Women in Armor and Cavalry

Leadershb Challenae For The Future: k e d Forces was to present a report in November, 1992, that could recommend women be allowed to serve in the combat arms branches. There is growing support in Congress to change the Army’s combat exclusion policy, and Presidential candidate Bill Clinton has stated his intention to allow women to serve in all branches of the military if he is elected in November.’ Public opinion polls show that the American people are divided over the issue of women serving in combat, but the percentage of Americans supporting the idea has steadily increased in the past few years?

The relevance of all this to the young Armor leader is that we must be prepared for the very real possibility of integrating women into the Armor force, probably sooner than anyone thinks, Women in Armor and Cavalry -by Captaln Kelly John Ward The recent success of women in the of ARMOR Magmine. Bring the issue armed forces, as part of Operations up at a Friday beer call and you are JUST CAUSE, DESERT SHIELD, liable to be thrown out of the club by and DESERT STORM, is causing your peers. My purpose here, how-heated debate over the future role of ever, is not to discuss whether to women in the services. The Presiden-allow women in the Armor force. I in-leadership challenge, as it always is, to maintain the discipline, cohesiveness, and combat readiness for which the U. S. Army Armor force is known. The first issue that comes to mind in any discussion of women in combat tial Commission on the Assignment of Women in the I arms is the obvious physical strength differences between men and women. As a tank loader, a woman must be capable of quickly maneuvering a 53.4-pound. 120-mm HEAT round, possibly while the tank is moving over rough terrain. The combustible casing of the 120-mm ammunition creates a severe safety hazard for the crew if rounds are mishandled during firing. For this reason alone, it would be imperative that any woman wishing to serve in the Armor force must pass some kind of upper-body strength test.

Keep in mind, however, that the next generation MBT could well have an autoloader, (and the XMS AGS will have a h e - man crew with autoloader) negating this argument against female tank crewmen? Vehicle maintenance and recovery, especially track and roadwheel maintenance, also requires a certain amount of physical stead want to focus on the issues that strength that not all women (or-men) will be relevant to us as leaders, if possess. A cavalry scout will be re-and when the decision is made by our quired to conduct dismounted patrols political representatives that women over long distances with radios and will serve in combat arms branches. It possibly M60 machine guns. For will be the NCOs’ and junior officers’ women to serve in morand cavalry ARMOR - 45 units, they would have to be physically able to perform all of the duties required by that MOS to be fully accepted in the unit.

To ensure that individuals nre physically capable of performing as mor crewmen, the Army would have to set and enforce anew physical standard for women. This may be as simple as requiring women who serve in combat arms to meet the same APFI’ standards as men, or it may involve developing a whole new test for dl combat arms soldiers. The Royal Canadian Army, which has allowed women in the Armor force since 1989. has a combat efficiency test with an equal standard for both men and women! A soldier must be able to run 10 miles with weapon and gear in two hours, thirty minutes, and then run another 10 miles with weapon and gear the next day in two hours, forty-five minutes. They must also be able to jump a six-foot ditch, scale a six-foot wall, and carry a petson of equal weight 100 meters. Regardless of the scale that is set, it will be the responsibility of junior leaders to see that the test is administered fairly and to standard. Bias in testing, perceived by either men or women, would be a volatile issue that would quickly destroy unit cohesion and effectiveness. There will be many unique problems caused by co-ed mor crews that I will address here. Vehicle commanders and small unit leaders will have the mk of maintaining professionalism and controlling sexual hmsment on a daily basis, something that mor leaders don’t normally contend with. The privacy of individual crew members living on the m e tank will be difficult to control. Major Russell, the Canadian Army LNO to the Armor School at Fort Knox, states that it is only a matter of respecting the human dignity of the individual. There have been no incidents of sexual hmss-ment or prejudice towards the three enlisted members of the Canadian Armored Corps to date. During DESERT SHIELD/STORM, female soldiers of the American Army simply covered themselves with a blanket if a cat-hole in the open desert ternin did not provide them with privacy. If leaders enforce standards of conduct, the problems of privacy can be overcome.

Not so easily overcome, however, will be the traditional societal values that we and our soldiers share toward women. In joint hearings before Congress in late July, General Menill M c M, Air Force chief of shff, stated, “I have a very traditional attitude about wives and mothers and daughters being ordered to kill people.”’ Put more bluntly, General Robert B m w, a former Commandant of the Marine Corps, stated, “If you want to destroy the combat effectiveness of a unit, put a woman in it.”6 The typi-cd attitude of men that women are the “weaker sex,” both mentally and physically, is the crux of the entire emotionally charged debate over women in combat m s. The leadership challenge presented to the mor leader will be overcoming these strong societal prejudices to create a battle-ready team that includes both men and women.

One of the most important tasks for leaders will be maintaining morale. This can only be accomplished if high standards we set and maintained. Organizations with the highest standards attract the highest quality people, because individuals want to be part of a team that is greater than themselves? When and if women rue allowed to join the Armor force, there is a potential for the esprit de corps of individual units to suffer. Your soldiers and subordinate leaders could feel that Armor has lost something intangible that made them join it in the fmt place. Men join the Army and choose to fight in Infantry and Armor because they want to be challenged, pushed to their limits in the traditionally male discipline of wufighting. If women we serving alongside them, they will nnmlly question how chd-lenging their service is. Once again, the importance of maintaining high standards, both physically and mentally, is the key to overcoming a loss of morale. Standards must be challenging to all, and enforced fairly, to ensure that mode does not suffer. Equally as important to maintaining standards will be the principle of leading by exmple. FM 22-100 states that “no aspect of leadership is more powerful...your personal example affects your soldiers more than any mount of instruction or form of discipline.” I personally feel that this will be the biggest challenge for us as armor leaders should women be allowed to serve in Armor and Cavalry. Accepting and integrating women into combat m s units will be successful only if leaders, at a11 levels. we professional enough to overcome their own feelings and prejudices about the issue. This is a tall order. Many people have compared this E-cent debate over allowing women into combat m s to that of the integration of blacks into white units in the late 1940s and early 1950s. On the surface at least, the two debates are similar. The senior Army leadership in 1949 argued that an end to segregation would seriously impair combat efficiency: much as the leaders of today argue against placing women in combat m s. The Secretary of the Army in 1949 argued that the Army was not an instrument of social change, and that ncial integration would dangerously weaken the force, an idea that is ludicrous to us only forty y m later.

At the time, the President ordered the integration of the med forces for political reasons, much as the recent study of women in combat m s has been undertaken due to political pressure. The Navy’s Tailhook incident and a recent Army Times rcport describing sexual assault allegations by women who served in DESERT STORM has heightened the political climate for change?

ARMOR - The difference between the two cases, blacks and women, is that leaders in the early 1950s had only to overcome racial prejudice, an inatio-nal belief that black men were inferior because of their skin color. If women are allowed in combat arms, we as armor leaders will face a much harder challenge. Overcoming sexism and gender prejudice is more difficult because there me d differences between men and women, gender differences that you cannot refute. Charles Moskos, a Northwestem University sociologist, argues, 'The idea that fighting is a masculine trait runs deep. As a cultural trait, it predates any written history. It may even be a genetic tmit."'O Add to this the fact of human sexuality, and the relative immaturity and youth found in the Army, and we will be asked to provide leadership in a situation of almost unimaginable turmoil. The leadership challenge will be to take a unit under these circumstances md create a disciplined, cohesive fighting force capable of winning on the modem battlefield.

Are we up for the challenge? Only time will tell. But it is obvious from this discussion that the possibility exists that in the very near future our political representatives could ask us as leaders to integrate women into the Armor force. What is also obvious is that it is not something to be taken lightly. The mission of the armed forces involves national security. Our political leaders must do a cost-benefit analysis. They will weigh the importance of equality and equal opportunity as the basis for our democratic government against the potential cost to the nation if combat readiness is not maintained. They will expect us as military leaders to carry out our mission of providing the nation with a combat ready force, whether we agree or disagree with the restraints under which we must operate. We must begin to think about and plan for this contingency, as we would any other. It is our duty as leaders, both to the nation we sewe and the men (and women) we will lead.

Notes 'Ma, R., "Bush Off e is Still Defense," Army Times, August 31. 1992, p. 6. 'Maze. R., 'Drawbaclca of Women in Combat Jobs Preoccupy Hill." Air Fom Times, July 1, 1992. p. 16. 3 Weapons Department, U. S. Army Armor School, Ft. Knox. 4 Interview with MAJ Russell, Royal Canadian Army LNO, Ft. Knox, Ky., 3 August 1992. 5 Willis, G., "Women's Roles: The Debate Rages," Army Times, August 10, 1992, p. 8. 6 Downing, T., "Just Say No!" Naval Institute, Proceedings, February 1992, pp. 45-46. 7 Ibid., p. 45. 8 Foner, Jack D., Blacks and the Military in American History, Praeger Publishers, New York, 1974, p. 186. 9 Willis, p. 3. 10 Matthews, W., "Military has Basic Link to Sex," Army Times, July 27, 1992, p. 16. Captain Kelly John Ward is a 1988 graduate of the United States Military Academy. He has served as a tank platoon leader, scout platoon leader, assistant regimental S4, and XO of HHT Regiment in the 11th ACR. A graduate of Airborne, Air Assault, Ranger, SPLC, and JMOC, he is currently attending the Armor Officer Advanced Course at Ft. Knox.