-era policy: “No matter what radical feminists claim, a military unit going this close to enemy targets under these conditions is clearly combat, by its very definition.”

“It seems that former President Clinton’s definition of ‘combat’ was similar to the fluidity he attributed to the meaning of ‘is,’” Rios said. “His Pentagon appointees, following his convoluted example, basically ignored a 1994 prohibition of women engaging in combat and continued to place women ever closer to the front lines.”

According to a review of the units conducted by retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, about 12 of the positions were open to women in the signal and headquarters functions of the RSTA squadrons. Those positions are placed relatively far back from the actual front line.

According to a report in The Washington Times, the Army’s April 26 orders stop all future assignments of women to the units, and reassign the eight women already in training.

Critics have said that the assignment of women to the new RSTA squadrons was a direct violation of 1994 Defense Department policy banning women from direct ground combat, or from assignment to units that co-locate with combat units in the field. Their assignment was also kept relatively quiet, and was not reported to Congress as required by law.

Col. Maginnis, now vice president for policy for the Family Research Council, told C&F Report that although the signal and headquarters sections are placed “relatively far back” from the front, the function of the RSTA squadrons still places them in peril.

“These women would be handling communications, assessing the enemy’s location and strength for the frontline soldiers whose view is obscured by battlefield smoke, and would monitor battle conditions for chemical and biological agents,” he said.

“However, the troops at the tip of the spear are there to draw the enemy into an area where we have heavier weapons, so the battle lines are constantly changing,” he added. “They also operate within enemy artillery range.”

Maginnis said his concerns with the assignment of women to RSTA squadrons were twofold: “First, as a former Army commander, it is a violation of law. And secondly, as the father of a daughter, the assignment effectively ends the ban protecting women from selective service and a possible future military draft.”

NEXT: WOMEN IN THE DRAFT?
In 1981, the U.S. Supreme Court said that rules barring women from the Selective Service requirement were constitutional primarily because women were exempt from combat positions. The case was Rostker v. Goldberg. Because many of the services have moved women into combat positions, any future military draft may well include women.

That eligibility for selective service — and consequently any future military draft — would take the issue of women in combat from one of choice for those women who qualify for the duty, to one of lack of choice for all other young women.

“In this case, the choice of a selected few would result in a decided lack of choice for the vast majority,” said Rios. “Another so-called ‘victory’ for women from the radical feminists.”

The assignment of women to RSTA squadrons effectively placed women in ground combat, one of a small handful of positions not open to female military members. Currently, women are restricted only from submarine duty, ground combat, and Special Operations units. Women are now serving aboard ships and can fly all combat aircraft except those in direct support of Special Operations units.

The RSTA assignment prompted a July 2001 letter signed by 28 members of the House Armed Services Committee questioning the Pentagon on this development. Advocates for military readiness also challenged these assignments, noting that all data to date indicated that the assignment of women to combat units would be detrimental to military readiness, cohesion and effectiveness.

WOMEN IN COMBAT HURTS READINESS
Testimony given to the 1992 Presidential Commission on Women in Combat, and evidence gathered from the assignment of women aboard Navy warships and from co-ed training units, all indicate that mixed-gender units have lower deployment rates, higher attrition, less physical strength, more sexual activity, and high costs. It has also been noted that those negative effects increase as the mixed-sex units move closer to the battle lines.

In short, the evidence shows that mixed-sex units in combat situations will be less effective than all-male units, translating into higher rates of death and injury among unit members.

“As a mother, I am grateful to our Army leaders for taking this stand,” Rios said. “While I am willing to send my precious son into battle for the defense of this nation, I am not willing to sacrifice his life on the altar of political correctness.”

Other nations are challenging that experiment as well. On May 23, The London Telegraph reported that women were being recalled from front-line positions.

Geoff Hoon, Britain’s Defense Secretary, said he “was not prepared to risk the effectiveness” of front-line infantry and armored corps combat teams when the effect of allowing women to serve was unknown.

The move follows a two-year study on the inclusion of women in ground combat units. Leaders said women were likely to react in a different way than men when under enemy fire. That reaction, and even the mere presence of women, could also effect how men react in the heat of battle.

Captain Erica Bridge, one of a number of women serving with the Royal Artillery, spoke to the press about the decision to remove women from ground combat units. She told The Telegraph, “I think it’s the right decision. We don’t know from experience how it would work because we’ve never had to try it in battle, and a battle is not the place to start that sort of social experiment. If it all went wrong, there would be nothing you could do about it.”

Canada has also made moves to pull women back from front-line infantry and combat positions.

DONNELLY’S ADVOCACY HELPED
The Army’s move comes after much lobbying from military readiness proponents, particularly Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness.

“This is a real shift in what they’re doing,” Donnelly told The Washington Times. “I believe they would not have made this change without directions from above.”

As recently as a few months ago, Army officials said they had no plans to change the RSTA’s co-ed status. That position directly opposed input Army leaders had received last August from Lt. Gen. B.B. Bell, commander of the Army Armor Center in Fort Knox, Kentucky, where the RSTA squadrons are training.

“The RSTA squadron in its entirety is designed for full-spectrum operations with sustained contact with enemy forces,” Gen. Bell wrote in his memorandum. “RSTA soldiers are equipped with a full range of weaponry, from individual to anti-tank missiles, and are prepared to engage threat forces to retain the commander’s freedom of maneuver. The mission directly meets the Department of Defense definition of ‘direct ground combat.’”

Gen. Bell is now commanding III Corps, headquartered at Fort Hood, Texas.

“We can all be grateful that the practice of training a small number of female soldiers in still-to-be-deployed Interim Brigade Combat Teams was brought to an end,” Donnelly told C&F Report. “But it does cause me concern that the Clinton-era policy was allowed to continue for many months after we became aware of it.

“The law requires Congress to be notified of changes in policies regarding women in combat, but that was not done,” she added. “DACOWITS [Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services] was in the loop, but Congress was not.”

Donnelly said that despite this change on the issue of women in combat, which she credits to the war on terrorism, the 28 members of the House Armed Services Committee have still not received an answer to their letter.

She added that she was encouraged by her March 8 meeting with top Pentagon officials, Dr. Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense, and Dr. David Chu, Undersecretary of Defense.

“We discussed the issue in terms of the realities of ground combat — not ‘career opportunities’ [for women],” Donnelly said. “It was obvious to me that the two officials would give the matter the serious attention it deserved, and I’m grateful that they did the right thing,” she said.

Donnelly said she has been assured that the careers of the women reassigned out of the RSTA squadrons “will not be negatively affected in any way.”

CWA’s Rios added that this move will likely be welcomed by most female service members — particularly enlisted women — who entered the service with the understanding they would not serve in direct combat.

Both Donnelly and Col. Maginnis say still more should done to strengthen the military in the face of war. Homosexuals serving in the military, co-ed basic training, are some of the policies implemented by the Clinton administration by means of regulations or executive orders which could be easily reversed. But as Donnelly noted, “these things take time.”

Printer Friendly Version

Recent Articles

Homosexuals Say They’ll Ignore No-Protest Order in Jerusalem

The Top Ten Da Vinci Code Distortions

Baseball’s Latest Scandal: Going After the Church

'A Superhero for Choice'

ACLU Seeks Mandatory Homosexual Sensitivity Training

Virgins Not Allowed!

Christian Activist Marcavage to Appeal Rejection of Lawsuit against Temple University

CWA’s Knight to Speak on Suburban Washington Sex-Ed Curriculum

New Genetics Study Undermines Gay Gene Theory

Apology Not Enough for ABC’s ‘Monday Nude Football’ Skit