Feedback on Women in Combat     6/24/2005
By Martha Kleder

This issue is getting governmental and public attention once again.

Author’s Note: Concerned Women for America is pleased that the issue of women in combat has once again come before Congress. Today’s combat environment has led to much confusion among military commanders, lawmakers and the public at large, as to where, by law, our female soldiers are allowed to serve. As a consequence, women soldiers are not simply in danger while serving overseas, but actually being placed in small front-line units as collocated, or embedded, support personnel for our ground combat troops. Congressional guidance is needed on this issue now more than ever if our front-line ground-offensive forces are to maintain optimal readiness.

On this subject, I was interviewed for a May 13, 2005, USA Today article, wrote an op-ed posted on townhall.com, and also wrote materials for our own Web site. Those articles generated many e-mails from readers.

Of those, I have chosen a handful that raise questions not covered in the above-mentioned articles – questions I’m sure many have – to respond to publicly.

Comment: Martha Kleder must not know what it is like to lose a loved one or have a loved one in combat. Her statement about having to grit her teeth when she heard about “Butterfly Kisses” being played at the funeral of a warrior really made me grit my teeth and not call her a bunch of dirty names. She should of explained herself just a little more. I was at that funeral and I could not have thought of a better song to play. There were 3,000 wet eyes in that church when that was played and the pictures of Sam Huff were shown. I spoke for a few minutes and promised the parents that I would take a flower to the Viet Nam veterans wall on Memorial Day and place it with some of my warrior friends to watch out for one more new warrior. That is the place for warriors not in the church.

I spent 20 years in the Army, three of them in combat; my son has served 18 years in the Marines and I don't know how much time in combat. My 18-year-old granddaughter is going into the Air Force this summer to be in the military police, just as Sam was. This is not World War II where there were lines drawn in the woods with the enemy on one side and the friends on the other. This is like Vietnam, where no place is safe. I agree with your group that women should not be in combat units, but again this is not WWII.

Response: Thank you for your service to our country. You also have every reason in the world to be proud of your son.

You said that I should have explained myself a little more. Well, sir, I was on the phone with the reporter for a good 15 minutes and fully explained my concerns. However, as often happens, the reporter chose to print only a fraction of a sentence, and very little about what I said about "soldier Sam." For the sake of the friends and family mourning the loss of their little girl, I did not refer to her by name; the reporter dug that out all by herself. I want to apologize for any additional grief that may have caused. It was not intended. As for how the article turned out, it is one of the risks of this business. My full position on women in combat is better reflected in several articles posted on our Web site, www.cwfa.org.

As for "this is not WWII," you are right; however, the issue of placing women in combat is not a matter of whether or not someone is in danger. Everyone in the area of operations is in danger; sometimes that danger is upon you before you can react. Just ask a WWII-era nurse who was on Bataan when the Japanese broke through the front lines. In combat however, you are not reacting to danger, you go out looking for it.

The issue at hand is direct, aggressive, first strike combat. I'm sure you are aware of the difference between that and simple "danger." The military does, that is why we have special combat units and Special Forces.

Neither is putting women in combat an issue of career advancement or equal opportunity. The military must make its decisions based on what fields the best fighting force. Women have half the upper body strength of men, lower endurance and higher rates of injury, sick call, and nondeployability. The Army's own data show that the top-performing females, 2 percent, perform at the rate of the average man. And I note that those figures were based on the women who volunteered for military service, not the population in general. Body armor, weapons, ammunition and communications equipment don't become lighter simply because a female soldier is carrying them. Place all of these problems in an environment that is 105 degrees in the shade, with the mandate that "everyone comes home," and women simply don't have an equal chance to survive.

Comment: Today I read an article authored by Martha Kleder titled: "Thumbs up to Congress for women in combat amendment." In all due respect, I believe this article misses the salient point about women in the military. Keep in mind I am a 69-year-old grandma and have some old-fashioned ideas. While I agree that women have a role in the military, I believe that role should be limited to the back lines or other support positions but never in the proverbial foxhole. The U.S. military is a unique organization with a singular role of protecting this country. Nothing should ever distract our soldiers from that goal. And, women are very distracting. The cost is too high.

The military should not necessarily reflect a cross section of the American public and it should not be some massive social experiment, even though the liberals love that kind of stuff while missing the bigger point. Nothing should distract the American soldier on the battlefield, to the extent possible, from protecting this great country. Last I heard, women are still distracting.

Response: Thank you for your comments. You are right on target about the reasons women should not be in combat. That was one of many concerns I was unable to raise in the op-ed you cite, because there was such a limited space.

Other reasons involve women's lack of physical strength and stamina compared to men, their higher rates of sick call, and the ultimate "inconvenience" on the battlefield...pregnancy. But your point touches on one of the reasons closest to my heart and that is the psychological affect it would have on our men.

War is the ugliest side of our existence on earth. For centuries men were able to get through it by looking forward to seeing again the wife or girlfriend back home. Women, even the nurses, USO and Red Cross gals they encountered, always represented home, sanity and the good in life that they couldn't find at the front. Even so, men returned to suffer years, even decades, of nightmares and post-traumatic stress.

How will our men pull out of that blackness now that images of dead and injured women are burned in their memories? Women they knew by name, bonded with, trusted and may even have loved? Isn't it bad enough that our enemies of today think nothing of using women and children as weapons? Must we add to our soldier's anguish by putting women in combat next to them?

Comment: As an enlisted airman in the U.S. Navy during WWII, I speak with truth. Women held good, gratifying, educational positions working "stateside" at almost every post in the Navy during WWII. We were discharged honorably upon marriage, no "out of wedlock" pregnancies were allowed; an undesirable (or similar) discharge was received. It may seem harsh but it worked! And lesbians were undesirably discharged, also. I know this because as a Petty Officer of the Watch, I got involved in a barracks investigation. Result? About a dozen lesbians (who, by the way, caused a lot of serious harm to some of the other Waves due to rape) were undesirably discharged. Thanks for this opportunity.

Response: Thank you for sharing your experiences with us. There was a time when women played a vital role supporting our military, without causing many of the complications we see today. Complications of single parenthood during both war and peace time, pregnancies disrupting deployment schedules and troop strength, and the rampant amoral sexual antics among the troops that we saw during the Abu Ghraib prison scandal.

It was a time when women who stayed home running households and businesses were also seen as heroes. Today, it seems that only those operating under the myth of "girl power" in uniform are given that honor.

While I hold out little hope that the nation will return to separate women's military services, a little bit of "old-fashioned" sexual discipline would go a long way to improving our military readiness.

Thank you again and thank you for serving.

For more information on women in combat:

House Committee Slows Push for Women in Combat
Women Removed From Army RSTA Squadrons
More Literary Fire Over Women in Combat
Readers Fire Back on Women in Combat Article
Turning Women Into Cannon Fodder
President Bush Noncommittal on Women in Combat

Printer Friendly Version