Combat ban lifted: women's long march to equality in the military

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/24/combat-ban-women-equality-military

Version 0 of 1.

Next month is the ten-year anniversary of when I drove a Humvee north from Kuwait across a berm into a war zone as a young female soldier, part of a one long convoy out of the many that were starting the ground combat portion of America's long involvement in Iraq. Over the next year, I went on combat foot patrols with the infantry in Baghdad, took small arms and indirect fire, and watched a wounded civilian bleed to death in front of me.

When I came home, I heard then-President George W Bush – my commander-in-chief – say, "There are no women in combat." It was a smack in the face, a brutal betrayal of all I had experienced. And the statement seemed to either neglect or be a willful denial of the sacrifices of SPC Shoshana Johnson, the first African-American female POW; MAJ Tammy Duckworth, a helicopter pilot who lost both legs; SPC Lori Piestewa, the first Native American woman to die in combat, and so many others.

Since then, nearly 150 US women have died in Iraq and Afghanistan. Women have earned the Silver Star for their valor in combat in both countries. We have served, in combat, with honor and distinction.

But throughout that time, we were banned from serving in combat jobs, such as infantry, armor, and artillery, and from combat units at below the brigade level. (The US army even banned women from serving in units that co-located with combat arms units – a regulation that was completely ignored.) Commanders needed qualified troops to accomplish missions, and skirted the spirit of the regulation while following its letter by "attaching", rather than assigning, us to combat units.

Female medics, MPs, supply personnel, and military intelligence troops routinely served in the most dangerous areas in combat zones. None was "safe" since mortars and improvised explosive devices know no boundaries; there aren't "front lines" in today's wars. Special programs, such as Lioness in Iraq and Female Engagement Teams (FETs) in Afghanistan, were developed to get women troops where they were needed in counterinsurgency operations, where having men search or even engage with local women could be detrimental to the mission.

After a decade of serving under this bizarre system, where the American people were regularly told that women were banned from combat in the same news stories that told them women had died in combat, the announcement from Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has come that the combat exclusion policy is being lifted. The service and sacrifice of hundreds of thousands of women is being recognized and validated, their courage and conviction vindicated.

That does not mean, of course, that starting tomorrow, women will be serving as infantrymen and that our struggle for equality in the military is finished. The services can still request that specific jobs remain closed to women, and implementation of the change will likely take years. While some challenges, such as providing the female urinary device (FUD) to allow women to manage basic bodily functions on long convoys, seem to have been resolved, others remain. The army is still testing new body armor that better conforms to women's shapes and sizes than the current ill-fitting style.

Sexual harassment and assault, while not limited to women, still disproportionately affects us. It is my opinion that the combat exclusion policy, by formalizing women's status as second-class citizens, tacitly encouraged a climate that tolerated sexual harassment and assault of women. I believe that eliminating the policy will, in the long run, help lower the unacceptably high rates.

Pockets of strong resistance to this change remain. Many of those who spoke out against women in combat were the same who argued in support of Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT), the policy banning gays from serving openly in combat. They were wrong when they predicted dire consequences from DADT repeal, and I am convinced they will be wrong when they now predict catastrophe from this change.

However, I do not pretend that integration of women into combat arms jobs and units will be universally easy. It is imperative that rigorous standards be maintained to ensure that all men and women are physically capable of performing the jobs to which they are assigned. Determining the requirements of various jobs, missions, or units – and ensuring all personnel can meet them – will be a challenging task.

This is not the end of women's journey toward full equality in the military, but it is a significant step forward. Although my own commander-in-chief did not acknowledge the reality of my service, President Obama's administration has just recognized in policy what has long been the ground truth: women are in combat.