Guidelines Set for Women in Combat : Military: The panel, while still split on what jobs to open up, recommends equal strength requirements and involuntary assignments.

A presidential commission voted Monday to recommend that, if women in the military are permitted to serve in combat, they would have to meet the same requirements as men. But it left to today a showdown over the more controversial question of which combat jobs women should be permitted to do.

Completing eight months of hearings, debates and visits to ships and bases, the 15-member commission demonstrated that it is deeply split on the issue that prompted the establishment of the panel: whether women will be permitted to serve aboard combat ships and in combat aircraft.

That issue will not be resolved until today’s votes. But Monday’s vote established the principles that would guide the opening of any new military jobs to women: that women would have to meet strength requirements equal to those for men in combat positions and that they would be assigned to any new combat slots not by choice, but on an involuntary basis.

The commission was established in March--a year after the end of the Persian Gulf War--to offer its recommendation on the politically explosive question of whether combat slots should be opened to women and if so, which ones.

More than 40,000 women were dispatched to the Persian Gulf, making up just under 10% of the force there. After several women died or were taken prisoner in Operation Desert Storm, Congress responded by repealing laws that have barred women from serving in combat aircraft since 1948.

The commission was established to consider how to implement the new legislation and whether to extend it to other areas. Its six women and nine men, drawn from candidates proposed by lawmakers and the White House, are more heavily weighted against proposals that would allow women to serve in “direct combat” positions, such as infantry jobs, where hand-to-hand fighting might occur between U.S. troops and future adversaries.

The commission’s first round of recommendations, which were adopted after a sometimes rancorous debate, are to be forwarded within two weeks to the President. President Bush established the panel at Congress’ direction, and Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton has said that he would review the panel’s findings before taking any action to open new jobs to military women.

During its eight-month proceedings, the panel has spent $4 million and pondered the legal, ethical and political effects of opening combat jobs to women, as well as its impact on military effectiveness. In debates leading to Monday’s voting, commissioners have overwhelmingly argued that combat effectiveness--not equal opportunity for women long barred from combat jobs--should be the commission’s foremost concern.

“Equal opportunity is not the principal purpose of the military,” said Elaine Donnelly, one of the commission’s most strident opponents of opening new combat positions to women. “The purpose of the military is to defend the country.”

While most commissioners echoed that sentiment, they differed on whether and how much the U.S. military’s fighting power would be eroded by the introduction of women.

The panel’s insistence that physical strength standards be the same for men and women in combat positions will have two effects, observed commissioner Charles Moskos. In adopting the measures, the commission upheld the principle that women should receive no special treatment in applying for combat jobs and that the combat effectiveness of the force should not be compromised.

At the same time, Moskos cautioned, the imposition of a single standard for both men and women virtually ensures that very few women will gain entry into combat units.

Marine Brig. Gen. Thomas V. Draude, a commissioner who has backed the liberalization of combat roles for women, said that Congress, reflecting American public opinion, will not allow the military to set unreasonable standards in an effort to keep women out of combat jobs. At the same time, he said, “people really understand fairness and they want us to uphold that” in the imposition of physical standards.

“We don’t want tokenism here,” said Draude, whose daughter and son are both naval aviators. “And those who have achieved in these fields have told us: ‘Please don’t cheapen the standards we’ve worked so hard to meet.’ ”

The panel on Monday also put off a decision on what promises to be another controversial issue: whether to limit the combat roles that single parents and parents in dual military-career couples can fill. Several members of the panel have urged that the Pentagon adopt new standards to prevent the deployment of parents to war-torn areas if their deaths would make orphans of their children.

In other action Monday, the panel:

--Rejected quotas for military women, but recommended that the defense secretary be given broad discretion to “set goals that encourage the recruitment and optimize the utilization of women in the services.”

--Adopted a proposal that would make the assignment of women to any combat roles involuntary. In doing so, the panel rejected the establishment of a double-standard for servicemen and women, where women would be permitted to volunteer for newly opened combat jobs, while men would be subject to involuntary assignment to the same positions.

--Recommended that the military services adopt gender-neutral standards--sometimes called “unisex” standards--for military specialties that require special muscular strength or endurance. But they recommended that the military be permitted to maintain different standards for men and women in matters of general physical fitness and wellness.

--Allowed the defense and individual service secretaries to maintain different standards for men and women in basic and some advanced training courses, where both combat and noncombat specialists are trained.