The U.S. Military Infantry and Special Forces should remain closed to women

Currently, all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces are developing policies to open Infantry and Special Forces occupational specialties to females by 2016. There are only two possible categories these policies can fall under. Category 1 makes all standards of conduct and training equal across the board. In the words of GEN Martin Dempsey, standards will be "gender neutral," truly the same for men and women (1). Category 2 includes every other scenario where standards are not made completely equal. Both options breed grave consequences, which I will take time to explain. The negative impacts of any category 2 policy are obvious. Integrating and training females under different standards can hardly be considered a successful integration. Tolerating different standards between two people performing the same job is commonly known as favoritism, unfairness, or discrimination. Such sentiments destroy cohesion and morale and unavoidably lead to decreased unit readiness. Ultimately, category 2 policies intensify the very problems they seek to solve. The effects of category 1 policies are less apparent but equally harmful. It is not enough to simply make women do more push-ups, carry heavier rucksacks, and run faster. To have a truly "gender neutral" standard, you must also seek equality in aspects often overlooked by people unfamiliar with military life. For example, Infantrymen in the field sometimes go for weeks without access to running water. We solve this problem by giving each other "baby wipe showers," in which you strip naked and have your buddy scrub you down with baby wipes. To go to the bathroom, Soldiers dig a slit trench in the middle of their perimeters into which they defecate and urinate in plain view of others. In combat, Soldiers in armored vehicles must urinate into bottles and defecate into bags right next to their fellow passengers because it is not safe to pull over and get out. Ranger school students must drop their pants on command during winter classes so instructors can check for unauthorized thermal undergarments. Will female Rangers be required to do the same, and if so who will check them? How do we uphold a female"s right to privacy in such conditions? What about grooming standards, why do male basic trainees have to shave their heads but not females? What about body fat standards, which are currently vastly different (2)? There are scores of similar examples and each has two choices. First, to implement different standards (erect privacy curtains, have separate slit trench locations, allow females to keep their hair in basic, etc...) which reverts the policy to category 2. Second, push on with the "gender neutral" standard (females use the slit trench, urinate into bottles, shave their heads, etc...) and destroy a woman"s right to sexual privacy. Neither option is fair. Neither option helps Infantry units become more effective. Finally, one must consider the effects of these policies on variables we cannot control - foreign populations. In Afghanistan, I was required to meet with village elders, Afghan military leaders, and local leaders every week. Women are not allowed to converse with or even sit in the same room as men in Afghanistan and many other conservative, patriarchal societies across Asia, Africa, and the Middle East (areas where the U.S. is very likely to operate in the future). I do not believe this is right or politically correct, but it is true nonetheless. Thrusting female Infantry leaders into these interactions not only risks offending and alienating the local populace, but also inhibits that leader"s ability to gather information and build relationships with them which jeopardizes the mission. The bottom line is if a policy does not make America"s combat forces more effective at defeating the enemy, then one must reject that policy"s merit altogether. (1)http://www.dodlive.mil... (2) http://www.apd.army.mil...