where do we go from here?

Recently the House Armed Services Committee passed a measure that would give Congress more control over which military units are open to women, effectively legalizing current Department of Defense policy that bans placing women in “direct ground combat” units below the brigade level. In response, angry opponents are citing examples of women succeeding in combat during the Gulf War, Afghanistan and Iraq and some are accusing DoD of conspiring to shut out women from its top positions, promotions to which require combat experience. Meanwhile, proponents of the measure argue that women are physically, emotionally and/or mentally unfit for combat, that their presence at the front line diminishes combat unit cohesion and effectiveness, that they are more vulnerable to rape and abuse at the hands of captors, that the killing, wounding, abuse and rape of female soldiers damages American public morale, and that it is morally reprehensible to send a chick to do a man’s job (ie. kill, maim, live in a tent, etc.).

This whole mess brings up some interesting issues. Here are some of the most pressing:

Issue #1: Women are physically, emotionally and/or mentally unfit for combat. First, the physical argument. True—the average American woman is not as strong as the average American man. Most people who use this argument question the ability of a female soldier to drag a heavy man off the battlefield. (Funny how this was never an issue when female nurses were busy heaving wounded men around in the midst of battle.) Furthermore, as Karl Dishaw so aptly argues, “considering that American women average the same size as Vietnamese men, we might want to think about whether size makes for good fighters.”

Next, the emotional and mental argument. Does anyone really doubt that a woman can ignore her civil instincts long enough to kill an enemy combatant? The Soviets used women for years as snipers. And here at home we have our own poster-child for mental and emotional detachment—Pfc. Lynndie England. Apparently, her femininity posed no obstacle to her willingness to torture and humiliate helpless prisoners. In fact, as was revealed in testimony during her recent military mistrial, she didn’t know that she was doing anything wrong when she helped stack naked men in a human pyramid for an impromptu photoshoot.

Issue #2: The killing/wounding/abuse/rape of female soldiers hurts public morale. Women are killed, wounded, abused and raped in every conflict, regardless of whether or not they are wearing a uniform. Female soldiers have been killed and wounded in the past three wars—Iraq, Afghanistan and Iraq again—but their sex doesn’t really seem to be an issue with the public. Moreover, arguing that women shouldn’t be allowed into combat because they might be raped and tortured if captured is a little hypocritical (what with the fact that it was a life-threatening situation that got them into the whole torture-and-rape-problem in the first place). Why is it that a woman’s vagina is still considered the most important organ in her body—especially in situations that really don’t concern it?

Issue #3: Combat vs. non-combat zones. How is the US government going to distinguish between combat and non-combat zones? Although we are not officially at war with anyone we do currently have some guerilla warfare issues in Iraq. Will they draw lines in the sand? Put the women in protective, hamsterball-like bubbles? Or maybe the solution is simpler. As Rep. Loretta Sanchez (Calif.) declared, “if we don’t want to see women killed, then maybe [we] should make a law that says women can’t be in Iraq.” ZIIING!! Brilliant.

Oh wait.

Issue #4: The US Army is facing its lowest recruiting levels in the history of voluntary service. Apparently, high school grads are more willing to face a tough job market rather than rocket attacks and roadside bombs. Who knew? As a result, Army recruiters are having a hard time filling their quotas, and some are resorting to threats and belittlement to try to coerce young people into signing their souls into uniform. I saw one story on the news about a high school student who received a voicemail from a recruiter who expressed his frustration at her decision not to join the Army by calling her a “hood rat” whose “fat ass” could continue working for UPS instead. Because of such reports the Army has now called for a “stand down” of recruiting operations so that it can reaffirm its recruiting mission—without coercion this time.

Issue #5: The rest of the world is extremely busy trying to look too busy to send any more troops into our Iraqi quagmire. Besides, who’s going to bail us out of Korea if Kim Jong Il gets trigger-happy?

Issue #6: No one wants a draft. No one in government even wants to say “draft.” There are still a lot of people around who remember the last one—and they vote.

Issue #7: So, what is the government’s plan for troop coverage in Iraq? Not women. Or gays, if we can help it. And Aragorn’s already released the Army of the Dead. But not to worry—we’re the greatest country in the world, with the biggest and baddest military in the world! Surely our Pentagon officials have it all planned out and are just holding us in suspense before they reveal the Master Plan. Right?

(I would Mapquest an escape route to Canada, just in case.)