Let Us Fight for You
The Moral Imperative of a Masculine Infantry
by 1LT B.L. Brewster and 1LT R.K. Wallace [v: Let Us Fight for You by
1LT B.L. Brewster & 1LT R.K. Wallace, Marine Corps
Gazette (June 2013)] [nb: about the authors: both
are infantry officers, have completed several combat deployments
and have personal experience serving with women integrated at the
tactical level; both are married and each has three young sons]
"... exposure to danger is not combat. Combat is a lot more than
that, it's a lot more than getting shot at or even getting killed
by being shot at. Combat is finding and closing with and killing
or capturing the enemy if you're down in the ground combat scheme
of things. It's killing."
by General Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps,
testimony to Senate Armed Services Committee (June 1991)
George Orwell wrote, "We have now sunk to a depth at which the
restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men."
We do not pretend to be particularly smarter than our peers,
albeit we are admittedly less tactful. Since the inception of the
U.S. military, service in combat arms has been the rightful duty
and sole responsibility of the men of our society, as well it
should be. However, women are now also poised to satisfy this
critical requirement.
Men and women are different. This is an axiom of our existence as
human beings on planet earth. As men, we feel inept trying to
articulate this truth because the tools to do so have been
intellectually banned in our society, labeled as
chauvinism. Even the ways in which the discussion is
framed pits the legacy of many despicable social institutions
— slavery, exclusive suffrage, segregation — against
those advocating an all-male combat arms. The truth remains that
warfare is the contest of two opposing wills, the zweikampf in
which these wills employ their militaries as fists in an ultimate
struggle in which human beings maim and brutally kill one
another. Ladies, as infantry officers, we do not wish to limit or
control women, but we do want to fight for you. We want to endure
hardship and suffering. We want to be miserable and filthy. We
want to offer our lives so that yours might be spared. We want to
fight for you. To do less is masculine cowardice and abdicating
our societal role, ordained or evolved.
No matter one's worldview, the assertion that women belong in the
infantry is illogical. From an evolutionary perspective, it means
pitting a generally smaller/gentler/more compassionate
demographic against a generally larger / stronger / more violent
demographic in a survival of the fittest contest that
ultimately determines the fates of societies. Simplistic animal
survival is the driving factor here. From a biblical perspective,
God made the genders specifically and intentionally different for
many purposes. Men are to shoulder the responsibility of fighting
to preserve the life and dignity of women, as well as to protect
the next generation. This willing sacrifice and service is for
the sake of women, not to control or demean them. Throughout the
history of the western world, this has been the basis for the
sacred masculine charge of chivalry: to serve all and protect the
weak from the strong. Phrased this way, our statements may be
unsavory; but, ask yourself, are they true? One can only
appreciate these realities in much the same way as a marriage,
the love of one's children, and dare we say, albeit not from
personal experience, childbirth. You must experience it to
appreciate the nuance.
False Need / Crisis
After more than a decade of war, we now see another expansion of
women's roles in ground combat. This time it has been predicated
in part by fixating on the notion that there are too few
female general officers because the military selects a higher
rate of combat arms officers to be generals.[1] Thus, the argument goes, women are
being unfairly barred from advancement because they are not
allowed in the ground combat arms. It is a complete fallacy to
assert the notion of there being too few female generals, and an
even greater illogical leap to say that the way to fix this
problem is to alter the force structure for the entire Service in
the hopes of generating a select few at the 30-year service mark.
This exposes an underlying feminist agenda that does not purport
any desire to create a more capable, lethal military.
Where is the critical need? Does our Corps need additional
volunteers to fill our infantry battalions? Additionally, it is
supremely insulting to assert that somehow military leaders have
been missing the key solution to a more effective ground combat
element for the last decade, let alone in the history of the
world. If women in the ranks would have made the infantry more
effective, certainly commanders would have made it happen.
Remember: The Lioness Program and female engagement teams were
created to fill a critical need identified by combatant
commanders, not to justify a belief or create equality.
The Myth of the Decade
In this vein, the favorite slogans of no frontlines and
women have been in combat alongside their male
counterparts are fodder for the first paragraphs of many
pieces demanding the equal opportunity for young ladies to be
miserable, filthy, and scared. Proximity to danger does not
equate to combat proficiency. To strike an improvised explosive
device, to be shot at, or to have indirect fire impact near one's
position requires only presence in the battlespace; it is
passive. These traumatic events are mere byproducts of existing
in a hostile environment. True combat, the kind for which the
infantry exists, actively seeks, closes with, and destroys
the enemy through ..., well, you know the rest. The point
is, the infantry slogs in the filth and mire of foreign lands,
conducts grueling movements under heavy load, and must be able to
win by cunning, endurance, and brute force — always.
Indulge us for a moment as you consider the contrast in combat
experiences among these comparisons: a MEF headquarters and a
platoon combat outpost; the role of a wing service support
battalion and that of an infantry battalion; a mounted resupply
convoy and a dismounted movement to contact; a local security
patrol and a meeting engagement or night ambush. Furthermore,
there is little comparison between Camp Bastion and Now Zad
(2008) or Al Asad and Ramadi (2005-06). Thus, the argument of
no frontlines holds little sway in the minds of those
who have fought through Pak Alley or had to conduct
every patrol to the government building at the double
time. The last decade has produced countless instances of close
combat for some, just as it has branded the image of the MRAP's
(mine-resistant, ambush-protected) vehicle's invincibility and
the supremacy of unmanned aircraft systems in the public
conscience. For a moment though, think beyond the outpost wars we
have come to believe as our only future form of warfare.
An Emotional Issue
The issue of women in combat arms is a highly emotional one, and
it should be, as with any moral quandary in life. The implied
statement that accompanies this discussion is that somehow men
have too much emotional energy to be able to frame this
topic rationally. The hypocrisy of this argument hardly needs
explanation. The inertia for this discussion is generated by
those advocates with an emotional belief that men are maliciously
discriminating against them by excluding them from the combat
arms, and that true equality of the sexes means complete
disregard for natural capabilities. Ought we seek the equality of
paternity and maternity leave, fitness standards, or grooming and
appearance regulations? This is intellectual nonsense and its
practical application is utter foolishness. As easily as one
would dismiss a husband's claim to be able to experience the
sorrow of a miscarriage in the same way as his wife, so too we
assert that there is no true argument, only illogical
postulations based on a highly emotional false belief that women
should be able to be men.
Poor Arguments Abound
We acknowledge that poor arguments against women abound and serve
as redoubts for insecure men. These are attempts to justify
something they believe, but cannot or will not identify
truthfully. We have all read those angry snippets to editors
about when women compete against men in the Olympics ...
or when prize fights are coed.... We assert that the
physical discussion is a shallow argument, although it is easily
won by history, physiology, and the insecure men promoting them.
To borrow the tired, though inexact, analogy, there are no women
in the National Football League for a reason. The physical is
important, but not everything. The true arguments are ones of
morality, unit cohesion, sexual distraction, and a degraded
perspective.
True Arguments
Morally wrong. Women and children first has been a tenet
of all emergency rescue efforts for time immemorial, yet we are
evidently now prepared to dismantle this fundamental principle of
western society for the sake of equality. It is an abdication of
natural masculine responsibility to forfeit our role — even
in small part — as protectors and defenders. Should we
expect our teenage daughter to go down with the ship so a man
might live in the name of equality? No matter how much she begs
for the opportunity, would you let her?
Sexual attraction. There is no tasteful way to address this
topic. The natural attraction between college-aged people results
in jackassery.[2] Ask any commander
of a mixed-gender unit, or hearken back to your college days. The
contradiction in terms is that mature men and women in the latter
half of their careers expect young enlisted singles to conduct
themselves with the maturity of 40-somethings in a sterile office
environment. No matter how disciplined the man, sexual attraction
— or at least distraction — is as involuntary as a
woman's natural response to a baby's cry.
At this point the reader may be tempted to roll his eyes in
exasperation as the thought men are selfish pigs darts
through his head. Yet one would not be so critical if the human
desire in question was food, water, warmth, or conversation.
While the former three are actual requirements for human life,
and sexual fulfillment is not, we leave you to consider the
significance of the latter in the well-being of the individual as
a sufficient parallel to convey the irrefutable significance of
physical attraction in our lives. No matter how disciplined the
men, sexual attraction will corrode the very fabric of a unit,
destroying that precious esprit de corps that allows one group of
men to triumph over another in a death struggle. When the
possibility of sexual attraction is removed from group dynamics,
so too is all pretense, thus allowing for true sacrificial
relationships.
Weighed down. Personal anecdotes abound, but one need only
observe any formation run or conditioning hike and note the
demographics of those who lag far behind the formation.[3] Undoubtedly, a few ladies remain
with the pack, outpacing many males even, but this is not the
norm. The dangerous and unspoken dynamic at work in a unit's
psyche is that a man who falls back just needs to be
conditioned more, whereas a woman is immediately the object
of scorn because the unit knows that — in general —
she isn't capable of keeping up. This only serves as the impetus
for counseling in units where physical training is simply about
meeting height and weight requirements. In the infantry, however,
repeated physical failure spawns contempt of the individual and
undermines the common trust in the belief that every man can keep
up on patrol, buddy rushing, or carrying a litter.
This issue is not just about the physical viability of the unit;
it is about their mental fortitude too. Women inserted in small
numbers in infantry units will not completely dismantle their
effectiveness. It will, however, place an unnecessary doubt in
the unit's collective confidence. Men who cannot perform in
combat units are usually singled out, sent to the company office
or armory, and otherwise marginalized. This would hardly do for
political appearances if women in the infantry were similarly
treated.
Degraded perspective. The unique advantage of the integration
argument is that negative data against the argument can neither
be truly presented nor will it be accepted. This is much like the
body armor argument where data can always support the value of
increasingly heavy vests and plates in terms of rounds stopped
and lives saved. Yet, for those outside the infantry, there is
little interest in capturing the results of unnecessarily
cumbersome equipment and its direct relationship to increased
heat injuries, immobility, and unit ineffectiveness. As the last
decade has provided ample vignettes of womanly courage, frontline
service, and exposure to violence, there has been little desire
to evaluate the actual effects on these women or the units in
which they operated. From the male perspective, it is quite clear
that any comments we might have as the duty experts on ground
combat are unwanted and thought to be shamefully prejudicial.
The dignity of women. Consider that photos with captions
highlighting women on patrol present a false understanding of the
dynamic at work amongst that infantry squad. The reality confined
within that frame is that she is not on patrol, she is
along for the patrol. The female engagement team is not
an addition to the lethality of that squad; they are an escorted
entity, much the same as reporters or visiting dignitaries. The
dangerous dynamic at work is that this reoccurring imagery will
slowly convince us, much like magazine covers and centerfolds,
that these women represent reality. There is no airbrushing in
combat.
Winning at war. The true tragedy of this initiative is that we
will become a less effective ground combat force, riddled with a
plague of time-consuming misconduct issues and lower expectations
regarding proficiency and conduct. We will put men and women in a
position to fail, discipline them when they do, and tell
commanders the old adage, this is a leadership issue.
There will be no regard for the fact that we will have created a
reality based on a belief of how some wish things to be, rather
than the reality of natural capabilities and design.
As a brief aside, those who have not served in the infantry or in
close combat would not dream of telling us they understand our
jobs or experiences with regard to tactics or combat stress, yet
they feel complete authority to do so under the label of
women's rights. Who has conferred our individual human
rights upon us? Our society, our government, the mythical
nature, or someone greater? Who has preserved those
rights? Has it been the demonstrator, the advocate, the
legislator? These three categories are the wonderful luxuries of
civilized society, but the accomplishments of the western world
were made possible through shrewd diplomacy coupled with force,
and a healthy understanding of truth. The ability for us to have
this conversation is a result of the prosperity and complete
security purchased for this Nation through the violence of men.
The sterile planning environments and crisp political chambers
are the rear area of any conflict, and exist only because filthy,
sweaty, scared young men stand ready to kill or die. This is
reality. Do you believe it?
A Man's Place
The question looming, hidden and afraid in masculine hearts, as
this discussion rages, is nearly impossible to ask: Where now
does a man go to prove his manhood in society? This is dismissed
in our postmodern culture, but in the history of the world, the
individual man has always had opportunities to prove his
strength, valor, and skill as part of a grand adventure or the
challenge of apprenticeship. If you do not accept the need for
men to know intrinsically that they have proven themselves as men
(protectors, providers, leaders) in a way only they can, consider
the devastation of a woman unable to conceive.
Not Equality
Our culture is seeking a false equality. The presence of women in
the military does not justify their inclusion into all areas of
the Service, especially the infantry. As an organization, the
Service is aptly defined because it is not an institution meant
to serve the individuals who comprise it; the mission of fighting
and winning is its sole purpose, and all involved are in the
service of that end. Our enemies do not recognize gender
rights, and it has only been our realistic understanding of the
nature of war that has preserved our society's ability to create
the opportunities currently enjoyed by women.
Conclusion
We are the men who want to fight for you. The enemy we have
fought will not discuss, cite studies, or entertain debate. He
will just rape or kill you.
As junior officers, our perspective is limited, but its relevance
is confirmed by our recent experiences in close combat and the
long legacy of warriors preceding us. Our responsibility remains
to influence and lead at the tactical level, but our hope is that
our unabashed assertions will be acknowledged as attempts to
state truth in the timeless reality of the struggle of opposing
wills. LtGen Victor "Brute" Krulak's wise understanding that our
Corps is not needed, but wanted by the American people cannot
hobble us with an insecurity that prevents us from being
something a portion of our society may dislike. The truth remains
that we have no obligation to be what society wants us to be,
only to fight and win to preserve that society — and truth.
Notes
[1]: Burrelli, David F., "Women in
Combat: Issues for Congress", Congressional Research Service,
Washington, DC, 13 December 2012, cites recommendations 9, 18,
and 20 of "From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership
and the 21st-Century Military" by the Military Leadership
Diversity Commission, Congressional Research Service, Washington,
DC, 13 December 2012, pp. 127, 129, and 130.
[return to text]
[2]: Marine Corps term for
immaturity and rowdiness resulting in misconduct; similar to
tomfoolery.
[return to text]
[3]: Results of the 2012 Ground
Combat Physical Performance Standards test show less than 10
percent of females outperformed the male average in 5 physical
categories. Most telling are the average times for the 25-meter
casualty drag where female officers doubled, and enlisted women
tripled the average male time. As presented at Marine Corps
Combat Development Command's Officer Professional Military
Education Brief, Quantico, 12 October 2012. See also "Female
Physiology & Performance, Injuries at Entry Level Training", USMC
Women in the Service Report, Defense Advisory Committee on Women
in the Service Brief, 22 September 2011. Stephanie Gutmann's
The Kinder, Gentler Military (Encounter Book, San
Francisco, 2001) is a decade-old treasure trove of data and
anecdotes on this topic.
[return to text]
|