The thing to keep in mind about Ash Carter’s announcement yesterday directing the military to open all ground combat jobs to women is that it was preordained. When then-Secretary Panetta and Chairman Dempsey issued the original order for services to fully integrate the sexes, the message was clear that requests for exceptions would not be smiled upon. Panetta and Dempsey’s memo spoke of "expeditious implementation" and said that "closed units and positions will be opened by each relevant Service" by January of 2016. Only in the final paragraph did they write of entertaining the possibility that this process might not be a good idea for some units:
Any recommendation to keep an occupational specialty or unit closed to women must be personally approved first by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and then by the Secretary of Defense; this approval authority may not be delegated. Exceptions must be narrowly tailored, and based on a rigorous analysis of factual data regarding the knowledge, skills and abilities needed for the position.
How to read that passage and not conclude that the services were not to be trusted to act in good faith? The reason the decision could not be delegated to them is that they can’t be relied upon to make the right call themselves. The reason exceptions were to be based only on a "rigorous analysis of factual data" is that, if this were not specified, obviously those sexist generals would simply continue to keep units closed because of their broad, fact-free prejudices. The times, they are a changin’ men—better start swimmin' or you’ll sink like a stone.
And swim the Army and the special operations community have, right with the current. For the special ops leaders, the question of women joining their ranks was always somewhat academic, so the easiest thing for them was simply to agree and then go back to doing their jobs. For their lower tier units, such as the Ranger Regiment, with significant special attention (more below) it is possible that a handful of women could be admitted each year. For the highest tier, including the units that killed bin Laden and captured Saddam Hussein, it is impossible, barring a vast change in the physical standards.
As for the Army, the waters of political correctness have been rising there for some time now, and so it was little surprise when they finally assented to the administration—though it was sad to watch the spectacle that surrounded the effort to get women through Ranger School. For the record: After the Army announced that it wanted 70 to 80 women to be in Ranger School’s trial gender-integrated class, only 19 women could pass a preparatory course (required for that class of women, but not for the men) and be available to begin the school. All 19 failed the school. Three were then allowed to start over from the beginning, an opportunity only occasionally permitted to students who "excel in many areas of Ranger School, but fail in a single key component," as a reporter explained it at the time. Those three eventually graduated.
In a subsequent class, where there was less press attention and where the prep course wasn’t required, each of the women failed. All of this is a matter of public record—there is no need to get into the background assertions that the fix was in even more decisively, even though such assertions are plausible.
That left the Marine Corps, which did the worst possible thing, from the Pentagon’s point of view: It took Dempsey and Panetta’s memo seriously. It ran a comprehensive, multi-year, multi-million dollar study, rigorously gathering data on how women performed individually in its infantry training environments (results: a 34 percent graduation rate for women in enlisted infantry training, which is significantly lower than the male rate; and a zero percent female graduation rate in the infantry officer course) and on how mixed-gender units fared when performing the same battlefield tasks as all-male units.
The results of the unit comparison were striking, though of no surprise to anyone who has ever played a team sport in high school. The mixed units performed worse than male units in 93 of 134 battlefield tasks. They outperformed the male units in only two tasks. This matters. Really, this is the only thing that matters.
This was not a phone-it-in exercise for the Corps: The women chosen for the unit performing these tests were above average female Marines, physically; the men were significantly closer to the average. Nevertheless, female Marines were injured at more than twice the rate of the males during the study, leading the Marine Corps to question, in its final request for an exception, how it would maintain readiness in a force where injury rates were bound to skyrocket.
The broad results of the Marines play-it-straight data collection also raised this sticky question: if standards weren’t lowered, how would the Marine Corps deal with units where small numbers of female Marines were graduating the enlisted infantry course, only to then be assigned to units where there were effectively zero female officers, and very few senior enlisted female Marines, given the high rate of physical attrition? An infantry battalion is a lonely place for a Private First Class under even normal circumstances.
Not to worry: We have the civilian appointees of the Department of Defense to let us know that we have nothing to be concerned about. Carter was quite clear in his remarks that there was to be no lowering of standards, and that efforts must be made to eliminate event the impression of quotas. Coming soon: fierce accusations that the services are discriminating against women because of low female participation rates in combat specialities. Not so pessimistic? Just ask the nation’s municipal fire departments.
The chairman of the House Armed Services Committee has promised to review this decision. It’s a little late, and Republicans have no stomach for this debate. That’s too bad, because the Marines could have used some support, especially when they were having their integrity questioned by their own civilian boss, Ray Mabus, the secretary of the Navy. It couldn’t be missed that Carter stood alone behind the podium while making yesterday's announcement. The current chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Marine General Joseph Dunford, did not accompany him, which is no surprise, given that Dunford had formally requested that the Marine Corps be granted an exception for certain ground combat jobs only a few months ago.
Who cares what the Marines think about winning in combat when questions of social progress are on the table? As President Obama put it in a statement praising the Pentagon’s "historic step forward" yesterday afternoon, "When we desegregated our military, it became stronger." Gender integration is just the latest advance, following the racial integration of the last century. The premise here, of course, is not in fact mainstream, but radical: that sexual differences are identical to racial differences. The mainstream of American opinion agrees that racial differences are physically superficial (literally skin deep, in a sense) and essentially social constructions. The president's argument implies that gender differences are meaningless as well: that men and women are essentially interchangeable.
Of course, if this is true, then why stop where we are? Why should the selective service be restricted to males? Indeed, a reporter asked Carter yesterday if his decision affected the question of the draft. Though he moved on to clarify that such an issue was beyond his authority, the secretary's response began: "It may do that..."
Better start swimmin'.