While listening to talk-radio I heard a “former DOD official from the Obama administration” say Trump’s nominee for Defense Secretary, Pete Hegseth, was unqualified for the job because “he opposes women in combat.”
When asked what exactly Hegseth is opposed to, the “former DOD official” couldn’t say “exactly”.
Considering Hegseth has served multiple combat tours in the Middle East, I would think his opinions on what constitutes “combat” – and if women should be doing it — are at least worth hearing before dismissing them outright. Mrs Beatty, an Army veteran, opposes women in some combat roles as well — because they simply aren’t physically suited for what they may encounter.
I’m always amazed that the Holy Grail for some so-called ‘feminists’ is that women should participate in front-line infantry combat — likely the most horrific activity a human can experience. That seems to be a warped sense of priorities, which lead me to research women in combat roles in the past.
According to legend, “Molly Pitcher” was the wife of an American Revolutionary War soldier, who took his place stoking a cannon at the Battle of Monmouth when he was killed. Her name was supposedly based on her having been dispensing water from a pitcher to the men during the fighting when her husband was shot down before her eyes.
It seems Molly never existed, and she appears to have been a fable conjured up decades after that war. Her legend was then immortalized in a painting.
Though Molly was mythological, there were women who participated in that war, including one who is supposed to have assisted with a cannon and may have been the inspiration for the Molly legend. But that story is based on the uncorroborated personal diary of one soldier.
Women have served near “the front” as nurses throughout history. Clara Barton, founder of the American Red Cross, was a “front line” nurse during our Civil War. So close to the front, in fact, that during the horrendous battle of Antietam, a bullet passed through her sleeve as she tended a wounded Union soldier.
During WWII, the Soviet Army had many women serving in combat rolls. The most famous of whom was a Ukrainian: Lyudmila ‘Lady Death’ Pavlichenko, a sniper credited with over 300 kills of Germans.
But sniping from concealment ain’t the same as going mano a mano with the enemy up close and personal as is always a possibility in the infantry.
Another far less known woman in the Soviet army who saw combat was Alexandra Koitos. Among those Russians who responded to Soviet dictator Josef Stalin’s calls to ‘defend the motherland’ during the German invasion, were married couples who volunteered to fight together.
Koitos and her husband volunteered to pay for the building of a tank, then to crew it in combat. Alexandra commanded the tank, while her husband was the driver/ mechanic through the last two years of the war.
The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) has a tradition of women soldiers dating back to the founding of the State of Israel and the first Arab-Israeli War in 1948. That was a fight for physical survival of not only Israel, but of the Jews living there, many of whom had survived the Holocaust and weren’t going down again without a fight.
But even in the IDF, women were officially relegated to non-combat roles until the 1973 Arab-Israeli War.
There are no official records of women serving in actual combat in any American war prior to Desert Strom in the 1990s. Women now serve in American military combat rolls such as pilots, artillery and armor. But those are distinctly different from ground infantry combat.
A couple years ago I had a conversation with a woman veteran who had served as an officer in the Marine Corps (BAM). I asked her opinion of women in combat.
She said she was all for it until she found out first-hand the physical demands. This was her take on the subject.
She had participated in a test program to have women go through the platoon leader’s training — along side men — that prepares Marine officers to lead an infantry platoon in combat. That training changed her mind.
The physical demands were too much for her and the other women. Carrying a full ‘combat load’ while running, and constantly dropping to the ground then quickly getting back up (as is common in combat under fire) was too difficult for the women. They were slower at it than the men — which can be fatal in combat for themselves and their team because it impairs combat efficiency.
She also said that even though she is 5’9″ and had been a track athlete in college, she had trouble keeping up with the men during rapid movement because of her physical stature. During extended foot patrols, her shorter stride required she take nearly two steps for every one the men took, which (when carrying the full pack) impaired her stamina.
She, and the other women, also had higher incidents of injuries, particularly of their knees.
The issue of knee injuries in women vs men was consistent with what I was once told by a physical therapist. I went through physical therapy after shoulder surgery. During my sessions, I noticed there were a lot of teenag girls undergoing re-hab for their knees, and asked why that was.
The therapist said most of the knee therapy they administer, other than knee replacements in elderly folks, was teenage girl soccer players. He explained that women have a higher propensity of stress-induced knee injuries than males.
The frequency of knee injuries in female vs male soccer players is a recognized medical issue.
Even if it’s possible to correct for the mechanical, and hormonal, contributors to female knee injury, there is a third factor that can’t be changed – the gynecoid pelvis. There are four types of female pelvic structure.
“The bony pelvis provides the major mechanism for transferring weight and forces of the trunk and upper limbs to the lower limbs…”
Apparently the best structure for reducing the chance of knee injury, is not the same as the best for childbirth. So while a teenage girl may not have the best pelvic type to avoid knee injury while playing soccer, it may mean she’s less likely to have complications during birthing.
And how many teem girls consider their pelvic structure when deciding to play soccer?
The experience of that BAM I spoke with was consistent with my own. Part of Air Force medic training involves lifting wounded personnel from the battlefield. Though the women in my training class were not required to perform the ‘fireman’s carry’, of those who volunteered to try, none could do it successfully. Even those who managed to get the ‘casualty’ on their shoulders, could only walk a short distance, and none of them could run during the carry.
Like the BAM told me, it had nothing to do with motivation. It was simply anatomy and physiology.
I asked what she thought of requiring women to be subject to a draft equally with men. She (like I am) is opposed to a military draft, but if there is one, then (like in Israel) it should be “co-ed”. She also agreed with me that, other than as pilots, tankers, crewing artillery, or as snipers, women have no place in combat because of physical limitations that increase risks to themselves and others. It’s all about physiology.
It’s one thing to sit in women’s studies classes and pretend there is no difference between males and females, but quite a different matter when lives are on the line, such as in combat.
Yet, according to some, recognizing that difference disqualifies one from being the Secretary of Defense.