By Laura Johnston*<\/p>\n
The Pentagon announced<\/a> on Thursday that it will for, the first time, allow women in the United States Military to officially serve at the front lines of combat, bringing to an end its long-standing combat exclusion policy for women.\u00a0 That policy<\/a>, which dates back to 1994, prevented women from being assigned to units below brigade level \u201cwhose primary mission is to engage in direct ground combat.\u201d\u00a0 According to the announcement, the policy change will open approximately 237,000 additional armed services positions to women.<\/p>\n While the timing of the announcement was unexpected, it follows a recent intensification in the debate over whether women should be allowed to take up combat roles.\u00a0 That debate has been fueled by a complaint<\/a> filed in late 2012 by four U.S. servicewomen in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California against the Department of Defense [DoD].\u00a0 The servicewomen, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and a private firm, allege that DoD\u2019s combat exclusion policy is unconstitutional because it violates women\u2019s right to equal protection under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment<\/a>.<\/p>\n On Thursday, the DoD rescinded the 1994 combat exclusion policy<\/a>, effective immediately, but in practice the policy change will take effect incrementally between now and January 1, 2016. \u00a0The more gradual approach will allow the armed services time to implement any accommodations required for men and women to serve together in combat situations.\u00a0 The bulk of combat positions in each of the services will be open to applications from women, but certain jobs or units may remain closed with the approval of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Secretary of Defense.<\/p>\n Combat inclusion has long been a subject of debate in the United States.\u00a0 The Final Report<\/a> of the Military Diversity Leadership Commission presented to President Obama in 2011 explicitly recommended that the DoD and armed services phase out combat exclusion.\u00a0 Similarly, the Pentagon announced<\/a> in February 2012 that it would open additional roles to women, following a Report to Congress<\/a> on restrictions on women\u2019s participation in the military, yet it kept the broader combat exclusion policy in place.\u00a0 During the press conference<\/a> accompanying the release of the Report, Major General Patton would not be pressed on a timeframe for when the Pentagon would reconsider the policy, noting only that \u201cthis is the beginning, not the end.\u201d<\/p>\n In opening combat roles to women, the United States is following a trend amongst comparable democracies.\u00a0 This month, the Australian Army will, for the first time, allow currently-serving women to apply for combat roles, a part of a five-year Implementation Plan<\/a> that will culminate in the direct recruitment of women to combat roles by 2016.\u00a0 In taking these steps, the United States and Australia join New Zealand, Norway and Canada as countries that allow women to apply for the bulk of their combat positions.<\/p>\n Notwithstanding the international trend towards ending combat exclusion, the policy has its detractors.\u00a0 At the time the Pentagon\u2019s 2012 review was released, then-candidate for the Republican presidential nomination, Governor Rick Santorum, argued<\/a> that combat inclusion would jeopardize missions because of men\u2019s \u201cnatural inclination\u201d to protect women from harm.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Governor Santorum\u2019s comments reflect a certain moral squeamishness about exposing women to the dangers of combat, even on a purely opt-in basis.<\/p>\n However, that squeamishness is arguably out of date.\u00a0 As the Military Diversity Leadership Commission noted in its Final Report<\/a>, \u201cpolicies that bar women from certain combat-related career fields, specialties, units, and assignments are based on standards associated with conventional warfare and well-defined, linear battlefields,\u201d characteristics that do not apply to most conflicts in which the United States is currently engaged.\u00a0 Accordingly, the Commission notes, \u201csome of the female servicemembers deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan have already been engaged in activities that would be considered combat related, including being collocated with combat units and engaging in direct combat for self-defense.\u201d<\/p>\n The Pentagon\u2019s announcement tackles the heart of the complaint before the U.S. District Court:\u00a0 Women serving in the U.S. military have faced the worst of both worlds.\u00a0 They have been exposed to the dangers of combat, by serving in officially non-combat roles in active theaters like Afghanistan and Iraq, yet they have been denied the training and benefits for which they would be eligible if formally serving in a combat position.\u00a0 The complaint alleges that women are \u201cdenied the official recognition they need to advance their careers,\u201d because they cannot apply to combat training schools, they receive no formal recognition for their unofficial time in combat, and the military promotion system privileges those who have spent time in combat over those who have not.<\/p>\n However, the Pentagon\u2019s announcement leaves some questions unanswered.\u00a0 Prime amongst them is whether the progressive opening of combat positions to women will come at the cost of the military\u2019s rigorous physical fitness standards.\u00a0 The Center for Military Readiness, a vocal supporter of the combat exclusion policy, cites a number of studies<\/a> suggesting women would struggle to meet the rigorous physical demands of combat readiness.\u00a0 Some point to the process of \u201cgender norming\u201d at West Point<\/a> \u2014 according to which female cadets are expected to meet lower physical standards than their male counterparts \u2014 as evidence that opening combat positions to women will undermine the exacting physical standards expected of combatants.<\/p>\n Opening combat positions to women does not necessarily entail lowering standards, but it may prompt a rethink of what combat readiness requires.\u00a0 The Australian Defence Force (ADF) recently completed a review of its Physical Employment Standards, explicitly linked<\/a> to the removal of Australia\u2019s combat exclusion policy.\u00a0 Following the review, ADF personnel will now be assessed on simulated combat skills<\/a> (such as the leopard crawl and casualty drag) rather than their raw strength (measured through push-ups and chin-ups).\u00a0 The new regime does not create lower or different physical requirements based on gender, and it does not guarantee that women will be able to meet the new requirements.\u00a0 It does, however, ensure that those women who fail do so because they lack essential combat skills, not simply because they lack the raw strength of their male counterparts.<\/p>\n