GAO Report to the Secretary of Defense 

July 1993 WOMEN IN THE 

MILITARY 

Deployment in the 

Persian Gulf War 

- 

GAO/NSIAD-93-93 

GAO United States 

General Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 20648 

National Security and 

International Affairs Division 

B-251354 

July 13,1993 

The Honorable Les Aspin 

The Secretary of Defense 

Dear Mr. Secretary: 

This report discusses the deployment of women in the military to the Persian Gulf during 

Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, an action that renewed debate about the 

restrictions that prohibit the assignment of women to combat positions. The information in this 

report addresses women’s roles and performance; ability to endure deployment conditions; 

effect on unit cohesion; and effect on a unit’s ability to deploy. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of the Navy, the Air Force, the Army, the 

Commandant of the Marine Corps, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, 

interested congressional committees, and other interested parties. 

If you or your staff have any questions, please call me on (202) 512-5140. Major contributors to 

this report are listed in appendix IV. 

Sincerely yours, 

Mark E. Gebicke 

Director, 

Military Operations and Capabilities Issues 
Executive Summary 

Purpose Of the more than half a million U.S. troops deployed to the Persian Gulf 

during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, approximately 

7 percent (about 41,000) were women. The deployment of so many women 

renewed debate about whether restrictions that prohibit the assignment of 

women to combat positions and units should be removed. The Persian 

Gulf War provided the first opportunity to evaluate some of the salient 

issues in that debate on the basis of a large-scale, lengthy military 

deployment involving a hostile situation. 

In April 1993, the Secretary of Defense lifted the restrictions on women 

flying combat an-craft in the Navy and the Air Force. Additional debate is 

anticipated regarding the service of women in other combat positions in 

the Armed Forces. 

GAO visited 10 support units that deployed to the Persian Gulf with both 

women and men to learn of their experiences in relation to women’s 

(1) roles and performance, (2) ability to endure deployment conditions, 

(3) effect on unit cohesion, and (4) effect on a unit’s ability to deploy. This 

report summarizes the views of the unit commanders GAO interviewed and 

the military personnel who participated in focus group discussions GAO 

conducted at each unit. Although the results of the focus group 

discussions cannot be statistically projected to the deployed population as 

a whole, they provide the perspectives of a broad cross-section of military 

personnel on key issues related to women in the military. 

Background Four of the most frequently raised issues in the debate about removal of 

combat assignment restrictions for women focus on whether 

. combat and noncombat role distinctions made in women’s assignments 

have any meaning in modern warfare; 

. women can endure the hardships of a lengthy hostile deployment and 

perform assigned tasks without mission impairment; 

l the presence of women negatively affects unit cohesion and, therefore, 

unit performance; and 

l women impede the ability of units to deploy due to lost time for reasons 

such as pregnancy. 

This report contains the results of GAO interviews with unit commanders 

and 59 focus group discussions held at 10 different military units that 

participated in Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. Group 

participants comprised 171 men and 130 women with a variety of 

Page 2 GAOMSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Executive Summary 

Results in Brief 

demographic and military service characteristics. Thirty-eight percent of 

the focus group participants were in the Army, 24 percent in the Air Force, 

21 percent in the Navy, and 16 percent in the Marine Corps. 

Overall, the unit commanders and focus group participants gave primarily 

positive assessments of women’s performance in the Persian Gulf War. 

Women in the units GAO visited worked on a broad spectrum of 

assignments and tasks during the deployment. Focus group discussions 

indicated that women and men endured similar harsh encampment 

facilities and conditions. Health and hygiene problems during the 

deployment were considered inconsequential for both men and women. 

Cohesion in mixed gender units was generally considered to be effective 

during deployment, and the unit commanders and focus group participants 

often described cohesion as being best while the units were deployed. The 

groups GAO talked to cited pregnancy as a cause for women returning early 

from deployment or not deploying at all, but the groups generally 

identified few actual cases. 

Principal Findings 

Women’s Roles and 

Performance 

Women performed a wide range of tasks throughout the deployment area 

before, during, and after hostilities. Women were stationed in units close 

to the northern border of Saudi Arabia and served in units that crossed the 

border into Iraq and Kuwait during the air and/or ground wars. 

Women filled a variety of jobs, ranging from medical positions to aircraft 

weapons assembler and loaders. Along with men, women performed 

generic deployment-related tasks, including setting up and tearing down 

tents, filling sandbags for building bunkers, and burning human waste. 

Perceptions of women’s performance were highly positive. Some people 

expressed concerns about women’s physical strength capabilities; 

however, teamwork was frequently cited as a way physical strength 

limitations were overcome for both women and men. 

Comments that women benefitted from favoritism with regard to 

assignments or engaged in task avoidance were relatively infrequent 

among focus group participants. While many said that men felt a need to 

protect women, they gave little support for the notion that such attitudes 

Page 3 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

e 

‘_ 

i‘. 

I. . 
Executive Summary 

distracted men from their responsibilities. No gender preferences were 

perceived in awards decisions or other forms of recognition. Some 

operational concerns arose as units implemented the combat assignment 

restrictions affecting women. For example, two units in two services, 

which provided temporary support teams to all-male combat units, could 

not or would not assign women to those teams because the receiving units 

could not accommodate women or did not want women assigned. 

Deployment Conditions The focus groups indicated that women and men endured the same 

austere housing, shower, and latrine conditions, including situations in 

which women and men went without any facilities at all. Housing ranged 

from dormitory-style rooms in existing buildings, to overcrowded tents 

with and without air conditioning, to no housing at all for some units 

during the ground war. Housing and bathroom facilities were sometimes 

separate for women and men and other times were shared. 

According to commanders and focus group participants, health and 

hygiene problems were minor for both women and men and had no 

negative effects on mission accomplishment. Although there were some 

initial shortages of women’s hygiene supplies, shortages were alleviated by 

supplies people brought with them and received later in the mail; 

sufficient supplies eventually became available. Within the focus groups 

there was little difference in perceptions of women’s and men’s ability to 

deal with the stress of the deployment. 

Unit Cohesion Unit cohesion was both important and effective during the deployment, 

according to the women and men GAO talked to. They most often defined 

cohesion as teamwork and/or working together to get the job done. The 

focus groups said that cohesion was most important in smaller units (such 

as platoons or sections). Gender homogeneity was not reported by focus 

group participants as a requirement for effective unit cohesion during the 

deployment. 

Ability to Deploy Some women and men were unavailable for deployment or returned early 

for a variety of reasons. Focus group participants frequently described 

pregnancy as a cause for women returning early or not deploying, but the 

patricipants generally recalled few specific cases. As GAO noted in a 

Page 4 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Executive Summary 

August 1992 report,’ the Department of Defense lacks complete and 

comparable data on the total number of personnel that could not deploy 

for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. 

Personnel not deploying had a greater impact in units that deployed in 

their entirety than in units that deployed only a portion of their personnel. 

In the former instance, personne1 who could not deploy created vacancies 

that needed to be filled. In the latter case, unit commanders had a choice 

of which personnel to send (since not all had to deploy), so substitutions 

were easier. 

Recommendations This report contains no GAO recommendations. 

Agency Comments 

and GAO Evaluation 

The Department of Defense reviewed a draft of this report and concurred 

with its findings. The Department’s comments reiterated GAO’S point that, 

because of the sampling and methodology techniques used, the results 

cannot be generalized (statistically projected) to the entire deployed 

population, including combatant units. Nevertheless, GAO believes this 

report provides important and useful insights into how women performed 

in a variety of roles and units in a lengthy and hostile deployment which 

exposed some units, regardless of their combatant/noncombatant status, 

to combat conditions. Complete Department of Defense comments are 

provided in appendix III. 

‘Operation Desert Storm: War Highlights Need to Address Problem of Non-Deployable Personnel 

(GAONIAD-92-208, Aug. 1992). 

Page 5 GAOMSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Contents 

Executive Summary 2 

Chapter 1 

Introduction Repealed and Remaining Assignment Restrictions 

Issues Related to the Removal of Assignment Restrictions 

Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 

Chapter 2 

Women Were an 

Integral Part of 

Military Service 

Operations 

Women’s Roles and Responsibilities Represented a Broad 

Spectrum 

Perceptions of Women’s Performance Were Positive 

Other Performance-Related Issues 

Operations Issues Surfaced From Implementation of Combat 

Restrictions 

15 

15 

21 

23 

26 

Chapter 3 

Women and Men 

Sustained Similar 

Women and Men Endured Similar Encampment Facilities and 

Conditions 

Women’s Health and Hygiene Issues Were Inconsequential 

29 

29 

34 

Deployment 

Conditions 

Some Initial Shortages in Women’s Hygiene Supplies Occurred 35 

Little Difference, if Any, in Ability to Cope With Wartime Stress 36 

Chapter 4 38 

Gender Homogeneity Cohesion Was Important and Effective 38 

Little Evidence of Impediments to Cohesion 41 

Was Not a Off-Duty Bonding Was Sometimes Impaired 45 

Prerequisite for Unit 

Cohesion 

Chapter 5 

Unavailability for 

Deployment 

Causes for Unavailability and Early Returns Varied 

Impact of Personnel Not Deploying Was Greater When Entire 

Unit Deployed 

47 

47 

52 

Appendixes Appendix I: Details on Our Methodology 

Appendix II: Demographic and Military Service Characteristics of 

Focus Group Participants 

54 

55 

Appendix III: Comments From the Department of Defense 57 

Page 6 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the MiIitary 
Contents 

Appendix IV Major Contributors to This Report 58 

Tables Table 1.1: Types of Units Visited 

Table 2.1: Selected Roles and General Deployment Tasks Women 

Performed While Deployed in Operations Desert Shield and 

Desert Storm 

Table 2.2: Group Participant Assessments of Women’s 

Performance 

Table 2.3: Group Participant Expectations for Women’s 

Performance 

Table 3.1: Housing Facilities and Conditions Described by the 47 

Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps Discussion Groups 

Table 4.1: Comments by 49 Groups That Discussed the Quality of 

Cohesion During the Deployment 

Table 5.1: Frequency With Which Groups Cited Reasons for 

Personnel Not Deploying and Returning Early 

Table 5.2: Number of Women and Men Identified as Who Did Not 

Deploy or Return Home Early Due to Reasons Other Than 

Pregnancy 

Table 11.1: Demographic Makeup of Focus Group Participants 

Table 11.2: Marital Status 

Table 11.3: Age, Length of Service, and Time in Persian Gulf 

- 

12 

16 

21 

21 

31 

40 

48 

52 

55 

55 

56 

Figures Figure 2.1: Deployed Locations Identified by Units That Included 

Women 

Figure 2.2: Exposure to Hostilities 

Figure 2.3: Group Discussion Comments on Physical Strength 

Issues 

Figure 2.4: Group Discussion Comments on Favoritism and Task 

Avoidance 

Figure 2.5: Group Discussion Comments on Protection of Women 

Figure 4.1: Group Discussion Comments on the Definition of 

Sexual Harassment 

Figure 4.2: Group Participant Perceptions of the Occurrence of 

Sexual Harassment in or Outside of Own Unit 

Figure 5.1: Frequency With Which Reasons Were Cited for 

Personnel Not Deploying 

Figure 5.2: Frequency With Which Reasons Were Cited for Early 

Return 

19 

22 

24 

25 

43 

45 

49 

50 

Page 7 GAo/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Content.9 

Abbreviations 

GAO General Accounting Office 

NC0 Noncommissioned officer 

Page 8 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Page 9 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Of the more than half a million U.S. troops deployed to the Persian Gulf 

during Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, approximately 

7 percent (about 41,000) were women. The inclusion of so many women in 

that deployment renewed debate about whether restrictions that prohibit 

the assignment of women to combat positions and units should be 

removed. The Persian Gulf War provided the first opportunity to review 

the issues being debated in the context of a lengthy hostile deployment 

that included thousands of women. 

Repealed and 

Remaining 

Assignment 

Restrictions 

The Defense Authorization Act of 1992 contained two amendments: one to 

repeal the prohibitions against women flying combat aircraft! and a second 

establishing the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in 

the Armed Forces to evaluate restrictions affecting women. The Secretary 

of Defense indicated that he would wait for the Commission’s 

November 1992 report before taking further action on the assignment of 

women in the military. 

In April 1993, the Secretary of Defense lifted the restrictions on women 

flying combat aircraft in the Navy and the Air Force. Additional legislative 

action is anticipated in the near future regarding the service of women on 

warships and, possibly, in other areas. 

With removal of the combat aircraft assignment restriction, the only 

remaining statutory restriction in 10 U.S.C. 6015 prohibits the assignment 

of women in the Navy and the Marine Corps to combat mission ships. The 

Army, although not covered by statute, has a policy which reflects the 

statutory restrictions of the law and precludes the assignment of women 

to those positions most likely to engage in direct combat. Marine Corps 

policy also prohibits the assignment of women to direct ground combat. 

Service implementing policies also result in the limiting or closure of some 

noncombat positions or job categories to accommodate operational 

programs. For example, the Army closes some noncombat positions to 

provide for the stateside rotation of overseas combat personnel. Also, 

under the Department of Defense’s “risk rule,” the services may prohibit 

assignment of women to those noncombat positions exposed to risk that is 

equal to or greater than that of associated combat units. 

‘Section 8549 and part of section 6015 of title 10 of the United States Code (U.S.C.). 

Page 10 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Issues Related to the 

Removal of 

Assignment 

Restrictions 

Four of the most frequently raised issues in the debate about removing 

combat assignment restrictions for women focus on whether 

l combat and noncombat role distinctions made in women’s assignments 

have any meaning in modern warfare; 

l women can endure the hardships of a lengthy hostile deployment and 

perform assigned tasks without mission impairment; 

l the presence of women negatively affects unit cohesion and, therefore,, 

unit performance; and 

l women impede the ability of units to deploy because of lost time 

(pregnancy, for example). 

A major issue in the debate about assignments is the contention that the 

exclusion of women from combat roles does not exclude them from the 

dangers of war. According to this argument, the modern battlefield is so 

fluid that women cannot be protected and therefore, the combat 

restrictions have no impact during war. On the other hand, there are 

concerns that women do not have sufficient physical strength to perform 

all of the tasks associated with a lengthy, hostile deployment. Further 

assertions contend that combat assignments, in particular, require greater 

physical strength than women are generally capable of. 

Second, concerns have been raised about women’s ability to endure the 

harshness of a lengthy hostile deployment and effectively carry out their 

responsibilities. Living in tents with little or no privacy, the lack or limited 

availability of bathroom facilities and clothes laundering options, and the 

inability to shower daily or at will are cited as some of the hardships of 

field deployment conditions. Related to these issues are concerns about 

the impact of these conditions on women’s health and, hence, women’s 

availability to perform their duties. 

A third concern focuses on unit cohesion and its importance to the 

accomplishment of a unit’s mission. Male bonding is considered by many 

to be essential for the success of combat unit missions. Some have 

asserted that the introduction of women to an all-male unit would, at best 

interfere with, and more likely destroy or prevent, the male bonding 

necessary for effective unit cohesion during combat operations. 

A fourth concern questions women’s availability for deployment because 

of pregnancy and the belief that women generally lose more time on the 

job than men do. 

Page 11 GAOMSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

4 I 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Objectives, Scope, 

and Methodology 

The objective of this report is to provide information on the following four 

areas as they relate to the inclusion of a large number of women in an 

actual lengthy hostile deployment: 

. women’s roles and their physical ability to perform assigned tasks; 

. men’s and women’s deployment conditions such as encampment facilities, 

and hygiene and health conditions; 

l cohesion in mixed-gender units; and 

l deployability. 

We visited 10 units, which had both men and women assigned to them, 

after their return from deployment to the Persian Gulf War. We discussed 

the four issue areas with unit commanders and with women and men in 

separate focus group discussions at each unit. The types of units we 

visited in each service are listed in table 1.1. 

Table 1 .l : Types of Units Visited 

Service TvDe of unit 

Army Medical command 

Military police brigade 

Aviation brigade 

Forward support battalion 

Air Force A-10 fighter wing 

F-15 fighter wing 

F-l 11 fighter wing 

Navy Combat logistics force ship 

Destroyer tender 

Marine Corps Expeditionary force 

Within units, we selected focus group participants by (1) screening 

personnel by gender, rank, and job category and (2) selecting final 

participants on the basis of a random sampling of eligible personnel. 

The qualitative information obtained through the group discussions and, to 

a limited extent, from the commander’s interviews was analyzed using a 

systematic design that captured and categorized like information from 

each discussion. That information was analyzed to determine the extent to 

which it was reflected among all of the groups. 

Profile of Group Focus groups included military service women and men with a variety of 

Participants demographic and military service characteristics. A total of 318 individuals 

Page 12 GAO/NSlAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

participated in 63 focus group discussions. One hundred and seventy-one 

men and 147 women participated in the groups.2 

Thirty-eight percent of participants in the 63 groups were in the Army; 

16 percent in the Marine Corps; 21 percent in the Navy; and 24 percent in 

the Air Force. About onequarter of the participants were officers; the 

remainder were equally divided between enlisted and noncommissioned 

officer (NCO) ranks. In terms of racial and ethnic backgrounds, 68 percent 

were white; 22 percent black; 8 percent Hispanic; 2 percent Asian or 

Pacific Islander; and 1 percent Native American. 

Participants ranged in age from 18 to 51 years, with an average age of 29 

for the groups. Enlisted personnel were 9 years younger on average than 

either NCOS or officers; the women participants were an average of 2 years 

younger than the men. About half of the participants were married when 

they deployed; of these, 26 percent were married to military personnel. 

The men were more likely to be married than the women-61 percent of 

the men were married compared with 39 percent of the women. However, 

women were far more likely to be married to a fellow service member; 

51 percent of the married women participants had military spouses, 

compared with only 12 percent of the married men. 

Forty-four percent of those who were married to military personnel had 

spouses who also deployed to the Gulf during Operations Desert Shield 

and/or Desert Storm. Half of the women members married to military 

personnel had a spouse who also deployed while only 31 percent of the 

men did. 

Focus group participants had served an average of 8 years in the service. 

Men had served an average of 3 years longer than the women. NCOS had 

served the longest-12 years-while junior enlisted personnel had served 

for the shortest period of time (4 years). Participants served an average of 

5 months in the Persian Gulf. Actual time periods spent in the Gulf ranged 

from 1 to 15 months, and 9 out of 10 participants spent at least 3 months in 

the Gulf region. 

Of the 63 group discussions, 59 were included in our data base. Of those, 

32 are men’s groups, 27 are women‘s, 16 are officer groups, 22 are NC0 

groups, and 21 are enlisted personnel groups. 

The material from four group discussions was inadequate for coding because of unresolvable 

problems of interpretation of the raw field notes made while the group discussions were taking place. 

Consequently, the data presented in the report is based on 59 groups. The four uncodable groups were 

women’s groups (a total of 17 women). 

Page 13 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 1 

Introduction 

Explanatory Note on 

Focus Group Data 

This report summarizes the results of our analysis of the information 

collected during our visits with 10 units deployed to Operations Desert 

Shield and Desert Storm. The focus group data is presented in terms of the 

number of separate focus groups that (1) discussed the particular issue at 

hand and (2) contained at least one person who made a statement or 

reported an experience summarized in the data. The number of groups 

discussing a topic varies by topic; also, the number of comments within 

one group on a single topic varies by group. Thus, one group may be 

recorded under two different opinions expressed on the same topic 

because two people in the same group made different comments on the 

same topic. Thus, the number of groups commenting on an issue will not 

always equal the total number of groups reported under each of the 

different kinds of opinions expressed on a single topic. The pattern or 

preponderance with which a single viewpoint or experience occurs across 

the focus groups provides the understanding or overall message of the 

deployment experiences and perceptions of the people we talked to in the 

10 units we visited. 

The results of these focus group discussions cannot be generalized as 

representative of the deployed population as a whole as might be the case 

with a survey because we did not conduct a survey. Statistical estimates 

cannot be derived from these results. Although the results are presented in 

numerical form, they are presented in this way solely for the purpose of 

describing replication across the groups. Further information on our 

methodology is provided in appendix I. Demographic characteristics of 

focus group participants are provided in appendix 2. 

We conducted our fieldwork between April and October 1991 in 

accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Page 14 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

During Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm, women performed a 

variety of jobs and tasks and worked in a cross-section of locations during 

the deployment and hostilities. Perceptions of their performance were 

primarily positive, except for comparatively infrequent concerns about 

their physical strength capabilities. Perceptions of favoritism, the tendency 

of men to want to protect women, and comparable award recognition 

generally were not considered impediments to the effective operation of 

mixed-gender units. 

Commanders and focus group participants said that because of varying 

interpretation of how to apply the combat restrictions applicable to 

women, flexibility in the assignment of personnel was somewhat restricted 

and some qualified personnel were not given assignments they were 

trained to perform. As a result, women’s mobility on the battlefield was 

more restricted than men%. 

Women’s Roles and The women and men we visited described a vast array of jobs or positions 

Responsibilities that women held while deployed in Operations Desert Shield and Desert 

Storm. Table 2.1 presents an overview of those positions and generic 

Represented a Broad IXAGSpectrum 

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

Table 2.1: Selected Roles and General 

Deployment Tasks Women Performed 

While Deployed in Operations Desert 

Shield and Desert Storm 

Roles/responsibility 

Administrative clerk 

Aircraft mechanic 

Ambulance driver 

Aviation ordnance technician 

Boiler technician 

Chaplain’s assistant 

Chief engineer for ship 

Combat signaler 

Communications technician 

Cook 

Damange control assistant 

Dentist 

Dietitian for hospital 

Dining facility manager 

Doctor for ship 

Electrician 

Flight operations clerk 

Food services officer 

Fuel handler 

F-l 11F crew chief 

Head of shi’s foundry 

Head nurse 

Helicopter repairer 

Helicopter pilot 

Information management specialist 

lngelligence analyst 

Legal clerk 

M60 gunner 

Machinist mate 

Military police 

Mission support for personnel 

Operating room nurse 

Personnel administration specialist 

Photographer 

Psychiatrist 

Stock control storage officer 

Supply clerk 

Tank repairer 

Truck driver 

Truck mechanic 

Unity diary clerk 

Weapons assembler and loader 

Welder 

Generic task 

Building bunkers 

Burning human waste 

Digging trenches 

Filling sandbags 

Guarding encampment 

KP 

Ready reaction 

Setting up/tearing down tents 

Women Were Stationed 

Across Deployed Area 

Women in the units we visited performed these tasks in locations that 

stretched across the stationing area for deployed allied forces and some 

went into Iraq and Kuwait during and after the air and ground war. Women 

were deployed to a variety of locations, from Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, on the 

Red Sea, to the country of Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, and from Riyadh, 

Page 16 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

I I. 

. . . 

‘1 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

the capital of Saudi Arabia, to Dhahran and Al Jubail on the Persian Gulf 

and Al Misha’ab, Nisab, Al Qaysumah, and other locations very close to the 

Saudi Arabian borders with Kuwait and Iraq. 

Figure 2.1 shows deployed locations in or near cities or named facilities 

and installations. It does not include encampments or troop movements in 

undeveloped desert areas. 

Page 17 GAO/IUSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

b.. 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

Fiaure 2.1: Deoloved Locations Identified bv Units That Included Women 

Note: Included in the map are only those locations that could be identified by reference to a city, 

facility, or installation. Locations that were referred to only by a distance from the border with Iraq 

or Kuwait are not included. 

Sources: Mission briefs, commander interviews, and focus groups. 

Page 18 GAONSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

Units Were Exposed to 

Hostilities 

Unit activities took some Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps women into 

Iraq and/or Kuwait even during the air and ground wars. Some women 

were exposed to other kinds of hostilities: for example, they received 

enemy fire, returned fire, and/or dealt with enemy prisoners. Figure 2.2 

shows how many groups identified the various ways in which participants 

described their exposure to hostilities. 

Figure 2.2: Exposure to Hostilities 

Number of groups 

20 

10 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

II Men 

Women 

Note: Data is based on a total of 47 Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps groups. See explanatory 

note in chapter 1 on focus group data. Other kinds of hostilities include receiving enemy fire, 

returning fire, and/or dealing with enemy prisoners. 

Page 19 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

. 

The nature of hostilities that personnel in support units were exposed to 

appears to be associated with a particular service and the way it wages 

war. Because the Army and the Marine Corps essentially fight on the 

ground, people we talked to in those services were more likely to be close 

to or exposed to battlefield combat conditions than the Air Force or the 

Navy support units. Fifty-nine percent of all the Army focus groups we met 

with included reports of crossing the border, 62 percent of the Marine 

Corps focus groups reported crossing it, and 12 percent of the Air Force 

focus groups included these reports. 

The Air Force generally deployed to stationary sites from which aircraft 

were launched and to which the aircraft returned. Thus, Air Force support 

units were more likely to be exposed to other kinds of hostilities. Twelve 

groups reported exposure to hostilities but did not go into Iraq or Kuwait: 

18 percent of the Army groups, 25 percent of the Marine Corps groups, and 

35 percent of the Air Force groups. The Navy ships we visited were 

stationed at the Port of Jiddah, Saudi Arabia, and/or the Red Sea area. The 

following examples illustrate the geographic scope of the activities in 

which women participated: 

One unit was initially stationed within 8 miles of the front, which, 

according to the unit commander, placed it within enemy artillery range; 

the unit’s logistics forces moved into Iraq during the ground war, 

progressing about 370 kilometers in the first 100 hours. 

Women and men required to be nearby and/or attached to the rear of U.S. 

combat maneuver battalions, moved with those battalions as the battalions 

captured enemy forces. 

One unit was airlifted forward to assume control of enemy prisoners, 

placing it behind another U.S. combat unit but ahead of two follow-on U.S. 

combat units; the airlifted unit was accidentally fired upon by friendly 

forces. 

Army women received combat flying time credit and Combat Medical 

Patches, while Marine Corps women received Combat Action Ribbons 

because of the location and timing of the performance of their duties. 

A hospital unit was stationed on the Iraqi border ahead of some allied 

infantry units that passed it on their way into enemy territory. 

One unit’s location was described as ranging from 5 to 20 kilometers 

behind the front line. 

Page 20 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

Perceptions of 

Women’s Performance 

Were Positive 

Table 2.2: Group Participant 

Assessments of Women’s 

Performance 

Table 2.3: Group Participant 

Expectations for Women’s 

Performance 

Some Concerns Expressed In general, physical strength was neither a problem nor an issue during the 

About Women’s Physical deployment. Both commanders and group participants often noted that 

Strength Capabilities women effectively performed the following strenuous tasks setting up 

Commanders and participants in the discussion groups gave positive 

assessments of women’s performance during the deployment. In all nine of 

our interviews with one or more commanders, at least one commander 

said women performed as well as or better than men. In only three of the 

nine interviews did any commander indicate that women’s performance 

was not as good as men’s. 

Participants in 44 of the 59 focus groups commented on the qua&y of’ 

women’s performance during the deployment (see explanatory note in 

ch. 1 on focus group data). As table 2.2 shows, group participant 

comments were notably positive. 

Assessment of women’s actual job performance 

Women’s 

groups 

Men’s 

groups 

Women berformed as well as or better than men 15 26 

Women did not perform as well as men 

Group patterns of assessments 

6 14 

All oositive assessments 11 13 

Both positive and negative assessments 4 13 

All negative assessments 2 1 

No assessments exoressed 10 5 

Further, as table 2.3 shows, these positive assessments occurred in spite of 

generally lower expectations of women’s performance. 

Expectation 

Women should/would perform as well as or better 

than men 

Women’s Men’s 

groups groups 

8 12 

Women should/would not oerform as well as men 9 12 

Group patterns of expectations 

All positive expectations 3 6 

Both oositive and neaative exoectations 5 6 

All negative expectations 4 6 

No expectations expressed 15 14 

Page 21 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operation@ 

tents, filling sandbags, and constructing sandbag bunkers. The context of 

comments often noted that capabilities of service personnel were more 

dependent on the individuals characteristics than gender. Teamwork was 

noted as a major factor negating physical strength as an issue or in 

overcoming anyone’s strength limitations. Women and men were just as 

likely to report that strength limits had no effect on mission 

accomplishment and that teamwork made strength issues irrelevant. 

Figure 2.3 shows group participant comments on physical strength; 

47 groups discussed the issue, 26 of which were men’s groups, and 21 of 

which were women’s groups. 

Figure 2.3: Group Discussion 

Comments on Physical Strength 

Issues 

Number of groups 

22 

20 

10 

16 

14 

12 

10 

0 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Women Men Women Men Women Men 

Women’s Strength limits Teamwork 

strength limits Irrelevant overcomes 

affected or because of limits or gets 

hindered teamwork tough jobs 

mission done 

I Made opposite comment 

Made comment 

Women Men 

Men worked 

harder due to 

women’s 

limitations 

Note: See section in chapter 1 on focus group data. 

Page 22 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

To the extent that group participants expressed negative assessments of 

women’s capabilities, they tended to focus on differing physical strength 

or physical fitness capabilities perceived before or during the deployment. 

In one focus group, concern was expressed about women’s inability to 

maintain physical fitness performance standards equivalent to men’s; one 

person considered gender-normed standards as ineffective and noted that 

women appeared to often escape scheduled fitness training exercises. 

Further, 16 groups reported at least once that men felt they had to work 

harder because of women’s physical strength limitations. 

Negative assessments were more likely to come from men than women. 

Men were more likely to report that they had to work harder because of 

women’s strength limitations (15 percent of women’s groups and 

37 percent of men’s) and that women’s strength limitations both hindered 

the mission on at least one occasion (7 percent of women’s groups and 

28 percent of men’s). 

Other Discussions of women’s roles and performance often raised issues of 

Performance-Related favoritism and task avoidance, protection, and awards. 

Issues 

Favoritism and Task 

Avoidance 

There was some perception that women received special treatment from 

supervisors but few groups stated that women benefltted from command 

or supervisory favoritism with regard to the assignment of tasks. Figure 

2.4 summarizes group comments on these topics. Of the 40 groups 

discussing favoritism, 21 were men’s groups and 19 were women’s, Of the 

26 groups discussing task avoidance, 20 were men’s groups and 6 were 

wornen’s. 

Page 23 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

k,’ 

i 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

Figure 2.4: Group Discussion Comments on Favorltism and Task Avoidance 

24 

22 

20 

18 

16 

14 

12 

10 

8 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Number of groups 

Women Men Women Men 

Commander Other officer 

favoritism in favoritism in 

assignments assignments 

for women for women 

Women Men Women Men 

NC0 favoritism Supervisors 

in assignments gave women 

for women special 

treatment 

Women Men Women Men Women Men 

Other Women Women tried to 

unspecified avoided some avoid doing 

command tasks more certain things 

favoritism than men 

toward women 

1 ] Made opposite comment 

Made comment 

Note: See explanatory note in chapter 1 on focus group data. 

Successfully avoiding tasks can imply that someone benefitted from 

preferential consideration. Men were more likely to say women avoided 

doing some tasks (41 percent of men’s groups and 11 percent of women’s). 

However, men were also more likely to say women did not try to avoid 

doing some tasks (34 percent of men’s groups and 11 percent of women’s). 

Protection of Women At least 1 participant in each of 22 groups, 13 of which were men’s groups 

(representing 41 percent of all men’s groups) expressed the belief that 

men felt a need to protect women. However, there was little elaboration, 

other than hostile fire and men, of what women needed protection from. 

Page 24 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

Figure 2.5 summarizes the comments from group participants on 

protection. Of the 41 groups discussing protection, 26 were men’s groups 

and 15 were women’s. 

Figure 2.5: Group Discussion 

Comments on Protection of Women Number of groups 

6 

4 

2 

0 

Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men 

Men feel a need Women need Women need Women need Need to protect 

to protect protection from protection from protection from women takes 

women hostile fire men outside of men in own unit one’s mind off 

unit work 

I Made opposite comment 

Made comment 

Note: See explanatory note in chapter 1 on focus group data. 

No Gender Preference in 

Awards 

There was little perception that gender-based differences existed with 

regard to recognition for group participants’ efforts during the 

deployment. Fifty-nine percent of both the women’s and men’s groups, or 

a total of 35, reported at least 1 participant who received some kind of 

award for service in Operations Desert Shield and/or Desert Storm. 

Forty-four percent, or 12 of the women’s groups and 50 percent, or 16 of 

the men’s groups reported that there was no difference in the kind of 

recognition men and women received. Only 19 percent, or 6 of the men’s 

groups, and 22 percent, or 6 of the women’s groups reported that men and 

Page 25 GAO/MGAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

women were treated differently when it came to recognition for their 

efforts. 

Operations Issues 

Surfaced From 

Implementation of 

Combat Restrictions 

The women and men we talked with described some operations issues 

that arose in some of the units when the combat restrictions were applied 

during deployment. 

Question of Applicability Some group participants described occasions during the deployment when 

insufficient clarity over application of the combat restrictions may have 

affected unit operations or assignments as the units engaged in the 

activities and logistical moves necessary to fulfill their mission. Some of 

those occasions may have impeded the most effective assignment and, 

hence, the most effective and efficient utilization of human resources 

during a hostile deployment. For example, the following situations were 

described to us during our site visits: 

Women in one ground maintenance unit were not allowed to be assigned 

near or with ground combat units to conduct repairs because of possible 

exposure to hostile fire. Nevertheless, people in that unit said they saw 

women from other units who had to work “forward” being assigned 

“forward.” Since the women were trained just like the men, they did not 

understand the imposition of such restrictions. 

Members of a unit reported that women were not allowed to perform a 

specified type of mission prior to the opening of hostilities because of the 

unit’s understanding of the combat restrictions during the Persian Gulf 

deployment, in particular, because the mission would place women within 

10 to 15 miles of the northern border of Saudi Arabia. Women in the unit 

were trained for the mission and had performed that mission in another 

hostile condition/location. Nevertheless, that same unit allowed women to 

go into Iraq when the war started. One person noted that some people 

were not sure what the restriction rules were and the unit’s changing, and 

seemingly contradictory, policies seemed to highlight that uncertainty. 

There was reported concern within a service that defining combat flying 

time to include aircraft crewed by women could result in the violation of 

the combat assignment restrictions. This generated differences in some 

units’ definitions of what constituted combat flight time as well as some 

Page 26 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

y *’ 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

confusion in efforts to clarify what the service ultimately settled on as the 

definition of combat flight during and after the air and ground wars. 

In one group, men reported different policies among their separate 

subunits with regard to the forward stationing of women. One reported 

that although several women volunteered to help set up a forward camp 

(closer than their existing location of about 30 kilometers from the border) 

and could have contributed meaningfully, the commander would not let 

women help with that effort. Another, however, reported that, as a 

hospital unit, it was the most forward unit on the battlefield and it 

contained women. A third reported being ahead of combat military police 

units very close to the Iraq border with no protection, yet women were not 

restricted from that unit. 

One woman in a unit reported not being allowed to move to a forward 

base because it was considered too far forward for a woman to be 

situated; she was surprised to learn she could not go there because she 

was a woman. 

Confusion about application of the combat restrictions generated rumors 

in three units. According to the rumors, women were either to be moved to 

the rear when war started or to be removed from the unit so it could move 

into the combat zone. As some commanders in sone unit noted, such 

rumors can hurt morale. 

Restrictions Raised Some 

Ground Deployment 

Logistics Issues 

Some logistics issues arose during the deployment with regard to field 

sanitation and/or housing conditions when women were assigned to 

supporteams detailed to ah-male units. Those support teams usually 

remained with the all-male units for more than 1 day, often for several 

days at a time. Two units in two different services, which sent out support 

teams to all-male combat units, told us that women either could not be or 

often were not assigned to those teams. Sometimes it was because the 

receiving unit could not accommodate women, and sometimes the 

receiving unit did not want women assigned to those support teams. We 

were told that in one case a less experienced man was sent on a support 

team in place of a woman, and in another case, men who were not 

specifically trained for the job were sent. We were told that at least one 

receiving unit chose to go without support rather than have women 

assigned. We were told, nevertheless, that when the need for support was 

great, as in the heat of battle, need overcame gender considerations. 

Page 27 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the MiIitary 
Chapter 2 

Women Were an Integral Part of Military 

Service Operations 

Another logistics issue was the assignment of personnel to teams guarding 

an encampment’s perimeter. Because military police were not always 

available at every encampment (especially during the early months of the 

deployment), unit members were often assigned to guard the perimeter in 

teams. Commanders and group participants in some units expressed a 

reluctance to have women assigned to perimeter guard duty teams. 

Page 28 GAOiNSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

1 

> 

‘i 

.i 
Chapter 3 

Women and Men Sustained Similar 

Deployment Conditions 

The debate about expanding opportunities for women often addresses 

their ability to endure harsh encampment conditions. Some critics argue 

that women are less able to successfuhy endure a lengthy hostile 

deployment because women (1) need or prefer to be more meticulous than 

men about personal hygiene, (2) more readily run the risk of health 

complications resulting from harsh deployment conditions, and (3) are 

less able to endure the lack of privacy associated with encampment. 

The women and men in the mixed-gender units we visited endured the 

same physical conditions of the deployment. Specifically, we learned from 

our interviews and group discussions that (1) women and men endured 

similar encampment housing and hygiene facilities and conditions and 

those conditions were generally austere and often harsh; (2) both women 

and men preferred more privacy than was available and made adjustments 

to accommodate those desires when possible; (3) women’s health and 

hygiene issues were inconsequential; and (4) although women and men 

considered the wartime stress to be significant, it was not considered to be 

a gender-based problem. However, a mixed-gender deployment did require 

more advance logistical planning for gender-related supplies than was 

initially evident. 

Women and Men 

Endured Similar 

Encampment 

Facilities and 

Conditions 

The women and men in each of the 10 units we visited endured similar 

encampment facilities and conditions during the Gulf deployment; those 

facilities generally differed, however, by service, unit, stage of deployment, 

and/or encampment location. Whether facilities were separate or shared 

by both women and men, generally was a matter of availability. Because 

personnel on the Navy ships we visited remained on ship during the 

deployment, as they would during a peacetime deployment, they did not 

experience a change in their housing, shower, and latrine conditions. This 

was not true for Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps personnel. 

Housing Conditions During their deployment to the Persian Gulf, the women and men that we 

talked with in the Air Force, Army, and Marine Corps were generally 

assigned to ground encampments. Housing facilities at ground 

encampments generally varied by service, location, and phase of the 

deployment. 

The Air Force usually established permanent encampments where 

facilities and living conditions could be continually embellished over time. 

Women and men in the Army and the Marine Corps units, on the other 

Page 29 GAOMXAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 3 

Women and Men Swtained Siiar 

Deployment Conditions 

hand, often described moving encampments during the deployment and 

endured more austere encampment housing conditions that varied from 

location to location, Before moving to or establishing a unit’s main 

encampment, some described spending 10 days or a couple of weeks in 

gymnasiums or barracks where several hundred people slept on cots that 

were so close together that people had to climb over them to move about. 

As time passed, encampment supplies arrived, and “tent cities” were 

established, most enlisted women and men were assigned to tents that 

were designed for 10 or 12 people but in some cases held as many as 16 or 

17 people. Officers were more likely to be assigned to smaller tents. 

Overcrowding in tents was often cited as a problem. For example, we were 

told that in 1 unit 15 people sometimes slept in a tent designed for 6 to 8 

people. We were told that the tents in that unit were so crowded people 

had to slide off the end of their cots in order to get up. 

Air Force tents were generally air-conditioned, unlike Army and Marine 

Corps tents. Within the tents, Army and Marine Corps personnel slept on 

cots, while some Air Force personnel had beds with mattresses, sheets, 

and pillows, Some tents had cement or wooden floors, while others did 

not. Since Air Force encampments tended to be permanent, personnel 

were more likely to be able to improve upon their housing conditions with 

small items such as wooden furniture (e.g., bookcases) made through a 

self-help center at the encampment. Women and men stationed at ground 

encampments often noted the pervasiveness and invasiveness of the 

desert sand. Women and men in the Air Force and the Army reported 

sharing housing for part or all of the deployment. 

Some women and men were stationed at locations where permanent 

buildings were available for housing troops, and a few were assigned 

housing in trailers. On the other hand, some men and women reported 

having no housing during part or all of the deployment and sleeping on the 

ground or in trucks or other unit vehicles. These conditions generally 

occurred among units moving into Iraq or Kuwait during the ground war. 

Table 3.1 provides an overview of housing experiences described by the 

47 groups we talked to in the Army, the Air Force, and the Marine Corps 

(see explanatory note in ch. 1 on focus group data). 

Page 30 

. . 

GAON3IAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 3 

Women and Men Sustained Simii 

Deployment Conditions 

Table 3.1: Housing Facilities and 

Conditions Described by the 47 Army, 

Air Force, and Marine Corps 

Discussion Groups 

Percentage of 

Percentage of Percentage of women’s 

Housing condition 47 groups Men’s groups groups 

No housing for part or all of 

deployment 30 35 24 

Tent for part or all of deployment 91 92 90 

Semipermanent structure for part or 

all of deolovment 43 42 43 

Permanent structure for part or all 

of deployment 30 38 19 

Other type for part or all of 

deployment 

Number of types of housing lived 

in 

4 4 5 

One type 19 19 19 

Two types 32 19 48 

Three types 28 38 14 

Four types 

Women and men shared housing at 

least part of deployment 

13 15 9 

55 58 52 

Sharina was temoorarv 28 31 24 

Sharing was not temporary 30 35 24 

Sharing caused problems 25 27 24 

Sharina did not cause problems 30 27 33 

Women and men did not share 

housing during the deployment 62 

Note: There was no recorded information for 4 of the 47 groups. 

69 52 

Shower and Latrine 

Facilities 

Shower and latrine facilities varied considerably; however, women and 

men within the same unit had the same or similar facilities. Sometimes 

they shared showers or latrines by having separate hours designated for 

women and men. Often the smaller number of women in a unit meant 

women had access to shared showers for about 2 hours or less during a 

24-hour period. Of the 47 Army, Air Force, and Marine Corps groups we 

talked to, 38 percent (or IS), included 1 or more people who shared 

showers by having different hours for use, and 30 percent (or 14), included 

1 or more people for whom there were no separate latrines for women and 

men. 

Psge 31 GAOiNSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 3 

Women and Men Sustained Similar 

Deployment Conditions 

Some units, particularly ground units that moved into Iraq or Kuwait, had 

neither shower nor latrine facilities at times during the deployment. 

Twelve groups included 1 or more people who reported having no shower 

facilities for part of the deployment, and 9 groups with 1 or more people 

reported having no latrines for part of the deployment. 

The Navy had separate shower and latrine facilities for enlisted women 

and men in berthing compartments on the ship. The officers generally had 

separate facilities as well. 

Where facilities were available, some of the facilities and/or conditions 

that women and men described include the following: 

l In a ground unit, showers consisted of a wooden stall with a big pot of 

unheated water on top; the water remained unheated during the winter 

season. 

. In a ground unit, latrines sometimes consisted of portojohns with metal 

drums that had to be emptied periodically; human waste collected in the 

drums had to be burned by military personnel during times when local 

contractors were unavailable. 

. In one unit, latrines consisted of a wooden shed that was only partly 

screened to enable ventilation and compromised men’s and women’s 

privacy. 

l In one unit, a latrine consisted of a “4-holer,” or 4 holes carved in wood; 

each hole was positioned over a barrel that was emptied periodically, and 

people were visible through window screening from the waist up. 

Sharing shower and latrine facilities caused some problems. For example, 

women in one unit told us that their designated shower hours were very 

limited. There were only two showers, and they had to be shared by men 

and women. The 17 women in the unit worked noon to midnight shifts and 

were allowed to shower only between midnight and 1 a.m. Some of the 

women said the men waiting to take a shower begrudged the women 

access to the showers. Eventually, separate shower facilities became 

available. Some men reported that, while sharing latrines, women and men 

did not always respect the sign on the door that noted which gender was 

using the facilities. 

Mixed Perception of Perceptions that women did or did not receive special consideration with 

Special Treatment for 

Women 

regard to housing, shower, and latrine facilities were about equally 

divided. Eighteen (10 women’s groups and 8 men’s) or 30 percent of the 59 

Page 32 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 3 

Women and Men Sustained Similar 

Deployment Conditions 

groups we talked to reported perceptions that women did not receive 

special consideration, while 17 (5 women’s and 12 men’s), or 29 percent 

reported perceptions that women did receive some special treatment. 

Privacy Was Important to 

Both Women and Men 

Both women and men expressed concerns about a lack of privacy during 

the deployment and to the extent possible, found ways to adapt to 

conditions and accommodate their need or preference for privacy. The 

most frequently raised privacy issue was privacy in showers and latrines, 

and women were more likely to raise this issue than men. Eighteen, or 

56 percent of the 32 groups discussing privacy issues, mentioned this as a 

problem; of the 32 groups, 72 percent of the women’s groups (13) reported 

that this was a problem; 36 percent (5) of the men’s groups reported this 

opinion. 

One example of the lack of privacy women described related to 

gender-separate but collocated shower facilities; for example, a woman in 

one unit said (1) upper bodies were exposed when reaching up to turn on 

the water and (2) tall men were able to look over into the shower stalls. 

Women in another group cited “Peeping Tom” problems while they were in 

the showers. Nevertheless, 12 groups (37 percent of the 32 groups) 

reported comments that there were no privacy problems associated with 

showers and latrines. 

The only other topic mentioned with any notable frequency was a lack of 

general privacy as opposed to personal privacy. Twelve groups (8 women’s 

groups and 4 men’s), or 37 percent of the 32 groups, reported comments 

that a lack of general privacy was a problem; only 1 group reported the 

opposite opinion. 

Privacy for personal care was seldom voiced as a problem or concern. A 

direct link between privacy and gender was seldom made and occurred in 

a positive context. Only five groups included reports of a lack of privacy 

for personal care, while one reported the opposite opinion. And only four 

groups associated privacy with gender, reporting that men and women 

handled a lack of privacy equally well. 

Both women and men adapted their surroundings or behavior to 

accommodate their need or preference for privacy. The relatively small 

concern about personal privacy may be a reflection of the extent to which 

people adapted their housing conditions when possible. For example, both 

women and men, whether they lived in shared housing or single-gender 

Page 33 GAO/N&ID-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 3 

Women and Men Sustained Similar 

Deployment Conditions 

housing units, constructed “walls” in their tents by hanging sheets or 

blankets, used shelving units or other furniture where available, and even 

constructed wooden partitions to define boundaries between cots or beds. 

One person wore headphones even when music was not playing to provide 

some sense of privacy, and some women used ponchos to provide privacy 

when relieving themselves in the open desert. 

Women’s Health and 

Hygiene Issues Were 

Inconsequential 

Questions about women’s ability to effectively contribute to a lengthy 

hostile deployment often address health and hygiene issues. Women and 

men in the 10 units we visited reported the existence of many kinds of 

health problems; few were gender related, and none were of any 

consequence. Forces group participants told us that health and hygiene 

issues were generally as much a concern to men as to women. 

Few Health Problems 

Mentioned Were Gender 

Related 

The women and men we talked to described many health problems 

associated with the deployment. These health problems were generally 

associated with the desert environment or caused by virus infections, food 

contamination, and injuries. Most of the health problems mentioned 

include the following: dehydration and other problems caused by heat, 

gastrointestinal problems including diarrhea/dysentery, athlete’s foot and 

other fungus infections, insect bites, hernias, crabs, depression, jock itch, 

urinary tract infections, yeast infections, migraine headaches, and sore 

muscles. The only problem mentioned as occurring with any magnitude 

was an outbreak of diarrhea described by one group. 

Jock itch and yeast infections were the only gender-associated health 

problems that were mentioned; we were told these problems were 

generally infrequent and had no impact on mission accomplishment. Only 

three groups included reports that yeast infections were a common 

occurrence among women. 

According to the women and the men we interviewed, female 

menstruation generally did not seem to affect women’s ability to perform 

their duties. Some women told us that they did not have menstrual flows 

for several months or during the entire deployment, whereas others said 

they had irregular menstrual flows. Some women took birth control pills 

to regulate their menstrual cycles. 

Page 34 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 3 

Women and Men Sustained Similar 

Deploymeat Conditione 

No Clear Perception That Opinion was divided on whether women experienced more health or 

Women Experienced More hygiene problems than men during the deployment. Of the 51 groups 

Problems discussing health issues, 20 (39 percent) reported perceptions that women 

experienced more health problems than men, and 19 (37 percent) reported 

perceptions that they did not. Similarly, of the 30 groups discussing 

hygiene issues, 12 (40 percent) reported perceptions that women were 

more affected by hygiene problems, and 11(37 percent) reported 

perceptions that they were not. 

Women and Men Adapted 

to Conditions to Address 

Their Hygiene Needs 

Our discussions indicate that women and men generally adapted to the 

harsh deployment conditions and were able to effectively address their 

personal hygiene needs. Women and men in units that moved into Iraq and 

Kuwait during the ground war demonstrated their adaptability in various 

situations. For example, when water usage was limited, some women and 

men sponge bathed from a basin of hot water, while others used their 

helmets as a basin for sponge bathing. In the absence of latrine facilities, 

some women relieved themselves in the desert by using their ponchos for 

privacy or by going between, behind, or underneath trucks. 

Women who were stationed in permanent encampment facilities during 

the deployment described some of the alternative ways they met their 

hygiene needs. For instance, some said they addressed their hygiene needs 

behind partitions or in secluded areas outside their housing facilities. One 

woman who shared a tent with men told us that, because there were no 

shower facilities or other women in the tent, she went into a tracked 

vehicle to give herself a sponge bath. 

Some Initial Shortages The majority of the military personnel we interviewed indicated that, 

in Women’s Hygiene 

Supplies Occurred 

overall, military supply lines adequately provided for hygiene needs, even 

though some items for women were initially in short supply. For the initial 

deployment periods, personnel were generally required to provide their 

own personal hygiene supplies. The amount of supplies taken to the Gulf 

was dependent upon the length of time military personnel were told to 

pack for, as well as limits to how much packing space each person was 

allowed. The length of time people were advised to pack supplies for 

varied from about 1 to 6 months. 

Women and men who deployed early had to rely heavily on their own 

resources because supply lines were not always fully operational upon 

their arrival. We were told that women compensated for initial shortages 

Page 36 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 3 

Women and Men Sustained Similar 

Deployment Conditions 

of feminine hygiene items by sharing among themselves, purchasing on the 

local economy, and receiving care packages. As the deployment 

progressed, women and men were able to rely on the supply lines and the 

many care packages from relatives, friends, and other donors in the United 

States. Military personnel told us that, by the end of the deployment, there 

was an overabundance of hygiene supplies in the Gulf theater. Reportedly, 

hygiene supplies that could not be mailed home were destroyed. 

Little Difference, if The women and men in the focus groups described many sources of stress 

Any, in Ability to Cope during the deployment, but few groups stated that any cause of stress was 

worse for either women or men, or that either women or men were better 

With Wartime Stress able to deal with the stress they experienced. Stress during the 

deployment was generally attributed to such factors as (1) the uncertainty 

of war, (2) SCUD missile alerts, (3) being away from families and friends, 

(4) the austerity of the physical environment, (5) the absence of mail, 

(6) rumors of various kinds, (7) military family policy, and (8) the 

uncertainty of when personnel would return to their home stations. 

While many groups may have identified a particular source of stress, there 

was consistently very little identification of it with either men or women in 

any context. For example, the stress and/or uncertainty of war was 

mentioned most often by group participants as a source of stress during 

the deployment. Only one group reported an opinion that war-related 

stress was not significant. However, only five groups (four of them men’s) 

reported that war-related stress was worse for women, while only three 

(all women’s groups) reported that such stress was worse for men. 

Further, only three groups (two of them women’s) reported opinions that 

women coped better with war stress, while four (all men’s) reported that 

men coped better. Both of these views are overshadowed by the 15 groups 

(12 men’s and 3 women’s groups) that reported that there was no 

difference between men and women in how well either coped with war 

stress. 

The analysis of the discussion of other sources of stress produces similar 

results, except that only on the item of general war-related stress do so 

large a number of groups discuss the lack of difference in men’s and 

women’s ability to cope. These results coincide with the frequent 

references group participants made to individual capabilities rather than 

gender as the determinant of how well anyone coped with the stresses of 

the deployment. 

Page 36 GAOINSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

; v 
Chapter 3 

Women and Men Sustained Similar 

Deployment Conditions 

One distinction was made with regard to gender. Some group participants 

thought that in some respects women had to cope with some sources of 

stress that did not affect men, in part because the Saudi Arabian culture 

restricted women in ways that men were not restricted. Women appeared 

to receive more scrutiny and perhaps harsher repercussions with respect 

to off-duty socializing, and the media focused attention on the women who 

deployed to the Gulf. 

Page 37 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 4 

Gender Homogeneity Was Not a Prerequisite 

for Unit Cohesion 

In discussions about women’s roles in the military services, some analysts 

have expressed concern that mixed-gender units may not be able to 

achieve the cohesiveness or camaraderie of all-male units. These analysts 

argue that the presence of women may interfere with a bonding process 

characteristic of all-male units and necessary for successfully 

accomplishing wartime tasks and missions, especially direct offensive 

combat. 

The military personnel we talked to in 10 mixed-gender units generally 

reported that unit cohesion was important to their mission, particularly at 

the smaller unit level. They also reported that cohesion in their 

mixed-gender units was effective during their deployment in Operations 

Desert Shield and Desert Storm and was often better (than it was at their 

home station). 

The people we met with did not identify gender as a component or 

determinant of cohesion and generally considered bonding in mixed units 

to be as good as, and sometimes better, than in single-gender units. Some, 

however, expressed a preference for all-male units. 

The creation of new operating units in the deployed zone with personnel 

from different home-unit locations was a more noticeable cause of 

cohesion problems than mixing genders. Discipline problems during the 

deployment were considered to be infrequent, and women were more 

likely to be seen as having a positive or neutral effect on interpersonal 

friction than a negative one. Few instances of sexual harassment incidents 

during the deployment were described. Service policies regarding personal 

interaction between women and men, and related rumors, sometimes 

impaired off-duty bonding. 

Cohesion Was 

Important and 

Effective 

Cohesion can be described as “the bonding of the members of a unit in 

such a way as to sustain their will and commitment to each other, the 

organization, and the mission.“’ To the military personnel we met, unit 

cohesion generally meant “teamwork” and/or “working together.” 

Eighty-two percent of the 28 groups commenting on what cohesion meant 

to them, included 1 or both of those responses. In other words, cohesion 

was associated with how well people interacted and supported each other 

in accomplishing their common and more immediate missions. 

‘William Darryl Henderson, Cohesion-The Human Element In Combat (National Defense University 

Press, 1985), p. 9. 

Page 33 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 4 

Gender Homogeneity Was Not a Prerequisite 

for Unit Cohesion 

Unit Cohesion Was 

Important to the Wartime 

Mission 

The military personnel we talked with generally believed that successful 

completion of their mission depended on good unit cohesion. Their 

descriptions of the need for cohesion were primarily: important, very 

important, critical, and/or necessary. Of 26 groups commenting on the 

significance of unit cohesion, 25 (96 percent) gave 1 or more of those 

responses. Only one group reported an opinion that cohesion was not 

required because military personnel are directed to take orders and so 

would be expected to fulfii their responsibilities even without cohesion. 

During the deployment, the organizational level at which cohesion was 

considered most important was predominantly the smaller unit: the team, 

the platoon, the shop, the company, the section within a company, the 

squadron, and the department. People identified with these units because 

they interacted with the people in them on a daily basis to accomplish 

their commonly shared tasks and responsibilities. Forty-one of the 42 

groups identifying a unit or entity named 1 or more of these smaller units. 

Twenty groups referred to a larger or umbrella unit they were part of (the 

ship, the wing, or all enlistees) as needing effective unit cohesion. In the 

groups commenting, however, nearly 3 times as many separate references 

were made to smaller units than to larger ones. Also, 10 groups referred to 

the people they lived with in the encampments as a focus for cohesion. 

Cohesion Was Effective in 

Mixed-Gender Units 

The men and women we met with generally believed that unit cohesion 

during the deployment was very good. Many considered it better during 

the deployment than at their home station. Group participants generally 

characterized their cohesion by how well people worked together or got 

along while deployed, with some characterizing their bond with coworkers 

in terms of family ties. Table 4.1 shows the nature of the remarks made in 

the 49 groups that discussed the quality of cohesion during their 

deployment (see explanatory note in ch. 1 on focus group data). 

Page 39 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 4 

Gender Homogeneity Was Not a Prerequisite 

for Unit Cohesion 

Table 4.1: Comments by 49 Groups 

That Discussed the Quality of 

Cohesion During the Deployment 

Basic comment 

Cohesion was good and/or better during the 

deployment 

Number of Percentage of 

groups making groups discussing 

comment topic 

42 86 

Cohesion was better during the 

deployment 

Quality of cohesion described in terms of 

family 

22 45 

11 22 

Cohesion was poor or lacking during the 

deolovment 10 20 

Gender Was Not a Factor 

in the Definition of 

Cohesion 

When defining cohesion, gender was generally not cited as a contributing 

or determining factor for achieving good unit cohesion. When asked to 

comment on whether mixed-gender units could bond as effectively as 

single-gender units, most group participants commenting said that bonding 

could be as effective and was sometimes better in a mixed-gender unit. In 

42 (79 percent) of the 53 groups commenting on the impact of gender on 

cohesion, at least 1 person said mixed-gender units bonded well or better 

than single-gender units, and/or that women did not negatively affect unit 

cohesion or bonding. The following represent the general themes of 

responses in discussions of the impact of gender on cohesion: 

l The theory that only men can bond is misleading. Individuals who 

experience a crisis bond because of the crisis-not because they are 

women or men. 

. It did not matter whether you were a woman or a man, per se, but whether 

the individual wanted to adapt and be versatile and flexible enough to 

adapt to their working environment. Cohesion is based on individual effort 

and not gender. 

l Gender is not what affects the cohesiveness of a unit. The important 

factors are individual capabilities, personalities, training, and overall skill 

levels. 

In contrast, six groups included at least one comment that women had a 

negative impact on maIe or unit bonding. And in 12 groups, at least 1 

person expressed a preference for male bonding or for all-male units. One 

person in these groups thought bonding was better in a single-gender unit 

whether the unit was all male or all female. 

Page 40 

‘. 

GAOINSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

P 2‘” 
Chapter 4 

Gender Homogeneity Was Not a Prerequisite 

for Unit Cohesion 

What follows are some of the benefits given for preferring all-male units: 

(1) Bonding in an all-male unit was tighter than in mixed units; (2) women 

interfered with male bonding; and/or (3) single-gender units, whether male 

or female, would be more cohesive than mixed units. Some also expressed 

concerns about the impact of women and/or pregnancy on cohesion in 

previously all-male units (such as fighter aircraft squadrons). Also, some 

respondents’ commanders thought that a male unit was easier to motivate. 

However, such concerns were not associated with negative effects on 

mission accomplishment. 

Unit Integrity Was 

Important for Cohesion 

When discussing what they thought constituted unit cohesion, the women 

and men we talked to often cited the lack of prior experience with 

coworkers as interfering with unit cohesion. While some units deployed in 

their entirety, other units deployed only a portion of their personnel. Some 

Persian Gulf units, therefore, were created by combining portions of the 

same functional unit from several different home stations. 

Generally, the people we interviewed who worked in newly created units 

in the Persian Gulf said those units were not cohesive because of 

differences in training and mission approach. As one person explained, for 

a unit to have cohesion, its members must train and work together. 

Little Evidence of 

Impediments to 

Cohesion 

To help assess unit cohesion, we asked group participants if they 

experienced friction with coworkers during the deployment. All but 7 of 

the 52 groups discussed friction in some respect. When friction occurred, 

more people perceived that it was between men and women (42 percent of 

groups reported at least one such opinion) than between only men 

(17 percent of the groups) or only women (17 percent of the groups). 

Nevertheless, the majority of those groups commenting on the impact of 

women on friction said women reduced or had no negative impact on 

friction among troops. Twenty-six (50 percent) of the 52 groups 

commenting on friction did so in terms of the impact of women. 

Twenty-one (81 percent) of the 26 groups reported that women either 

reduced friction (16 groups) or had no negative effects on friction (6 

groups), while only 19 percent (5 groups) reported that the presence of 

women contributed to interpersonal friction.2 

?3ome groups included more than one kind of comment. 

Page 41 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

; 

* v. 
Chapter 4 

Gender Homogeneity Was Not a Prerequisite 

for Unit Cohesion 

Of the 21 groups reporting that the presence of women reduced friction 

and/or had no negative impact, 14 (67 percent) reported only positive 

opinions. In contrast, only one of the five groups reporting negative 

opinions reported lOO-percent negative comments on the impact of 

women. 

Fifty-three percent of the men’s groups (17) commented on friction in 

terms of the impact of women, while only 33 percent (9) of the women’s 

groups did. Also, of the 26 groups, 88 percent of the men’s groups and 

67 percent of the women’s reported that the impact of women was either 

positive or neutral. Of the five groups reporting negative assessments, 

80 percent (4) were men’s groups. 

Few Discipline Problems 

Emerged During the 

Deployment 

We also inquired about the occurrence of discipline problems during the 

deployment to help assess cohesion in the units we visited. According to 

the women and men we interviewed, the frequency of discipline 

problems-including physical fights and other manifestations of 

interpersonal tensions and friction-was low and did not interfere with 

unit cohesion or mission accomplishment. 

Military personnel believed that the low incidence of discipline problems, 

especially in units stationed in Saudi Arabia, was probably due to 

(1) limited free time, (2) the absence of alcohol in Saudi Arabia, and 

(3) travel restrictions that often restricted going into town during off-duty 

hours. Personnel deployed to locations outside of Saudi Arabia, such as 

Turkey, generally had fewer off-duty travel restrictions and had access to 

alcohol. 

Some of the kinds of discipline problems that did occur, according to the 

women and men we talked with, included instances of women and men 

falling asleep while on guard duty, attitude problems associated with the 

stress of a wartime environment, theft, unauthorized access to alcohol or 

drunken behavior, and unauthorized social/sexual relations between men 

and women. 

Few Instances of Sexual 

Harassment or Assault 

Were Described 

The women and men we interviewed also reported a few sexual 

harassment incidents during the deployment. Group participants 

described what they thought constituted sexual harassment primarily as 

(1) offensive language, (2) offensive physical contact, and/or (3) whatever 

a woman thinks it is (anything that offends). Nine groups, eight of them 

Page 42 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

I( 

L* 

, 

,, 
Chapter 4 

Gender Homogeneity Was Not a Prerequisite 

for Unit Cohesion 

men, noted at least once that men can be harassed by women. There was 

little further consistency in definitions provided by group participants. 

Figure 4.1 shows the distribution of comments on what group participants 

believed constituted sexual harassment. 

Figure 4.1: Group Discussion 

Comments on the Definition of Sexual 

Harassment 

Number of groups 

22 

20 

16 

16 

14 

12 

10 

6 

6 

4 

2 

0 

u Women 

Men 

Note: Some items under “other” include (1) gestures, (2) overstepping relationships, (3) anything 

that interferes with work, (4) “normal” interaction between men and women, and (5) anytime an 

individual is treated differently because of gender (see explanatory note in ch. 1 on focus group 

data). 

Verbal harassment was cited most often among the groups that identified 

specific instances of harassment that they perceived to occur during the 

Page 43 

1 

I” 

GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 4 

Gender Homogeneity Was Not a Prerequisite 

for Unit Cohesion 

deployment. Few cases of physical assault were mentioned. Rape cases 

were mentioned in three groups. Two different sites from the 10 visited are 

represented by the 3 groups; 2 groups were from the same site visit. 

Because two of the groups were from the same unit, the references may 

have been to the same instance of rape. One group in each of two 

additional units cited one case of a man trying to force his attentions on a 

woman during guard duty. Two groups from the same unit reported some 

pursuit of a woman for sex. 

Figure 4.2 provides an overview of group participants’ perceptions of the 

actual occurrence of instances of sexual harassment or assault during the 

deployment. 

Page 44 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 4 

Gender Homogeneity Was Not a Prerequisite 

for Unit Cohesion 

Figure 4.2: Group Participant 

Perceptions of the Occurrence of 

Sexual Harassment in or Outside of 

Own Unit 

Numbr ol group8 

18 

16 

6 

4 

Note: See explanatory note in chapter 1 on focus group data. 

7 Off-Duty Bonding Was 

Sometimes Impaired 

intimacy that many reported as impairing offduty bonding. Fifty-eight 

percent (34) of all groups reported a unit policy toward social/sexual 

intimacy within the unit. Nineteen groups reported formal policies, 13 

reported informal policies, and 19 groups mentioned penalties associated 

with violating these policies. The existence of policies was reported in 

each of the four services, and at least half of the groups in each service 

identified such policies. About one-third of the groups (11) identified the 

existence of formal and/or informal policies and attributed the policy to 

command discretion. 

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Militaq 

,. 
Chapter 4 

Gender Homogeneity Was Not a Prerequisite 

for Unit Cohesion 

In one unit, for example, the commander (1) insisted that all encampment 

and recreation facilities be separated by gender, (2) distributed a list of 

deployed women’s names and told the men not to socialize with the 

women during off-duty hours, and (3) prohibited sexual relationships 

during the deployment. Unit personnel told us that the commander was 

concerned that the mission would suffer if individuals became personally 

involved and worried too much about each other and their privacy. They 

added, however, that such policies seemed extreme and hurt morale. In 

another unit that implemented a mandatory buddy system, personnel 

believed a sign-out list was used to monitor fraternization. 

Rumors Impaired Off-Duty Despite service policies to segregate women and men, rumors about social 

Bonding relationships developed and affected personal friendships and off-duty 

recreation choices. Twenty-eight groups mentioned rumors and/or social 

isolation during the deployment. Twenty-six groups discussed rumors and 

19 (73 percent) reported that rumors about men and women were a 

problem. Only six groups reported that there were no rumors or social 

isolation problems. The theme of what group participants told us was that 

if men and women were seen together for almost any reason while 

off-duty, it was assumed and rumored that the individuals were socially 

and/or sexually intimate. 

Many men and women told us the attention paid to interaction between 

men and women because of unit policies and rumors made them feel 

constrained during their off-duty time, adding to the tension and stress 

generally associated with the deployment. Some group participants 

explained that rumors discouraged friendships and recreational activities 

between men and women. Some examples of what group participants told 

us include: 

l A woman officer said she was counseled on several occasions about 

socializing with men in her unit. 

l Another woman was similarly counseled for spending too much time with 

men, despite the fact that there were no other women in the unit; 

subsequently, she was transferred to another location on base until rumors 

dissipated. 

. An enlisted man told us that his friendship with a woman resulted in a 

lecture to all of the men in the unit on the abstinence rule during 

deployment. 

l In one encampment, all the women in a tent were rumored to be working 

as prostitutes during the deployment. 

Page 46 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 5 

Unavailability for Deployment 

Military readiness depends in part on the availability of military personnel 

for deployment. Discussions about opening more positions for women in 

the military services often raise concerns about whether women are 

readily available for deployment, particularly given the constraints created 

by pregnancy. 

A variety of reasons were cited for why women and men did not deploy 

with their units for Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm and why 

they returned home early. We also learned from our site visits that 

although people readily identified pregnancy as a reason for not deploying, 

few recalled specific instances within their immediate unit or outside of it. 

Group participants also identified very few causes of personnel returning 

early or not deploying for reasons other than pregnancy. 

Some of the units we visited deployed in their entirety, and some deployed 

only portions of their personnel. The inability of military personnel to 

deploy had greater visibility and potential impact in those units that 

deployed in their entirety. 

Causes for The women and men we talked with cited a broad array of causes that 

Unavailability and prevented some people from deploying with their unit or resulted in 

others’ returning early to the unit’s home station in Europe or the United 

Early Returns Varied States. Participants talked about strong personal commitment to the 

military mission on one hand and to personal interest on the other, of 

self-inflicted wounds to stay home, of people hiding conditions so they 

could deploy with their unit, of a woman who purportedly got pregnant to 

stay home, and of another who purportedly ended a pregnancy so she 

could deploy. 

Among the 53 groups discussing this issue, the following reasons for 

personnel’s not deploying were given: medical/psychological conditions, 

injuries (real or fake, including self-inflicted gunshot wounds), family 

hardships, inadequate dependent child care plans, religious beliefs, solesurvivor situations, conscientious objection, single parenthood, and 

pregnancy (including the pregnancy of spouse). People returned early, 

either before hostilities ended or before their unit returned, for similar 

reasons according to the 52 groups that discussed the early return of 

personnel. 

Page 47 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 6 

Unavailability for Deployment 

Pregnancy Cited Often but Pregnancy was cited most often among the main reasons that people did 

Usually Few Cases not deploy or had to return early. Table 5.1 shows how often the major 

Identified categories of reasons were mentioned (see explanatory note in ch. 1 on 

focus group data). 

Table 5.1: Frequency With Which 

Groups Cited Reasons for Personnel 

Not Deploying and Returning Early 

Reason 

Pregnancy of woman 

Did not deploy Returned early 

Percentage of 53 Percentage of 

groups 52 groups 

79 a6 

Other medical condition 70 40 

Family hardship 19 35 

Deficient child care plan 28 13 

Involuntarv discharae 13 13 

Other 60 42 

High percentages of both women’s and men’s groups reported perceptions 

that pregnancy was a cause for not deploying and for returning early. Of 

the 53 groups discussing reasons for not deploying, 81 percent of the 

men’s and 77 percent of the women’s groups included at least one 

comment that identified pregnancy. Of the 62 groups discussing why 

personnel returned early, 89 percent of the men’s and 83 percent of the 

women’s groups identified pregnancy. 

The perception that pregnancy was the main cause of women’s not 

deploying was extremely common: Army-100 percent, Navy-100 

percent, Marine Corps-35 percent, and Air Force--43 percent. Likewise, 

pregnancy was identified as the primary cause for early returns 

(Army-100 percent, Navy-100 percent, Marine Corps-89 percent, and 

Air Force--69 percent). Enlisted groups identified pregnancy more often 

than other ranks. 

The comparative visibility of other reasons cited for personnel returning 

early or not deploying varied. Figures 5.1 and 5.2 show the proportion of 

groups that discussed these issues and included at least one reference to 

reasons other than pregnancy. Of note regarding people not deploying is 

the difference between the frequency with which women and men cited 

“other” reasons. Of note regarding early returns is the difference between 

the frequency of officers’, NCO'S, and enlisted personnel’s identification of 

“other” reasons. 

Page 43 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 6 

Unavailability for Deployment 

Figure 5.1: Frequency With Which Reasons Were Cited for Personnel Not Deploying 

Percent of groups In category 

100 

90 

60 

70 

60 

60 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Pregnancy 

Reasons 

II Women 

liii:lilal’i’i’l’l.::] Men 

Non-pregnancy 

medical 

Family hardship Deficient child involuntary 

care plan discharge 

Other 

~ Officer 

NC0 

Enlisted 

Note: Of these 53 groups, 22 were women’s groups and 31 were men’s; 14 were officers, 20 were 

NCOs (non-commissioned officers), and 19 were enlisted personnel (see also explanatory note in 

ch. 1 on focus group data). 

Page 49 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 5 

Unavailabiity for Deployment 

Figure 5.2: Frequency With Which Reasons Were Cited for Early Return 

Percent of groups in category 

100 

90 

60 

70 

60 

60 

40 

30 

20 

10 

0 

Pregnancy Non-pregnancy 

medical 

Family hardship Deficient child Involuntary 

care plan discharge 

n Women 

. . . . 

lpjgjg$j Men 

NC0 

Enlisted 

Note: Of these 52 groups, 24 were women’s groups and 28 were men’s, while 12 were officers, 21 

were NCOs, and 19 were enlisted personnel (see also explanatory note in ch. 1 on focus group 

data). 

Generally Few Actual 

Pregnancy Cases Were 

Identified 

Group participants generally identified few actual instances of women that 

did not deploy because of pregnancy. Twenty-nine groups provided 

numerical estimates of women they knew of that did not deploy for this 

reason: 24 groups included responses of 0, 1, and/or 2, and 6 groups 

included higher numerical estimates. Twenty-three groups provided 

qualitative responses to this question: 18 reported responses of “none,” 

Very few,” “heard about from others,” “know about personally,” and/or 

“yes.” Only five groups included apparently higher qualitative responses, 

Page 50 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 5 

Unavailability for Deployment 

and only one of these was provided in each group. These responses 

consisted of “a lot,” “about half,” or “very often.” 

The group participants cited pregnancy as the reason for early returns 

slightly more frequently. We were told that women were not always 

screened for pregnancy before being deployed. Of the 39 groups providing 

numerical estimates of the number of women that returned early because 

of pregnancy, 31 groups included a total of 67 responses of 0, 1, and/or 2, 

while only 15 groups included a total of 18 numerical responses in excess 

of 2. Of the 21 groups providing qualitative responses to this question, 19 

reported responses of “none,” “very few,” “heard about from others,” 

and/or “yes.” Only four groups included a total of five apparently higher 

estimates; those responses consisted of “some,” “a lot,” “about half,” or 

“very often.” Neither numerical estimates nor qualitative responses can be 

cumulatively summarized since participants in the same or separate 

groups from the same unit could have been, and often appeared to be, 

referring to the same cases. For example, at 1 unit 6 group participants 

appeared to agree that 2 women returned early due to pregnancy; it 

appeared from the discussion that group participants were referring to the 

same 2 people and not to 12 separate people. Instead, the data is 

illustrative and not additive; it provides a scope or range of people’s 

perception of the frequency of these cases occurred. Documentation on 

the actual number of personnel that returned early or did not deploy was 

not always available during our visit to the 10 units. As we noted in our 

August 1992 report, there was a lack of complete and comparable data on 

the total number of personnel that could not deploy for Operations Desert 

Shield and Desert Storm. 

Focus group participants cited very few actual cases of other reasons for 

women’s returning home early or not deploying. Table 5.2 presents the 

numerical estimates provided when group participants responded to this 

question. As with the pregnancy data, these numbers may present multiple 

references to the same individuals. Also, only 7 percent of all deployed 

military significant personnel were women (see the explanatory note in 

ch. 1 on focus group data.) 

Page 51 GAO/NSLAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Chapter 6 

Unavailability for Deployment 

Table 5.2: Number of Women and Men 

Identified as Who Did Not Deploy or 

Return Home Early Due to Reasons 

Other Than Pregnancy 

Reason 

Medical condition 

Did not deploy Returned early 

Women Men Women Men 

10 56 3 8 

Family hardship 2 10 3 13 

Deficient child care package 5 2 4 2 

Involuntarily discharaed 4 7 0 0 

Other 12 20 6 18 

Total 33 95 16 41 

Impact of Personnel 

Not Deploying Was 

Greater When Entire 

Unit Deployed 

Some of the units we visited deployed as a whole unit, while others 

deployed only portions of their personnel. When an entire unit deployed, 

everyone in each subunit was scheduled for deployment. Therefore, when 

personnel were unable to deploy with the unit, positions went unfilled 

unless replacements were found from outside the unit. 

Those units that deployed only a portion of their personnel had more 

people available for consideration for deployment. Therefore, the 

unavailability of a particular individual for deployment was unlikely to 

create a vacancy; rather, if one person was unavailable for whatever 

reason, another person from among unit personnel could be selected to 

deploy. Further, when only a portion of a unit was required to deploy, 

commanders were able to exercise some discretion in establishing policies 

that governed who would be considered for deployment and who would 

not. For example, in one unit command policies directed that when a 

husband and wife were both in the military and they had children, only 

one parent would be deployed. In another case, two people were available 

for assignment to a position, but only one was needed for deployment; the 

commander was able to use discretion in determining who would actually 

deploy. 

Page 62 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Appendix I 

Details on Our Methodology 

A total of 63 group discussions were held, which included 318 participants 

(see app. II for data on the demographic and military service 

characteristics of the participants). Groups ranged in size from 2 to 10 

members, with a model size of 6. 

Groups were led by a moderator and co-moderator team. Moderators who 

guided the discussions were gender-matched to group participants. 

Comoderators took detailed notes of the discussions and distributed and 

collected demographic questionnaires from all group participants. 

Although the discussions took place in informal settings and encouraged 

free expression and expansion on any relevant topic, they followed a fmed 

outline of topics. Group discussions were tape recorded whenever 

possible. 

The group discussions generally ran from 1 to l-1/2 hours in length. 

Thirty-six group discussions were successfully tape-recorded and 

transcribed. (All group discussions were tape-recorded; however, due to 

equipment failure and/or excessive background noise in the various 

physical settings in which the discussions took place, only 36 could be 

transcribed.) Partial transcripts were available for an additional two 

groups. For the remainder of groups, detailed field notes taken by the 

co-moderator were available. These transcripts and field notes make up 

the basic documentary material analyzed. 

The material from four group discussions was not used because of 

unresolvable problems in the interpretation of the raw field notes made 

while the group discussions were taking place. The focus group data was 

analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences. The bulk of 

the analyses took the form of comparison among classes of groups based 

on gender or rank. 

Page 54 GAO/NSL4D-93-93 Women in the Military 
Appendix II 

Demographic and Military Service 

Characteristics of Focus Group Participants 

Tables 11.1,11.2, and II.3 break down the focus group participants’ 

demographic and military service characteristics by gender, racial and 

ethnic background, military service, rank, marital status, age, length of 

service, and time in the Persian Gulf. 

Table 11.1: Demographic Makeup of 

Focus Group Participants Characteristic 

Gender 

Percenta Number 

Men 54 171 

Womenb 46 147 

Racial/ethnic background 

White 68 214 

Black 22 69 

Hisl)anicc 8 24 

Asian/Pacific Islander 2 8 

Native American 1 2 

Service 

Air Force 24 78 

Armv 38 122 

Marine Corps IG 51 

Naw 21 67 

Rank 

Officer 24 75 

NC0 39 123 

Enlisted 38 120 

aPercentages may not total 100 due to rounding. 

bSeventeen of these women were in the 4 groups not included in the data bank of 59 groups. 

CHispanics may be of any race. 

Table 11.2: Marital Status 

Percent 

Characteristics Male Female Total 

Not married 39 61 49 

Married 61 39 51 

Spouse in military 12 51 26 

SDouse not in militarv 88 49 74 

Spouse deployed to Gulf 31 50 44 

Spouse not deployed to Gulf 69 50 56 

Page 55 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 

“I, 

: 
Appendix II 

Demographic and Military Service 

Characteristics of Focus Group Participants 

Table 11.3: Age, Length of Service, and 

Time in Persian Gulf 

Characteristic Mean 

Standard 

deviation 

Age (in years) 

Men 

Women 

Officers 

30.1 7.3 

27.8 6.4 

32.1 6.0 

NCOs 

Enlisted personnel 

Length of service (in years) 

Men 

Women 6.7 5.1 

Officers 9.0 6.0 

32.7 6.4 

23.3 3.4 

9.8 6.7 

NCOs 12.2 6.2 

Enlisted personnel 4.1 2.6 

Time In Persian Gulf (in months) 5.1 2.0 

Page 56 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Appendix III 

Comments From the Department of Defense 

OFFICE OF ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE 

4000 DEFENSE PENTAGON 

WASHINGTON. DC 20301-4OiDO 

Mr. Frank C. Conahan 

Assistant Comptroller General 

National Security and Intelligence Division 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

Washington, D.C. 2054% 

Dear Mr. Conahan: 

This is the Department of Defense (DOD) response to the General 

Accounting Office (GAO) draft report, "OPERATION DESERT STORM: 

Lessons Learned From the Deployment Of Women In the Military." dated 

February 26, 1993 (GAO Code 391159/OSD Case 9336). 

The DOD has reviewed the draft report and concurs with its 

findings relative to the interviewed support personnel. The Department agrees that the sampling and methodology of the review prevent 

the results from being generalized to the deployed population as a 

whole; therefore, it is important to emphasize that the findings 

cannot be generalized to combatant units for the same reasons. 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to review the report 

in draft form. 

Sincerely, 

Nicolai Timenes, JY 

Principai Director 

(Military Manpower and Personnel Policy) 

Page 67 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Appendix IV 

Major Contributors to This Report 

National Security and Foy D. Wicker, Assistant Director 

International Affairs Marilyn Mauch, Assistant Director 

Beverly Ann Bendekgey, Evaluator-in-Charge 

Division, Washington, Kathleen M. Joyce, Social Science Analyst 

D.C. Julio Luna, Publishing Advisor 

David Moser, Senior Evaluator 

European Office Dan Burton, Assignment Manager 

Ann Calvaresi-Barr, Site Senior 

Kevin Perkins, Evaluator 

(391169) Page 58 GAO/NSIAD-93-93 Women in the Military 
Ordering Information 

--~-- 

The first copy of each GAO report and testimony is free. 

Additional copies are $2 each. Orders should be sent to the 

following address, accompanied by a check or money order 

made out to the Superintendent of Documents, when 

necessary. Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a 

single address are discounted 25 percent. 

Orders by mail: 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

P.O. Box 6015 

Gaithersburg, MD 20884-6015 

or visit: 

Room 1000 

700 4th St. NW (corner of 4th and G Sts. NW) 

U.S. General Accounting Office 

Washington, DC 

Orders may also be placed by calling (202) 512-6000 

or by using fax number (301) 258-4066. 

PRINTED ON 0 RECYCLED PAPER 
United States 

General Accounting office 

I Washington, D.C. 20548 

Official Business 

Penalt,y for Private Use $300 

Permit No. GlOO