From: anonymous
Newsgroups: soc.feminism
Subject: Sex and War
Date: 9 Oct 92 15:51:23 GMT

I should like to add a slightly different perspective to the
discussion on women in the military, and particularly women in combat.
In doing so I am going to touch on some fairly inflammatory topics,
and so I have taken some pains to try to be clear. All of the items
listed below are opinions, but opinions based on experience.

1. There are things worse than armed conflict, and a military force is
necessary in a democracy.  Others will disagree; I respect that
position, and warn such individuals that the rest of this discussion
will probably not be of interest to you.

2. The primary role of such a force should be that of deterrence.
Nevertheless, most wars start by accident or miscalculation, and
therefore the force must be constituted and maintained with the view
that seeing combat is possible; the force should therefore be
made up solely of volunteers.

3. Depending on a variety of factors, only 10 to 20% of the personnel
in such a force will be in combat units.  For the remaining 80-90% I
see no justification whatever for making gender or sexual preference a
factor in any personnel decision, including placing support
individuals in harm's way (e.g., within range of enemy weaponry). The
rest of the discussion focuses exclusively on the units which are
likely to see direct combat.

4. Service in a combat unit, and exposure to combat conditions, must
be a precondition for senior military positions. No one should be
making decisions that place people in mortal danger without having
undergone such risks themselves. (I exclude the political leadership
from this, as I believe they are separately selected and in all cases
the military is subordinate to them.)

5. The principal factor in combat effectiveness (and survival) is unit
cohesion, that is, the bonding between individuals in a combat unit.
Soldiers do not fight for their country or an ideal; they fight for
each other, and mostly to protect each other.

6. If the unit is so constituted that sexual relations or the
possibility of sexual attraction (whether reciprocated or not) exists,
then unit cohesion is placed at severe risk.

***This situation is independent of either gender or sexual
preference.  It has nothing whatever to do with what gender or sexual
preference is more or less nurturing, or makes better "warriors," or
whose death/wounding/mia/pow status will upset society the most.  It
is a fact of life and death in combat.***

Sexual feelings are powerful, and they often increase in imminent
prospect of death.  Members of a combat unit must be able to depend on
each other in the face of mortal terror, and perform acts that require
every ounce of courage and self-control they possess.  Many will fail.
Those that succeed will succeed largely because of the bonding
described above.  The interjection of sexual jealousy, resentment at
past harassment, anger from being rejected, and all the other emotions
that go along with sexual relations interferes with the bonding and
the ability of the unit to survive and prevail.

This is the reason that many thoughtful commanders (you may not think
that such people exist, but I`ve run into more than a few) support the
current brute-force ban on gay males in the military and women in
combat units.  (Clearly the same arguments can be and have been used
hypocritically by homophobes and sexists; in every case you must take
the source into account.)

The consequences bother them, and they bother me: the current
brute-force prohibitions deny skilled individuals to the military and
denies opportunities to individuals.  Given point 4 above (which I
think is essential to preventing military adventurism), the current
prohibitions deny high military positions to women who may be
otherwise fully qualified to fill them.  I think it stinks, but I must
admit I'm not bright enough to think of a better approach.

Let me put it another way: if you engage an organization in furthering
social goals as well as performing its primary mission (as I have in
managing under affirmative action programs), then you cannot avoid the
fact that the social agenda acts as a kind of tax on the primary
mission.  The process of forming a team will be much more complex than
it would be if the group were less diverse, and as a manager you will
be spending time mentoring individuals whose interpersonal skills may
not be relevant to the culture in which they now find themselves.
(This doesn't mean that they're stupid or unskilled, just different).

In the case of a business this tax is paid in money, and if asked if
it should be paid I would say: Absolutely.  (I feel justified in this
stance because I have caused it to be paid, and paid it myself in
reduced career opportunities.  Another story, and no regrets.)

In the case of a combat unit the tax may be paid in blood.  If asked
the same question as a commander I am afraid I would say: Absolutely
not. Not only could the reduced effectiveness get people killed, it
could cost you the war.  And one of the very small number of things
that I think of as being worse than getting in a war is losing one.



--
Post articles to soc.feminism, or send email to feminism@ncar.ucar.edu.
Questions and comments should be sent to feminism-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  This
news group is moderated by several people, so please use the mail aliases. Your
article should be posted within several days.  Rejections notified by email.