Readiness

I first heard from Alice about the current legislative move to restore/enforce a ban on women in combat zones, a move the Army has skirted for some time now with a rhetorical play on the difference between “assigning” women to units likely to engage combat (an illegal placement) or “attaching” women to those same units – identical outcome but under the wire and within the letter of the law. …slick! That slick move is now under fire, and congress is pushing for a backup to President Bush’s state-of-the-union showpiece call for “No women in combat.” There are some interesting and complex realities apt to hit home on this one.

Sgt. Neva D. Trice leads a female Army search team on guard at the gates of Baghdad's Green Zone. Commenting recently on the president’s directive, she challenged, "If he said no women in combat, then why are there women here in Iraq?" The clear message here, as I discussed in an earlier post, is that all of Iraq is a combat zone. The Washington Post story presents interviews with both male and female soldiers directly opposing the restriction on women in combat, noting gender bias as the only real foundation for legislation: it’s not about whether or not women can do the job – they’re already doing it!

Female soldiers constitute nearly 15% of the “boots on ground” in Iraq, and of those who have served in this war/conflict/occupation, 314 of the dead or wounded have been women. Politics span the range from gung-ho to unofficially opposed to the U.S. action in Iraq, but the sentiment on this issue is consistent: gender should not be a reason for removing a soldier from duty. The Washington Post story is a great report of the sentiment to be found among female soldiers.

More than sentiment, however, pure numbers demand a reconsideration of the pending policy realignment. Recruitment goals set in contrast to the anticipated need for 80,000 troops in the upcoming Oct-Oct fiscal year are currently running at 9.9 percent – 1 for every 10 soldiers needed may be the real back-story on a new 15 month active duty recruitment tool announced Thursday by the U.S. Army. Today in Iraq runs the math: 12 months of active duty in Iraq and 30 days of furlough leaves only two months to train a fresh recruit for combat. And the “small print” on that baiting contract is a total military commitment of eight years, the other six and a half served with a National Guard, Ready Reserve, or comparable unit now essentially pooled as the on-call supply for regular army shortfalls.

As I’ve said so many times in writing here, the issue of the war in Iraq is a complex concern – no easy answers, and I know that. I want my daughter home alive, and I’m beyond angry with the dishonorable methods of operation that have her stationed in Iraq in the first place, so part of me welcomes the “no women in combat” rule as a ticket home for Tommi. Ok… but that’s hardly the point here! And she wouldn’t willingly come home on those terms anyway: she's got a job to do, and she'll do it. The point is that if you tell me or Tommi that gender is a factor preventing her from doing the job she’s already doing with proficiency and commendation, my blood will boil, and if you tell either one of us that her life should be counted as of greater value than the life of her brothers, you’ll be facing down at least a couple amazingly ferocious women before you get to the men who will be backing us up on the issue. So, if this move to restrict women in combat makes as little sense as it seems to make, what’s the rest of the story?

At a press conference on Thursday, Gen. Richard Myers, Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, urged patience in response to escalating violence and ongoing U.S. efforts to secure the democratic process in that region of the world. He said, “I wouldn’t look for results tomorrow,” adding that the insurgency could last “from three, four, to nine years.” Are we ready for that? I know it’s a bone I keep in the corner for chewing on these days, but with recruitment numbers at all-time lows, the projection of nine (or more) years of conflict remaining, and new congressional assurances that female soldiers will not be allowed in combat zones, tell me, are my foreboding anticipations of a draft easily dismissed? Are we ready for that?