A Sea Change for Servicewomen--Combat : Navy: Full integration is fair and can be accomplished swiftly, without sacrificing force readiness and competence.

Last November, the President’s Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces submitted its findings to the Bush Administration, which sent it along to Congress without comment, thereby treating the report with the disdain that was its due. The commission’s failure to seriously address the problem of women’s equality and integration in the armed forces was an embarrassment as well as an affront.

Some months earlier, the acting secretary of the Navy, desirous of correcting conditions that contributed to the gross behavior exhibited in the Tailhook scandal, established the Standing Committee on Military and Civilian Women in the Department of the Navy. The charter of this high-level civilian-military committee was to “recommend measures to ensure integration of women and effective utilization of their professional capabilities.” Through a series of lengthy, grueling and sometimes emotive meetings, the committee developed judgments and recommendations that were often at odds with the President’s Commission, as they reflected a mature appreciation of both the nature of modern military service and the dynamics of interpersonal behavior.

There were many substantive findings and recommendations, the heart of which was to open all aviation, combatant vessels and submarines to women. The consensus of the committee was that it was better to take this long-simmering issue head-on, rather than dodge it.

The timing of the recommendations was critical: All of the services were grappling with a dramatic downsizing and reshaping. The committee recognized full well the pressure and discomfort that would be felt by the other services and relished challenging them on this subject. The committee felt that if the Navy could bring about these changes within such unique strictures as shipboard accommodations, the other services would have no choice but to accept their responsibility on the issue of integrating women.

The committee did not support giving women a role in direct hand-to-hand combat on the battlefield. It was felt that ground infantry and special-operation forces were distinctly different from the forces needed to support sea or air conflict. However, because the modern battlefield is so complex and the dual problems of leadership and battle management are so acute, there is no valid reason to exclude women from serving in what have traditionally been combat roles but do not involve hand-to-hand combat.

Clearly, promotion in the service should reflect skill and performance in the full range of tasks. Equally clear is the insidious effect, for both men and women, of a service promotion competition system in which women were not eligible for the ultimate test of a serviceperson’s skill--performance in combat. To continue this inequitable division of labor would be to perpetuate problems and inequality.

If our experience in Desert Storm taught anything, it is that the modern battlefield, with Scud missiles and other ICBMs, will, like the enemy in general, make no allowance for women. Although it is recognized that ground combat units, infantry and the like should be excepted, the battlefield today is so broad and deep that artificial distinctions can no longer be made between combat and combat support. We believe that the very real difficulties of modern military leadership should not be compounded by fostering a system in which one trains differently from the way one fights--for instance, allowing women to fly combat aircraft but only in peacetime endeavors.

The proposal to open more shipboard assignments will go a long way toward breaking down the second-class status of uniformed women. Taking the committee recommendations to their full extent, the chief of naval operations, Admiral Frank Kelso, has developed a plan that will bring the naval service substantially down the road toward eliminating gender bias.

In implementing this policy, there must be a recognized standard of performance; physical, mental or technical competency must be gender-neutral. Some doubt that the military is capable of devising and adhering to strict performance standards. Yet the professional military, having labored to achieve the respect of the public, will resist any effort to lower the expectations of service competence. Beyond any other objectives, people in the military know that the readiness and competence of the force is paramount.

We must be mindful that this is a tough time to be expanding personnel opportunities while the armed forces are reducing significantly. It will take time to phase in the expansion of women’s roles. While the uniformed ranks are shrinking by better than 30%, it’s imperative that the drawdown be managed equitably and with limited constraints. Regardless of gender, those who perform best should be retained. We’ve got to resist the inevitable calls from activists who seek quotas as tangible evidence of change. Women who seek admission to combat roles just want a chance to compete fairly. They aren’t looking for politically correct “diversity” or quotas; no self-respecting member of the armed forces wants to be a “token.”

There is no reason to delay on implementing the committee’s recommendations; the ability to effect these changes lies within the present mandate of the Department of the Navy. We urge the service to move ahead on this immediately--to take the lead in bringing about necessary evolution in the military community. Further delay, whether to allow the new Administration time to get its team on board, or to study the problem again, or to resolve the controversy of gays in the military, will only result in retarding the necessary integration, to the detriment of all men and women in the Navy and Marine Corps and the readiness and capability of our fine naval service.