Mean Girls in the Military

Members of Congress are demanding answers to their questions about scandalous behavior photographed at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. “How could this happen?” they ask.

But this is not the first time that they have been warned about personal indiscipline and inferior training in the military. Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba observed in his scathing report that military police soldiers at Abu Ghraib were weak in basic military occupational skills.

Consider the effect of co-ed basic training, imposed on the Army in 1994. Two years later, sex scandals erupted at Aberdeen Proving Ground and basic training facilities. An independent advisory committee headed by former Kansas Senator Nancy Kassebaum Baker studied the issue in 1997, and declared unanimously that “[Co-ed basic training] is resulting in less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction from training programs.”

In 1998 the House passed legislation to end co-ed basic training, but the Senate called for a congressional commission instead. Key findings of that 1999 commission escaped notice, but in 2002 an Army briefing conceded that gender-integrated basic training was “not efficient,” and “effective” only in sociological terms. Nevertheless, the controversial program continues.

The irreplaceable process of “soldierization” - which transforms immature young people into disciplined soldiers - must compete with hours of “sensitivity training.” Drill sergeants have to spend time keeping the boys and girls apart, and distracted trainees fail to learn essential lessons about respect for legitimate authority and restraints on military power. The diversion of time leaves some basic trainees deficient in critical building block skills necessary for advanced instruction.

In surveys taken during the 1999 study, 78 percent of Army leaders said that discipline had declined in gender-integrated basic training. Social experiments - particularly the unrealistic theory that men and women are interchangeable in all roles and military missions - have failed the test of Abu Ghraib. “Equal opportunity abusers” are not typical, but the debased activities of a few Americans reveal what can happen when unformed soldiers - lacking a firm grounding in legal, moral, and ethical values - wield unsupervised power over other human beings.

Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski claims she did not know about the abusive behavior and sexual misconduct among her MP’s. How could this happen?

Failure to ask the right questions can create explosive conditions. In 1999, following a drunken brawl, soldiers who thought that Army Pfc. Barry Winchell was homosexual clubbed him to death in the barracks of Fort Campbell. Some experts speculate that the crime might have been averted if commanders had freely questioned everything going on in that sexually tense environment.

We don’t know why higher-level commanders averted their eyes from homosexual and heterosexual misconduct in the cellblocks of Abu Ghraib. Their failure to ask questions, however, is consistent with former President Clinton’s convoluted “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — a set of expendable enforcement regulations designed to circumvent the 1993 law affirming that homosexuality is incompatible with military service.

Some commanders have interpreted “don’t ask, don’t tell” to mean that they should avoid asking questions about any kind of inappropriate sexual behavior. The concept undermines sound principles of leadership, and encourages sexual misconduct of all varieties. The Bush Administration should enforce the homosexual exclusion law, but eliminate Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy/regulations.

There are other flawed military practices that require candid review and revision. In 1994 then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin issued directives that deliberately removed “risk of capture” as a factor in the assignment of female soldiers. A few exemptions remain, but Aspin’s rules have imposed unprecedented burdens on our female soldiers.

On March 23, 2003, three servicewomen were captured during the ambush of the 507th Maintenance Unit in Iraq. Nine months later, NBC and ABC News fleetingly aired excerpts of a disturbing Iraqi video showing the battered faces of the unconscious, sexually assaulted Pfc. Jessica Lynch and her dying friend, single mother Pfc. Lori Piestewa. Immediate release of that graphic video might have changed the course of the war.

In 1992, experts proposed a solution for that possibility. Specialists who train potential prisoners of war in Survival, Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) techniques testified before the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. They said it was necessary to use special exercises to “desensitize” the men so that the enemy would not exploit the captives’ heightened concern about female colleagues being physically and sexually abused. The SERE trainers added that the entire nation would have to be conditioned to accept combat violence against women.

The Commission rejected that idea as a step backward for civilization. Female soldiers and mothers nevertheless are being deployed in or near previously all-male land combat units. Officials responsible for Abu Ghraib pretended that gender differences and human failings would not matter. The resulting photos suggest otherwise, and inscribe yet another black mark on a continuum curving downward toward incivility and a cultural breakdown. So much for the idealistic “ungendered military” theory pursued during the Clinton years.

Soldiers are recruited from the civilian world, where “male bashing” has become commonplace. According to the Associated Press, violence among girls, including vicious fights at birthday parties and dances, has increased dramatically. Popular films celebrate “mean girls,” and some lines of greeting cards promote man-hating as a joke. Now we see a wickedly demeaning, poster-perfect photo of a female soldier looking down on a naked Iraqi man tethered on a leash. The war between the sexes, provoked by mutual resentments, has just gone nuclear.

How could this happen? There are many causes, but nothing will change until Pentagon officials eliminate problematic social policies that undermine sound principles of leadership, military discipline, and American cultural values. The social engineers have had their chance. For the sake of servicemen and women, and a strong national defense, superior basic training in the Army and high standards of leadership must be restored.

Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the womem in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raiderand the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.

It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.

This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. That is not the case now as most pesonnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today's military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.

One of the problems in assesing the impact of this issue vis-a-vis the Iraq war is the fact that we handily defeated them with the forces that were already in place. What would happen if we faced the sort of enemy that was able to afflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? Then the United States are he was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program has technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry men to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality.

Many commentators are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG's and .50 cal HMG's, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted "dual physical training standards" was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements. My son, a reservist in a NG chopper unit, is contemptuous of what he describes as continual coddling of female soldiers. He is planning to transfer to an infantry unit.

Nazi armaments minister Albert Speer said that a significant factor in Germany's defeat was the failure to mobilize German women in the same manner as the allies did in WWII. In situations of full mobilization, they are essential. I believe that women are a militarily valuable asset, provided that asset is used in a manner that makes the military ready to fight, and subordinates feminist social engineering to that end.

Hundreds of thousands of women have served and are serving their country honorably and well. I honor them for their service and accept them as comrades and fellow veterans. We can only hope that their service will be continued in such a manner as to enhance the ability of the military to fight. The potential consequences for the individual soldier and the military's mission are too serious to subordinate to social engineering.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.