Women have been openly serving in the military since the Army allowed women to be nurses, in the last two years of World War I. Their position in the military has been steadily growing and their opportunities have been doing the same. With every major conflict the United States has participated in, women have increased their role, but not without opposition. In 2012, a motion was proposed to redact the combat exclusion policy which stated that women cannot serve in combat positions. This divided people on the topic and the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), Leon Panetta, gave all four branches of the armed forces until January 2016 to develop plans for female inclusion into combat roles. The motion sparked the current debate on whether women should fill these jobs, which has been mostly filled with opposition to the change, however; nobody has seemed to consider the idea that women should be allowed entry, only if they can meet the current standard that is set.  It is my belief that women should be allowed entry into previously closed combat Military Occupational Specialties (MOS’s), so long as they are capable of meeting, if not exceeding the current standards and requirements for those jobs. With the current political climate and growing tensions between the United States and other countries, this is something that every American should be concerned with. The military is our line of defense from outside aggressors, and them being at the maximum readiness should be important to everyone.

When the combat inclusion rule was initially proposed, many people opposed, citing the potential for severe medical implications and biological facts as support, stating that women are physically inferior to men and would be unable to perform their necessary duties. Some women contracted severe medical issues from the prolonged stress that combat produces. Captain Katie Petronio, an Officer in the U.S. Marine Corps, with extensive combat experience, stated in an interview that her time in combat caused her to become barren (YouTube, “Female Marine”). Petronio also discusses how as a female marine, it was more difficult to complete the same tasks as the men in a combat scenario. Petronio used the vast difference between the male and female physique to back up her claims that women should be banned from combat environments. Women are naturally smaller than men, their muscle density and bone structure develop different than men because of the capacity for childbirth. Men do not have this restriction and are able to easily develop more muscle and have the size to carry heavier loads for more sustained periods of time, something combat commonly requires. This is often used by inclusion skeptics because of the severe medical complications it can have on women, like Captain Petronio. This does not have to be the case, it is possible for these issues to be avoided, it only requires a leader’s awareness of the needs of his or her troops, something commonly taught in the military. Being aware of the needs of one’s fellow soldiers or marines comes with the territory, and with more women filling the ranks, making sure all personnel are in tip-top shape is important and should not be considered a setback. Other skeptics like to throw PTSD around as an argument. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), has been becoming more frequent among military personnel over the past sixteen years. Many people believe that integrating women into combat roles will cause them to contract more severe cases of PTSD because they are not accustomed to such conditions. That is where they are mistaken, Strong studied the effects of combat on the mind of female personnel compared to male. What she found was that women handle PTSD and combat fatigue similar, if not better than men and the only variation between them is determined by the intensity of combat they experience (491). PTSD is a common and unfortunate side effect of modern combat, but the possibility of that should not exclude women from serving. If we thought by that logic, then men would not even be in the infantry.  

In an article published by the New York Times, author Elisabeth Bumiller quotes retired General Jerry Boykin, an avid opponent of the combat inclusion rule, in saying, “the people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment…living conditions are primal in many situations with no privacy for personal hygiene or normal functions.” It was situations like these that created the medical complications that Petronio and other women in the military face. Part of Boykin and Petronio’s arguments are not only the medical implications, but the moral ones as well. They questioned why would someone want to encourage a woman to do something that could develop injuries that they were not aware of? Combat is a very dangerous place, and all military personnel go knowing the potential risks involved. However, women being encouraged to go, are not aware of the unusual affects combat can take on their bodies. With current medical standards, every member of the armed forces is either one-hundred percent fit for entry to service, of is aware of a disability and signed a waiver for entry. For admittance into specific MOS’s, there are additional medical screenings and tests to confirm that a soldier is fit for that job. With the inclusion of women into these roles, they should be aware of the potential risks and feel comfortable with the potential outcome, exactly how the men have to currently. 

The United States Marine Corps requested that two studies be done to test the efficiency of women in combat units and any accommodations that need to be done for them. What the conclusion found lines up with Petronio’s interview, due to the difference in bone structure and muscle composition between men and women, all male units outperformed all co-ed units (NPR, 3). It states that “All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than the gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement” (3). In the study completed by Agnes Schafer of the RAND Corporation, she determined that the USMC must be willing to spend a great deal of time and money on gender-integration, and continue to do so even though little to no women will sign for these jobs at the start (Schaefer, 146). Schaefer also states that it will take a long time for numbers to increase while the physical training (PT) requirements remain unchanged (142). Since January of 2016, when the military officially opened these jobs, a grand total of thirty-one women have signed contracts for combat MOS’s, and only one has successfully passed infantry training.  

Women have been openly serving in the military for a century, they share the same freedoms as all other Americans do. The war that our military is currently engaged in, is one where the enemy is a ghost, he does not wear a uniform and is willing to do whatever it takes to kill us. This has eliminated all “front lines,” and every job could be considered a combat MOS. Women have been filling the ranks of our military steadily for years and have been committed to these jobs that can be just as dangerous as an infantry position. The female personnel sign up knowing this, but the training for their jobs provides little to no extra combat or defensive training other than what they receive in boot camp. This is like giving a man a fishing pole but not teaching him to fish. As Strong states in her journal, “Despite previous bans on women in combat roles, many female service members during their deployment to Iraq or Afghanistan have experienced some type of combat during their deployment” (490). With this being the case, why purposefully keep women from learning the skills they need? This is one of the reasons I believe that the combat inclusion rule is necessary. Women have been put in direct combat situations without having a combat MOS for years now. There have been more and more instances of this occurring as the enemy becomes bolder. In an article written by Thom Patterson, he mentions a female Army Sergeant Leigh Hester, who was awarded a bronze star for eliminating twenty-seven insurgents. Opening combat MOS’s to women like this would benefit our military more than anything.

Many supporters of the gender-integration believe that the standards of entry to these positions should be altered to accommodate women. Under no circumstances should the standards be lowered to make passing easier. In a journal written by Lauren Privedera on this topic, she states, “An equal standard would not predict or ensure that the strongest member of a unit is male or female, but it would ensure that all members of that unit were able to execute their jobs competently” (117). When the PT standards for a certain MOS are lowered so more women will be successful, the overall effectiveness and capability of the unit drops considerably. This is because lowering standards permits more unqualified men and women to take those jobs. What Privedera does not understand is that the standards are what they are for a reason. The requirements for an infantryman have been proven effective over time. Altering them just raises the possibility for failure. The standards set currently are attainable by women; so far, three women have passed all three phases of Army Ranger school, a very physically and mentally challenging course. One of which has also passed Infantry Officer school to become the first ever female infantry officer. Likewise, one female Marine recently graduated infantry school and thirty-one others are slotted to attempt too. These programs are some of the hardest our nation has to offer, and these women passing has shown that standards do not need altering. As the study done by the RAND corporation found, it will take a little time for more and more women to sign up for these positions (Schaefer, 125). As more and more women see others pass these schools they will understand it is possible, and the rate of graduates will increase exponentially. 

I feel firm in my belief that women should be permitted in combat positions. They have proven that they are more than capable warriors and deserve the opportunity to serve their country how they see fit. It is an honorable profession and people’s patriotism should not be limited based on their gender. They should be given the opportunity to serve in the job they feel best suited for if they are capable of meeting it’s current standards. Altering these in any way brings to much risk to the integrity of the armed forces and their capabilities, especially currently where tensions between nations are constantly growing. Now more than ever, our military needs to be ready for any challenges that the future may bring. In order to do that, all our service members must be physically willing, qualified, and able to successfully carry out any mission that our nation asks of them. 

