Nicholas Kristof: A woman's place
Officially, women are still banned from combat units. Of course, the reality is somewhat different. As the war in Iraq demonstrated, women may not be allowed in infantry or armored units, but they carry weapons and come under fire just as men do.
The only time I saw Iraqi men entirely intimidated by the American-British forces was in Basra, when a cluster of men gaped, awestruck, around an example of the most astoundingly modern weapon in the Western arsenal.
Her name was Claire, and she had a machine gun in her arms and a flower in her helmet.
"I'm a bit of a novelty here," she said, laughing. The Iraqis flinched.
In the aftermath of the Iraq war it's time to re-examine the ban on women in American front-line forces. Women are barred from about 30 percent of active-duty positions, and there's still a deep emotional resistance to exposing American women to deadly violence.
Granted, the sight of a female P.O.W. on television sent a frisson down the American spine, and there is such discomfort with women in body bags that maybe it can't be countered with practical arguments.
The new realities of war being what they are, women are going to find themselves in combat situations. There are those who still believe that women have no place in the military, that sending mommies to war is fundamentally and morally wrong. For those folks, no argument to the contrary will be acceptable. Kristof, though, does see three practical advantages to allowing women into combat:
Based on the performance of women in Iraq and Afghanistan, I see three advantages to allowing women even on the front.
First, particularly in the Muslim world, notions of chivalry make even the most bloodthirsty fighters squeamish about shooting female soldiers or blowing them up at checkpoints. For just that reason, I asked a woman to sit beside me in the front seat while I drove on a dicey highway in Iraq on the theory that befuddled snipers would hesitate to fire. Let's let foreign chauvinism work for us.
Second, wars these days are less for territory than for hearts and minds, and coed military units appear less menacing. The British used female soldiers near Basra in this way to convey the idea that they weren't set on raping and pillaging.
Third, military units need women to search female civilians for weapons. American leathernecks simply can't pat down Afghan or Iraqi women. ("Now, ma'am, if you'll just remove your burka.")
If you accept that the role of men is to hunt and gather, be the primary breadwinner, and fight our wars, the idea of women in combat likely runs counter to everything you hold dear. Men do the heavy lifting, women bear and nurture children. I hate to be the one to have to break this to you, but these roles are not mutually exclusive. Women have proven themselves able performers in the war against Iraq. Whether you like it or not, women are fighting, and this fact is not likely to change.
Of course, men and women can never be completely equal without setting the biological and physical realities aside. Women have a role in today's military, one they are filling quite ably. Whether or not they belong in the armor or the infantry is an argument I'll leave for someone who wants to grind that ax. For now, I'd suggest you get used to the reality of today's military. Women, it would appear, are NOT going back to the kitchen.
