by Johnathan M. Alba
Secretary of Defense Leon E. Panetta announcement that women will be allowed to serve in combat, overturned an administrative regulation baring woman from combat roles. While I am unabashed supporter of the move, I wonder if this is part of the Obama Administrations “broad and ambitious liberal agenda” as the New York Times put it, or is it a reaction to a reality in culture and society? Is this law as activism or reaction?
One of the more credible arguments supporters of the ban have, is that the women are simply not physically able to do the job. In the Marine Corps Gazette (an official publication of the U.S. Marines Corps) Capt. Katie Petronio, wrote about her personal experience in a combat unit. Capt. Petronio was extremely fit, but the physical strain required resulted in muscle atrophy in her leg and an ovarian condition that left her infertile. {For the full article go to: http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal}
However, until the lifting of the ban women serving in the military were victims of a policy that capped their potential. The military requires combat service in order to advance in the ranks. As such the vast majority of officers in the U.S. military are men. In November of 2012, four military service women filled a law suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, in San Francisco. The law suit alleges that the policy was barring women who had been in combat, from attending leadership schools and denying them assignment to positions that would allow them to climb the ranks.
Looking at rule change in this light, it would seem that this is a case of legal activism. However, the reality on the ground paints a story of legal reaction.
In 2003, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin E. Dempsey, was in Iraq. While ridding in a Humvee he slapped the turret gunner on the leg and asked “Who are you? To his surprise the gunner leaned down and responded “I’m Amanda”.
Women on the front lines are nothing new in American history; from Molly Pitcher during the Revolutionary War, to the WASP of World War II, to today’s women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. {For a brief but interesting time line see: http://www.npr.org/2011/02/24/133870632/timeline-women-on-the-front-lines} Women have been serving and dying in war for a long time now. But especially in the last decade the image of the modern American soldier is increasingly more diverse. More then 280,000 women have been deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, with more then 800 wounded and more then 150 killed.
You can see the effect this has had in our culture. Increasingly we not only see but expect to see women taking an active part in the military. From G.I Jane to ABC’s Last Resort, our cultural view has become full of women who stand equal with their male counterparts.
Reality is not only affecting our cultural views about the war zone but society back home. Those women are not just numbers but daughters, sisters, mothers, wives and neighbors. This is not social engineering through law, this is reality. We are no longer a nation of blue and gold star mothers but instead we have become a nation of blue and gold star families.
Politically the winds have shifted as well. Think of the last presidential election; the inclusion images of service men and women, and the thanking of “our men and women in uniform”. Senator Carl Leven, a democrat and Chairmen of the Senate Armed Service Committee, and Senator Kelly Ayotte, a republican and member of the Senate Armed Service Committee, both came out with statements of support for lifting the ban.
With all these factors taken into account the decision to lift the ban is less legal activism and more a reaction to reality. But, does it matter whether it’s law as activism or reaction? Or should we just be glad that an injustice has been corrected? As Secretary Panetta said, “When I’ve gone to Arlington to bury our dead, there is no distinction that’s made between the sacrifices of men and women in uniform…they serve, they’re wounded and they die right next to each other.” Now they have the ability to achieve their full potential together.
Interesting post! I agree with you that this is an instance of law as reaction, but not simply because of the reality of women in the military. Discrimination based on gender is illegal in all other professions, so this change is simply a delayed reaction from the military.