Air University

Allen G. Peck, Lt Gen, Commander

Air Force Research Institute

John A. Shaud, Gen, PhD, USAF, Retired, Director

School of Advanced Air and Space Studies

Gerald S. Gorman, Col, PhD, Commandant

James M. Tucci, PhD, Thesis Advisor
AIR UNIVERSITY

AIR FORCE RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Femme Fatale

An Examination of the Role of Women in 

Combat and the Policy Implications for 

Future American Military Operations

Kristal L. M. Alfonso

Lieutenant Colonel, USAF

Drew Paper No. 5

Air University Press

Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama 36112-5962

August 2009
Muir S. Fairchild Research Information Center Cataloging Data

Alfonso, Kristal L. M.

Femme fatale : an examination of the role of women in combat and the policy 

implications for future American military operations / Kristal L.M. Alfonso.

 p. ; cm. – (Drew paper, 1941-3785 ; no. 5)

Includes bibliographical references.

ISBN 978-1-58566-196-1

1. Women in combat. 2. United States—Armed Forces—Women—Forecasting. 3. 

Women soldiers—History. 4. Women and war—History. I. Title. II. Series: Drew 

paper ; no. 5.

355.0082/0973—dc22

This Drew Paper and others in the series are available 

electronically at the Air University Research Web site 

http://research.maxwell.af.mil and the AU Press Web 

site http://aupress.au.af.mil.

ii

Disclaimer

Opinions, conclusions, and recommendations expressed or implied within are solely those of the 

author and do not necessarily represent the views of Air University, the United States Air Force, 

the Department of Defense, or any other US government agency. Cleared for public release: 

distribution unlimited.
iii

The Drew Papers

The Drew Papers are occasional publications sponsored by 

the Air Force Research Institute (AFRI), Maxwell AFB, Alabama. 

AFRI publishes this series of papers to commemorate the distinguished career of Col Dennis “Denny” Drew, USAF, retired. In 30 

years at Air University, Colonel Drew served on the Air Command and Staff College faculty, directed the Airpower Research 

Institute, and served as dean, associate dean, and professor of 

military strategy at the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Maxwell AFB. Colonel Drew is one of the Air Force’s most 

extensively published authors and an international speaker in 

high demand. He has lectured to over 100,000 students at Air 

University as well as to foreign military audiences. In 1985 he 

received the Muir S. Fairchild Award for outstanding contributions to Air University. In 2003 Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands made him a Knight in the Order of Orange-Nassau for his 

contributions to education in the Royal Netherlands Air Force.

The Drew Papers are dedicated to promoting the understanding of air and space power theory and application. These studies are published by the Air University Press and broadly 

distributed throughout the US Air Force, the Department of 

Defense, and other governmental organizations, as well as to 

leading scholars, selected institutions of higher learning, 

public-policy institutes, and the media.

All military members and civilian employees assigned to Air 

University are invited to contribute unclassified manuscripts 

that deal with air and/or space power history, theory, doctrine, 

or strategy, or with joint or combined service matters bearing 

on the application of air and/or space power.

Authors should submit three copies of a double-spaced, 

typed manuscript and an electronic version of the manuscript 

on removable media along with a brief (200-word maximum) 

abstract. The electronic file should be compatible with Microsoft Windows and Microsoft Word—Air University Press uses 

Word as its standard word-processing program.
iv

Please send inquiries or comments to

Chief of Research

Air Force Research Institute

155 N. Twining St.

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026

Tel: (334) 953-9587

DSN 493-9587

Fax: (334) 953-6739

DSN 493-6739

E-mail: research.support@maxwell.af.mil
v

Contents

Chapter	 Page

DISCLAIMER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

ABOUT THE AUTHOR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix

1 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2 THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF 

WORLD WAR II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

3 THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF 

WORLD WAR II . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

4 SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD . . . . . . . . . 39

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

5 AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

6 THE WAY BACKWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

7 THE WAY FORWARD . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

8 CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

vii

Lt Col Kristal L. M. Alfonso graduated from North Carolina 

State University with a bachelor’s degree in history. She was a 

Reserve Officer Training Corps distinguished graduate and received a regular commission in 1993. Following aircraft maintenance officer training at Sheppard AFB, Texas, she was assigned to the 305th Aircraft Generation Squadron at McGuire 

AFB, New Jersey, and then served as commander, 633rd En 

Route Aircraft Maintenance Flight, Kadena Air Base, Okinawa, 

Japan. Selected to attend undergraduate pilot training at 

Laughlin AFB, Texas, Colonel Alfonso was then assigned as 

KC-135 pilot, 906th Air Refueling Squadron, Grand Forks AFB, 

North Dakota, and then the 93rd Air Refueling Squadron at 

Fairchild AFB, Washington. She taught at the United States Air 

Force Academy in the Department of Management before attending Air Command and Staff College in 2007. In 2008 Colonel Alfonso graduated from the School of Advanced Air and 

Space Studies and holds a master of science in management 

degree from Troy University and both a master of military operational art and science and a master of airpower art and science from Air University.

Currently, Colonel Alfonso is a defense analyst at the Air 

Force Research Institute. She is married to Lt Col Paul Alfonso 

Jr., and they have a three-year-old son, Tony.

About the 

Author

Lt Col Kristal L. M. Alfonso

ix

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank my advisor and mentor, Dr. John Terino, 

who was invaluable and made the research process interesting. 

I would also like to thank my classmates in XVII who remain a 

constant source of encouragement and sounding boards. My 

parents, Larry and Jenny McMaster, generously sacrificed their 

time to care for my son so that I might continue in my career. 

They have always supported me in every endeavor, and I could 

not have made it as far as I have in my professional and personal life without their love and support. I am blessed to have 

wonderful parents, and I appreciate everything they have done 

for me.

I would like to thank my husband, Paul, who agreed to move 

to Alabama so that I could attend the School of Advanced Air 

and Space Studies. He is a constant source of support, love, 

and reality. Whenever I felt myself losing confidence and motivation, Fonzi always gently reminded me to focus. Whenever I 

felt like I was losing my patience with life, Fonzi would remind 

me (sometimes not so gently) to “keep it real.” 

Finally, I would like to thank my son, Tony. I know I cannot 

be around as much as I wanted to, but this is all for you. I hope 

someday you will understand why Mama had to be away at 

work so much. I also hope you will always remember how much 

I love you.

KRISTAL L. M. ALFONSO, Lt Col, USAF

Defense Analyst

Air Force Research Institute



Chapter 1

Introduction

According to Tolstoy, war and women are things that 

don’t go together—they exist apart. But when I witnessed all the atrocities of 1941, the death of my friends 

and relatives, peaceful civilians, I wanted to liberate 

my people from the enemy. I want you to underline in 

red that it was the cherished dream of the girls to liberate the land, but none of us wanted to fight—to kill.

––Capt Mariya Dolina

 125th Guards Bomber Regiment

Hero of the Soviet Union

Women have always participated in armed conflict, most often as active supporters of the armies they have followed. Some 

women, usually the wives of soldiers, served as nurses, laundresses, cooks, and seamstresses. Other women chose active 

participation in battle, including the famed Molly Pitcher. Mary 

Hays McCauly earned this moniker during the Battle of Monmouth in 1778 when she provided pitchers of water and medical 

care to members of the Continental Army fighting the British. 

After shrapnel struck her husband, McCauly took up his position as a cannoneer so that the artillery crew could continue to 

fight. Gen George Washington rewarded her bravery by making 

her a noncommissioned officer.* The story of Molly Pitcher symbolizes the realities of women and war. War has always affected 

women to some capacity despite civilized society’s best attempts 

to protect the gentler sex from war’s brutality. Yet, despite Molly 

Pitcher’s successes on the battlefield, which included picking 

up an injured soldier to save him from charging British soldiers, American culture has traditionally deprecated female 

participation in war. In most cultures, even today, a woman 

engaged in combat operations represented an anathema, such as 

the reactions to Jeanne d’Arc by political and religious leaders. 

*Public Affairs Office, Fort Sill, OK, “The Story of Molly Pitcher,” http://sill-www

.army.mil/pao/pamolly.htm.
INTRODUCTION

History, therefore, has either completely dismissed female contributions and participation in armed conflicts or relegated 

their participation to scandalous supporting roles, such as 

prostitutes or pillow-friendly spies. The reality is women have 

made significant contributions in military conflicts, and their 

role continues to expand in the modern era. 

This paper reviews four case studies that demonstrate the 

variety of ways women have participated in modern armed conflict and explores whether current US laws and policies excluding women from combat remain valid or need to be amended. 

Each case study examines three principal facets of female participation in combat: context, motivations and inspirations, 

and the actual contributions made by these women in combat 

operations. Two case studies, one on World War II Soviet pilots 

and the other on modern Americans, follow the more traditional explanation of armed conflict and focus on women integrated into military organizations involved in wars. The other 

two case studies, including one on female resistance fighters in 

World War II Europe and another on female terrorists and insurgents, represent the asymmetric aspects female participation often provides during conflicts.

The first case study examines the women involved in resistance operations throughout Nazi-occupied Europe. Contextually, many of the women presented in this case study had experienced or had close family to live through World War I. That 

experience evoked strong emotional motivations for many of 

the women profiled and often resulted in intense hatred of their 

enemies, the German Nazis. Due to the loss of family members 

and friends and with the emotions provoked by the occupation, 

many women believed that they had no other choice but to resist. 

In their minds resistance represented defense of their families, 

friends, culture, and nations. While most of these women began their resistance activities as lookouts and messengers, 

many went on to conduct insurgent paramilitary operations 

against the Nazi occupying forces. 

Additionally, a number of female resistance fighters figured 

in the increasing politization of women in pre–World War II Europe. Female members of the Communist Party, for example, 

believed in the equality of the workers, regardless of gender. 

Since most resistance movements represented a conglomera-
INTRODUCTION



tion of political viewpoints, female communists were able to 

engage in resistance activities due to their association with 

their political party. Similarly, female Zionists also found it 

easier to engage in nontraditional roles due to the Nazi persecution of European Jewry. The overriding cultural expectations 

of European women during the 1930s and 1940s remained entrenched in the notion that a woman’s traditional role was that 

of wife, mother, and family nurturer. The realities of the Nazi 

occupation led to a reevaluation of how women could contribute to their societies and actually opened doors previously 

closed to them. While these women still struggled to make their 

contributions to the resistance, they often found greater support among men with similar political views. 

The second case focuses on the three female flying units created by Joseph Stalin shortly after Germany’s invasion of the 

Soviet Union. Similar to the female communists in resistance 

movements elsewhere in Europe, the story of female Soviet pilots demonstrates the complexity surrounding a political ideology that promotes equality among the genders yet continues to 

enforce patriarchal expectations of the role and behavior of 

women. Women like Marina Raskova often had to depend on 

relationships with male party or military leaders to gain entry 

into the Soviet military system. Further, persistence remained 

a key element for the realization of female combat roles. Most 

women profiled here had to persist in asking permission to fly 

or to enter the military until male authority relented.

The invasion by Germany did not make inclusion of females 

into the Soviet military any easier. From the start, most female 

combatants remained isolated from their male counterparts 

and had to prove their abilities continuously. Ultimately some 

women had the opportunity to join male regiments and flourished once they demonstrated their worth. Organizationally, 

however, the Soviet military remained dubious about female 

combatants and that attitude persists today in the Russian 

military. The contributions and successes of the female Soviet 

combatants in World War II, however, defy those attitudes. The 

Night Witches, as the Germans called one unit, proved that 

women could handle the rigors of combat, possessed the desired aggressive instinct required in combat, and were motivated in many of the same ways as their male counterparts.
INTRODUCTION

The third case study examines the roles of women in more 

recent insurgencies, what many would call terrorist operations. 

For the most part, these women fulfill the role of suicide bombers used by many terrorist organizations to conduct their wars; 

however, the startling fact remains that all of these women 

come from very conservative and patriarchal societies. From 

Lebanon to Chechnya to Sri Lanka, the role of women in these 

cultures remains one of wife, mother, and daughter whose fate 

lies in the hands of the men in their lives.

While suicide bombing has evolved into an accepted reality of 

terrorist tactics, the world still reacts strongly to the notion of 

female suicide bombers. This case study explores the motivations behind the actions of these women and reveals that there 

are a number of similarities between these modern resistance 

fighters and those from World War II. Primarily, these women 

also feel that they have no other choice but to join terrorist organizations to fight the occupiers of their homelands. Most are 

victims of brutal attacks who have usually lost husbands or 

children, or been raped by occupying soldiers. For many of 

these women, their sacrifice provides them a final opportunity 

to serve their community. Ironically, their actions have also led 

to interesting developments in these conservative cultures 

where women are slowly earning praise and recognition as 

combatants, leading to small and subtle, yet significant, shifts 

in cultural norms. 

The use of female combatants by America’s enemies has also 

accelerated shifts in American military culture as well. The 

fourth case study examines how the US military evolved from a 

conscript force into the all-volunteer force that depends on female participation for mission accomplishment. As the US military grapples with the realities of insurgent warfare, female 

military members have quietly proven their capabilities in the 

air and land combat environments.

The fourth case study also serves as the heart of this research paper since it focuses on the role of American women in 

combat. Current policies actually limit the combat roles available to women and spur some critics to argue the combat exclusion policies do not go far enough. The fifth chapter of this 

paper presents this side of the debate over the role of women in 

combat and military service in general. This chapter presents 
INTRODUCTION

the leading arguments against the inclusion of women in combat beginning with the physical differences between men and 

women, the effects of women on unit cohesion and combat 

readiness, and the moral debate over sending a society’s mothers and daughters to war. Chapter 5 highlights the growing 

divergence between conservative cultural norms and the realties of current combat operations while providing a backdrop 

for the sixth chapter. 

This paper concludes with a proposal of how the US military 

and society should move forward regarding the role of women in 

combat. The realities remain that despite the best attempts by 

critics to argue that society should protect women from the violence of war, in an all-volunteer force structure women are nevertheless currently engaged in combat. Furthermore, all women, 

military and civilian, have always been and will remain subject 

to the brutalities of war. The events of 11 September 2001, 

prominent among a myriad of others, demonstrate that reality. 

The four case studies presented in this paper provide the 

evidence that women have and always will participate in combat. 

Moreover, their successful contributions have made differences 

in the outcomes of wars. To deny citizens the right to fight for 

their country based solely on their gender remains blatant discrimination. The United States should once again assume a 

leadership role in the world, live up to the rhetoric of its principles, 

and demonstrate that women and men possess civic equality.



Chapter 2

The Female Fighters of World War II

At that time it was clear that each Nazi I killed, each 

bomb I helped to explode, shortened the length of the 

war and saved the lives of all women and children. . . . 

I never asked myself if the soldier or SS man I killed 

had a wife or children. I never thought about it.

––Marisa Masu, Italian resistance fighter

In both Western and Eastern cultures, expectations of the 

role women play in society, in peace or in war, diminish the 

contributions women make in the conduct of war. While a man 

is expected and even revered for taking up arms, defending his 

hearth, kin, and country, even if such action results in his own 

death, a woman behaving in a similar manner faces a different 

societal response. Women involved in armed resistance, even 

during an enlightened modern era, are often accused of engaging in “the ‘unwomanly’ behavior” and acting “ ‘like men’ in the 

struggle.”1 Society explains the motivations of these women using familiar stereotypes. Their actions are the result of the 

scorn of a significant other or because they are more emotional 

and less rational, thereby denigrating their contributions. Political philosopher Jean Bethke Elshtain explains: “Female violence, it followed, was an aberration . . . [and] brooked no good. 

It was overpersonalized [sic] and vindictive: behold the ‘vengeful women of Marblehead.’ ”2

Context Mattered––Societal Expectations 

of Women during World War II

Whereas, Elshtain argues, a man engaged in violence can be 

“moralized as a structured activity—war—and thus be depersonalized and idealized,” a cultural aspect common to every 

society regardless of religious, ethnic, or historical background.3

Many of the anti-Nazi female fighters, despite the role they 

played in the defeat of the Nazis, still regarded their activities 
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II



as an aberration and did not believe that women belonged in 

combat. Russian women who fought in World War II, for the 

most part, agreed that women “do not belong in combat” and 

that those who took up arms against the Nazis only did so because “Russia faced certain destruction.”4 The appropriate role 

women should have played has resulted in a skewed perception of the actual activities that women were involved in and 

has limited testimonials as to why and to what level women 

contributed to the resistance. Many of these women felt they 

simply had no choice but to resist. They believed their activities 

and actions failed to compare with the men, who were also 

fighting the Nazis, since society expected its men to resist.

In spite of the evidence provided by female participants that they 

took up arms and actively fought the Nazis, many historians, and 

the women themselves, often dismiss their activities as being in 

support rather than the active resistance it really was. According to 

Timothy Kirk and Anthony McElligott, in historical accounts of the 

resistance against the Nazis, “an iconography of women resisters 

as ‘saints’ emerged. Essentially, the male resistance was ‘real,’ while 

women’s resistance to fascism was relegated to the traditional roles 

of support and self-sacrifice. Armed women are either written out 

or deprived of their female identity, while women in nurturing or 

caring roles lose any claim to be equal resisters.”5

By redefining the roles women played in the resistance and 

their impact on operations, historians, analysts, and the fighters 

themselves actually perpetuate the notion that the role of a 

woman is that of a life giver and not an active freedom fighter 

who takes life when required. As Elshtain notes, “Women warriors, 

like their male counterparts, see their violent actions as a form 

of defense, preservation, and life saving.”6 These culturally biased notions create a narrow view of the tactical usefulness of 

women in resistance and terrorist activities. Terrorists and insurgent groups continue to exploit this narrow view today. 

Necessity or Personal Motivations––What 

Explains Female Resistance?

The desire for vengeance against the Nazis and the German 

people for crimes committed against family, friends, and coun-
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II



try during the reign of the Third Reich as well as during the 

devastation of World War I drove many women to resist the 

German occupiers. French resistance fighter and famous writer, 

Marguerite Duras, admits in her memoirs that “For a while I 

could bear the grudge against them, it was quite plain and 

clear, I wanted to massacre all of them, the whole population of 

Germany, wipe them off the face of the earth, make it impossible for it to happen again.”7 Many women and young girls, 

like Duras, endured separation from male relatives due to the 

mobilization of Europe’s armies, which evoked memories of the 

first war and created new animosities towards the latest German invaders. 

Elisabeth Sevier recalled the last time she saw her own father: “On that day, I think I felt the first twinge of hate toward 

Adolf Hitler and Germany. I hated the Germans for separating 

my family, for causing my Papa to join the army and leave the 

rest of us at home.”8 Sevier ultimately joined the resistance after witnessing an event that still haunts her. She described 

overhearing a commotion involving three drunken German soldiers, a Jewish mother, and her child: “I looked just in time to 

see a frightened young Jewish woman trying to hide her yellow 

star by holding her baby to her breast. The next thing I saw was 

almost as unbelievable as it was barbaric: one of the German 

soldiers drew his revolver and fired two shots at the mother and 

baby.”9 For many women in Europe, personal experiences such 

as these inspired them to take up arms against the Germans 

since they felt robbed of their normal lives and their families.

Still reeling from the wounds inflicted from four years of trench 

warfare during World War I, many Europeans loathed the idea 

of fighting another war and directed their hatred toward the 

perpetrator of both conflicts: Germany. Historian Evelyne Sullerot 

recalled when her brother had been mobilized, “Only twenty 

years between the two wars and we had lost an entire generation [of young men]. My brother was born in 1919, one year 

after the war ended. He had the name of a dead uncle. And now 

he was being called to fight in another world war.”10 The Sullerot family found themselves still grieving for the loss of life 

and property experienced during World War I when the Germans returned in 1940 to what many Europeans viewed as the 

scene of Germany’s most dastardly crime. Lucie Aubrac “did 
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II

10

not view her first efforts in the fall of 1940 as resistance. It was 

a question of conscience” (emphasis in original).11 Aubrac felt 

she had to prevent another tragedy by stopping the Germans 

before a repeat of the Great War occurred.12

Germaine Tillion, an early French resistance organizer, also 

felt compelled by her conscience to take action to throw off the 

yoke of German occupation. She fully understood the risks that 

she and her compatriots undertook.13 Tillion’s groups initially 

assisted French prisoners of war as well as aiding Jews escaping the country. Her group eventually coordinated intelligence 

collection with the British Special Operations Executive (SOE) 

and Free French intelligence agencies. Tillion’s activities resulted in her arrest and internment at the notorious Ravensbrück concentration camp.14

Another French woman, Lucienne Guezennec, used the metaphor of rape to describe the occupation. Guezennec explained 

that her motivation to resist primarily developed out of her disgust with the invading Germans: “My reaction to the Occupation was anti-German. Not ideological or whatever—out-andout anti-German. The invasion was like rape. To this day when 

I read about a rape trial, I am reminded of the Occupation. This 

was really a violation—violation of my country. It was impossible to remain passive.”15 Like many of her fellow resistance 

fighters, Guezennec’s disdain for the German occupiers and 

their Vichy supporters found its basis in the previous war with 

the Germans. She viewed the Germans as “wild hordes, like the 

barbarians of old.”16 Guezennec eventually began sheltering 

refugees from the Germans including former prisoners, Jews, 

and Allied pilots evading German capture.17

Guezennec’s memories of World War I were not isolated but, 

in fact, were a common experience shared by many Europeans 

who “remembered that German armies had destroyed their 

family homes or those of relatives in World War I.”18 Marisa 

Musu, an Italian resistance fighter, strongly sought to engage 

in armed conflict and thus joined the Italian Patriotic Action 

Groups (GAP for Gruppi di Azione Patriottica) in her belief that 

“armed resistance was the best and simplest solution.”19 The 

tragedies that befell her fellow citizens during 20 years of Fascist rule coupled with the actions of Nazi Germany strongly 

influenced Musu’s decision to participate in GAP resistance ac-
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II

11

tivities. As Elshtain explained, “women warriors, like their male 

counterparts, see their violent actions as a form of defense, 

preservation, life saving.”20

One such personal tragedy befalling a woman during the war 

is the story of Gina Borellini, a resistance fighter in Modena, 

Italy. Borellini initially joined the resistance “because of her 

husband and brother.”21 At first, Borellini served as a weapons 

and message carrier. Eventually Fascists arrested her, along 

with her husband, and subjected Borellini to mock executions 

to elicit information on resistance activities. Although she did 

not reveal any information, her captors executed her husband 

for his actions in the resistance. Following her husband’s execution and the arrest of her brother, Borellini then joined a 

partisan brigade unit where she engaged in armed conflict 

against the Fascists, losing her leg in the process.22

While armed female members in partisan units were not as 

common as other forms of resistance across Europe, their partisan activities eventually extended well beyond their initial roles 

as messengers, evasion guides, nurses, and intelligence operatives. Women, such as Borellini, directly participated in sabotage 

and ambush activities. As one Polish partisan acknowledged, 

“Among all the resisters, their task was the most demanding, 

their sacrifices the greatest, and their work the least recognized. 

They were overloaded with work and doomed from the start.”23

The ramifications of World War I went beyond Europe’s mobilization of the male population and the subsequent loss of 

lives and land. Women had to take over as providers for their 

families due to the loss of husbands and fathers. Thus, World 

War I provided women with their first real opportunities for 

meaningful and important work outside the home. This generational development contributed to female involvement in the 

fight against the Nazis. Since there were simply too few men to 

perform normal tasks, women demonstrated their abilities to 

perform tasks once designated as a man’s job. 

Within the newly formed British SOE, for example, the use of 

women in nontraditional forms became an accepted practice. 

Due to the nature and subversive mission of the SOE, cultural 

and societal norms did not apply to the women who joined. 

Margaret Rossiter explained the function of women in respect 

to SOE operations in France: 
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II

12

Women played important roles in the various sections of SOE. Unlike 

the older services, this new and unorthodox organization was not bound 

by traditions about suitable tasks for women. It employed women not 

only because of the shortage of qualified men, but also because of the 

special advantages women could offer. Women were therefore trained in 

intelligence, radio communications, sabotage, paramilitary activities, and 

parachute jumping. Many served in England as staff officers, radio operators, and code clerks, and 39 were sent as agents to France. Twelve 

of these were executed in German prisons or concentration camps, and 

one died of meningitis in the field.24 (emphasis added)

The efforts of the SOE provided women with an opportunity to 

combat the Nazi military occupation. Clearly necessity played 

an important role in creating this and similar opportunities. 

Necessity alone, however, does not explain the involvement of 

women in the resistance. While necessity provided opportunities 

to participate in paramilitary operations, personal and political 

motivations drove women to participate in resistance activities. 

Unfortunately, those opportunities diminished following the 

defeat of Nazi Germany. Due to the nature of societal expectations of the roles a woman should play, many of them never 

shared their experiences or sought postwar recognition.25 For 

those women who died during the resistance, evidence of their 

participation has been lost simply because most resistance organizations owed their very survival to minimal documentation. For members of organized political groups, such as the 

communists and those Zionists who managed to escape the 

Final Solution, there is a greater wealth of written accounts of 

motivations and activities.

Political Motivations: 

The Role of Communism and Zionism

In addition to religious motivations and personal experiences, 

some women chose to take up arms due to their political objection against fascism or Nazism, both of which enforced traditional roles for women as childbearers and homemakers. A 

large number of these women had a strong belief in the communist ideology. Already forced underground by conservative 

governments prior to the rise of the Third Reich, communism 

provided these women with an organization that suited their 
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II

13

desires for equality.26 In essence, to be a communist provided 

them with emancipation from being the “breeders of cannon 

fodder” and, eventually, with equal rights, pay, and freedom.27

As the Nazis conquered Europe, the communists saw an opportunity to increase their political power and membership 

through resistance movements.

While not as prevalent in the political spectrum, Zionism, an 

ideology that promoted the idea of a Jewish state, also began 

attracting new members, particularly women. Jews had been 

the historical scapegoat for European woes even before the Nazis. 

Zionists, therefore, understood the experience of being treated 

as inferiors and within the Zionist movement, women found 

themselves in positions of leadership and often treated as 

equals by their male counterparts. While political objectives inspired Zionists, other Jews chose to resist the Nazis to help free 

their people from oppression just as Moses had in the Exodus. 

They sought to protect their families, faith, and fellow Jews. 

Following World War I, more women in the West began to demand a measure of equality with their male counterparts. While 

these early feminists fought the prescribed societal norms 

placed upon them by paternalistic societies, many found a 

means of emancipation from societal expectations within the 

communist parties in the 1920s through political dialogue and 

protest. The first signs of resistance to fascism and Nazism are 

evident within these fledgling parties: “After the war, their militancy continued as they organized and even led factory occupations and fought against the first Fascists bands. When the 

Italian Communist Party (PCI from Partito Comunista Italiano) 

was founded in 1921, many of the younger militant women became charter members.”28

The communist movement played a pivotal role in the motivations of many of the resistance fighters in the Second World 

War. For many female communists, however, the goal went beyond just repelling the Nazi invaders. These women sought to 

create a new social order within their communities:

Resistance members of both sexes had to deal with the dangers, tribulations, and failures of clandestine action. Women who joined underground movements have pointed out that in most instances they shared 

equal rights, equal responsibilities, and equal risks. Although not all 

résistantes shared her political vision, perhaps they instinctively agreed 
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II

14

with Brigitte Friand, who attributed this sharing to their common efforts to build a new society, one in which each would have full human 

dignity and equality—not just worker with bourgeois, but woman with 

man. In most respects, assignments were based on aptitude and ability. 

The enemy did not discriminate, either.29

Aside from the external struggle between the communists and 

fascist Nazis, the female members of the communist movement 

continued to struggle against the same cultural dogmas that 

other female resistance fighters encountered.

The 1920s and 1930s saw a rise in the Zionist movement 

among the European Jewry. While most Zionists lacked the 

political fortitude to take action to see their objectives come to 

fruition, there were idealists (similar to female communists) 

who sought their own form of Jewish utopia, and the actions of 

the Nazis became the catalyst for a more direct response. One 

such Zionist was Hungarian-born Hannah Szenes. Szenes actually fled Hungary prior to the Nazi occupation to escape persecution by the Hungarian anti-Semites. In 1943 she desired a 

return to Hungary to “organize emigration for young people and 

bring her mother out of Hungary.”30 Szenes received parachute 

and military training from the British and in return agreed to 

assist Allied aviators to evade capture or escape as well as to 

gather intelligence for Britain.31

Shortly after she crossed the border into Hungary in 1944, 

the Germans captured and severely beat Szenes, including on 

“the palms of her hands and soles of her feet” to force her into 

divulging the location of her transmitter and codes.32 She refused to reveal the transmitter’s whereabouts and continued to 

try to escape her captors. Despite brutal treatment at the hands 

of the Germans and Hungarians, Szenes refused to reveal any 

information. Her greatest display of bravery and final act of 

resistance against the Nazis occurred on 7 November 1944 when 

she refused a blindfold prior to her execution by firing squad. 

This ultimate act of defiance does not appear to be an isolated 

event among the women executed by the Nazis for their resistance. A number of female resistance fighters who faced capture chose death by their own hand in lieu of Nazi capture.33

The female Jewish resistance fighters of the Warsaw Ghetto 

engaged in active resistance through their involvement in the 

Jewish Fighting Organization (ZOB from Zydowska Organizacja 
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II

15

Bojowa), where they played a critical role during the Warsaw 

Ghetto Uprising of 1943. Details of their actual activities are 

limited since most of these women died either at the hands of 

the Germans, their fellow resistance fighters, or by their own 

hand during the uprising. Simha Rotem, a Warsaw Ghetto resistance fighter, acknowledged one woman, Dvora Baran, whom 

he described as “cut to the measure of the movement; in other 

words, she and the movement were one and the same.”34

Despite the harsh conditions of the ghetto, the two grew close. 

Baran died, however, on 3 May 1943 in the Franciszkanska 

Street bunker after the Germans had surrounded it. Rotem 

described the actions Baran took on the day prior to her death. 

Exploiting her femininity to achieve their tactical objectives, 

Baran’s commander “assigned her to go first and find a way of 

escape for the dozens of fighters still in the bunker. Surprising 

the Germans with her beauty and boldness, she caught them 

off guard and hurled a grenade into their ranks, thus allowing 

the fighters to leave the shelter.”35 Baran, according to Rotem, 

further drew upon her inner resolve to lead and encourage the 

other fighters in the bunker. Rotem relates that Baran eloquently described their predicament and implored them to persist in their fight: “We can expect very hard battles and every 

day that passes is unbelievable. I still believe we can get even, 

even after a week of war. . . . Hold fast.”36

Unlike other European women, Jewish women had few options when dealing with the Nazis. Unless they could escape 

their German occupiers, only two options remained––resistance or compliance. Resistance was their only option if they 

wanted to defy the tragedy bestowed upon much of the European Jewish populace. Similarly, many Polish women found 

themselves with no other recourse than to fight the Germans or 

meet the same fate as the Jews, particularly following the Warsaw Uprising of 1944, which saw mass executions and war 

crimes perpetrated on the Polish people such as the massacre 

at Wola.37 The few women survivors of that period in Polish history recollect witnessing the deaths of husbands, parents, and 

most horrific for a woman, the death of their children.38

Polish Zionists also chose to die by their own hand to avoid 

Nazi capture. Based on recollections from Rotem about the 

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising, Rivka Pasmanik, a member of the 
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II

16

Zionist Youth, appears to have coordinated communications 

from outlying farms to resistance leadership in the ghetto. 

Since women were able to pass more easily through Nazi checkpoints in and out of the ghetto, Pasmanik (and others like her) 

chose to serve as couriers if they did not look Jewish.39 Pasmanik, at some point, joined the ZOB and ended up in the 

ghetto where she eventually took the life of another female resistance fighter before shooting herself.40 Pasmanik, in a quest 

to retain her dignity, wanted a death of her choosing versus 

capture, torture (and possibly betraying her fellow resistance 

fighters to the Germans as a result), and ultimately execution 

by the Nazis. 

The End Results

Thus, the vast majority of known female anti-Nazi resistance 

fighters derived their motivation to resist from closely held beliefs and experiences, whether they were based on religious 

faith, political objectives, German brutality, or a combination 

of all three. Women like Szenes, Baran, and Pasmanik each 

met their fate with dignity, fighting their enemies to their last 

breath. Through their acts of resistance, these women demonstrated that the traditional societal roles afforded women no 

longer dictated their behavior as warriors. 

Actually killing themselves for the cause of liberation was not 

a primary tactic used by the female resisters of Nazi-occupied 

Europe, unlike the suicide tactics of the more recent terrorist 

organizations (like the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam [LTTE], 

Hamas, or Chechen rebels). But, for example, a woman who 

“sheltered someone sought by the Gestapo [from Geheime Staatspolizei, the German Secret State Police]—a political refugee, 

a Jew, an Allied aviator, or a résistant––risked death if caught 

(some were executed).”41 These women were certainly willing to 

risk their lives and the lives of their families for their cause and 

beliefs, much like the men fighting on the battlefield or along 

side the female resistance fighters. 

Regardless of individual motivations, the role women played 

in the defeat of the Nazis should not be ignored. Insurgents and 

terrorists groups now employ, with increasing success, many 

of the tactics and advantages used by female resistance fight-
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II

17

ers in World War II. Appreciating the devotion and the lengths 

to which women under Nazi occupation were willing to go to 

defeat their enemy enables modern military and political strategists to better address that part of the population often overlooked when planning and conducting military operations. The 

legacy left behind by the female resistance fighters is that their 

“wartime activities [were] personally liberating despite pervasive fears and almost paralyzing anxieties. None regrets her 

choice to fight or to be in the thick of the fighting. They would, 

to the woman, do it all over again. But they hope no one will 

have to in the future” (empahsis added).42

Ultimately, the Allies did defeat the Nazis, but questions remain about the impact of resistance groups and specifically 

female resistance fighters upon that victory. While history has 

glamorized the role the resistance played in the liberation of 

Europe, it remains clear “the Resistance had played a major 

role in the defeat of the Germans and had hastened the liberation” of France and ultimately, all of Europe.43

While the Nazis certainly regarded the female resistance 

fighters as terrorists, the women who struggled against fascism 

considered themselves freedom fighters who sought a quicker 

end to the war. The Nazis, for the most part, failed to acknowledge the use of women in the resistance movement even though 

they captured and executed numerous female resistance fighters. Resistance fighters used this narrow view to their advantage, capitalizing on their femininity.44 Modern terrorists and 

insurgents continue to exploit this cultural weakness to their 

advantage. For example, an Iraqi woman, according to a Fox 

News broadcast on 10 April 2007, with explosives under her 

abaya easily entered a police station, detonated her bomb, and 

killed 16 Iraqis. Just as Jewish resistor, Dvora Baran, used her 

female attributes to distract German soldiers to engage them in 

combat, modern female insurgents capitalize on female mannerism to attack their enemies. 

These women conducted their final acts, considered acts of 

martyrdom or at the very least heroic by many of their cultures, 

without regret and inspired more women to take similar actions. Understanding this dedication to their cause, whether it 

is the dedication displayed by a woman in the face of Nazi brutality during interrogation or a woman with bombs strapped to 
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II

18

her torso entering a military checkpoint, enables military strategists to plan for appropriate defensive operations to protect 

against the catastrophic results of suicide terrorism. 

Notes

(All notes appear in shortened form. For full details, see the appropriate entry 

in the bibliography.)

1. Slaughter, Women and the Italian Resistance, 2.

2. Elshtain, Women and War, 169.

3. Ibid.

4. Ibid., 178.

5. Kirk and McElligott, Opposing Fascism, 10.

6. Elshtain, Women and War, 179.

7. Ibid., 175.

8. Sevier, Resistance Fighter, 5.

9. Ibid., 44.

10. Weitz, Sisters in the Resistance, 2.

11. Ibid., 9.

12. Ibid.

13. Rossiter, Women in the Resistance, 10.

14. Ravensbrück was known as the women’s concentration camp. It was 

also the site of the execution of four Special Operations Executive female 

members (Lilian Rolfe, Denise Bloch, Cecily LeForte, and Violette Szabo). 

15. Weitz, Sisters in the Resistance, 2.

16. Ibid., 9.

17. Ibid.

18. Rossiter, Women in the Resistance, 17.

19. Slaughter, Women and the Italian Resistance, 57.

20. Elshtain, Women and War, 179.

21. Slaughter, Women and the Italian Resistance, 56.

22. Ibid.

23. Lukas, Forgotten Holocaust, 54.

24. Rossiter, Women in the Resistance, 13.

25. Weitz, Sisters in the Resistance, 7.

26. Slaughter, Women and the Italian Resistance, 18.

27. Ibid., 19.

28. Ibid., 16.

29. Weitz, Sisters in the Resistance, 11.

30. Cosner and Cosner, Women under the Third Reich, 156.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid., 157.

33. Ibid.

34. Kazik, Memoirs of a Warsaw Ghetto Fighter, 27.

35. Ibid., 26.

36. Ibid., 28.
THE FEMALE FIGHTERS OF WORLD WAR II

19

37. Wola, a district of Warsaw, was the site of a large massacre of Polish 

citizens following the Warsaw Uprising. One victim, a pregnant mother of two 

small children, recalled being dragged out into the open where she was forced 

to watch the Germans execute her two crying children, which caused her to 

faint. When she awoke, she pretended to be dead and finally crawled away to 

escape the horrific scene. Central Commission, German Crimes in Poland.

38. Lukas, The Forgotten Holocaust.

39. Kazik, Memoirs of a Warsaw Ghetto Fighter, 17.

40. Kurzman, The Bravest Battle, 306.

41. Weitz, Sisters in the Resistance, 10.

42. Elshtain, Women and War, 177.

43. Sevier, Resistance Fighter, xv.

44. Slaughter, Women and the Italian Resistance, 1.

21

Chapter 3

The Soviet Female Fliers 

of World War II

Just as the Greek term for courage is elided to the word 

for man, in Russian bravery is by definition masculine.

––Jean Bethke Elshtain

Amazons. The mention of the word evokes images of tall, 

strong, combative women who abandoned femininity and the 

protection of male companions to live as their own tribe. Most 

assume that these are merely mythical tales about female warriors, yet greater writers such as Homer and Plato described a 

tribe of these women living in the southern areas of the former 

Soviet Union.1 Archeological evidence supports the idea that 

women participated in battle, particularly among Sarmatian 

women, who made their homes in present day Georgia, Ukraine, 

and Russia. The majority of female graves from the period 300–

200 BC excavated in these areas contained various weapons 

and armor, an indication that Sarmatian women participated 

in combat.2

The Soviet Context

Over the centuries, Russian culture has embraced and even 

glorified the female warrior ethos. While the role of these polianitsy or warrior heroines diminished as more stringent patriarchal cultures emerged, the legends of female fighters remained a part of Russian culture.3 It appears that whenever 

the Motherland of Russia came under the threat of invading 

forces, women stood to fight alongside Russian men. One such 

woman, Nadezhda Durova, led Russian cavalry against French 

forces during the Napoléonic Wars (disguised as a man) and 

received the Cross of Saint George for her contributions.4

Women actively joined the fight during World War I as well. 

Nearly 400 women took up arms in infantry and aviation roles 

as early as 1915 and by the time of the 1917 revolution, mili-
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

22

tary services actively recruited female combatants.5 Maria 

Bochkareva, who enlisted in the infantry prior to the revolution, advised the Russian war minister on how to improve morale among Russian soldiers along the front. Bochkareva suggested the creation of an all-female regiment to demonstrate to 

the men how to conduct combat operations. Bochkareva suggested that the 300 women (from over 2,000 volunteers) of the 

“Women’s Battalion of Death” would “shame the men in the 

trenches” when women willingly went over the top.6

Bochkareva’s battalion went into action in an effort to spur 

male units to engage; however, their mission failed to elicit 

much response on the part of their male contemporaries. Despite this failure, Russian leadership appears to have accepted 

the concept and other all-female units were “formed under the 

Russian provisional government in Petrograd, Moscow, Odessa, 

Ekaterinodar, and Perm.”7 Further, the Russian public appears 

also to have accepted the notion of female units. In June 1917, 

citizens of Petrograd gathered to honor Bochkareva’s battalion 

in a solemn ceremony and treated its leader as a hero.8

The Russian Civil War provided further opportunities for 

women to become involved in combat operations. The Workers’ 

and Peasants’ Air Fleet, for example, desperately sought pilots 

to fight against the anti-Bolshevik forces and did not object to 

the use of women in combat roles. Marxist ideology promoted 

equality among the sexes and while “not obligated to military 

services, the new Soviet woman was certainly free to participate in the revolution and Civil War.”9 The struggle of women in 

a patriarchal society paralleled the struggle of workers against 

capitalism; the leaders of the communist revolution found willing supporters and participants among the disenfranchised 

half of the population. Communist leaders propagated the belief that once the revolution succeeded “men and women naturally would become equals; there could be no gender discrimination in a socialist state.”10

Under the Bolshevik leadership, Russian women gained what 

few other women had: equality. The Provisional Government 

had previously granted women equality under the law, which 

provided them with improved educational and professional opportunities.11 The Bolsheviks championed the theory that Marxist socialism would resolve all societal difficulties. The Bolshe-
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

23

viks equated the establishment of a socialist government with 

the creation of a utopian society where men accepted “women 

in combat as a matter of course, without sexist resistance or 

pious welcome speeches.”12

As revolutionary fervor diminished and Soviet power ascended, women once again returned to their familiar roles as 

nurturers encouraged by their Soviet leadership especially under Stalin. Fortunately, Soviet educational opportunities provided to women in the 1920s and 1930s allowed a number of 

women to receive flying training. Most of these women received 

civilian training through aero clubs, although a select few received their training from the military, and Soviet women accomplished several civilian aerial achievements, including the 

nonstop flight of the Rodina (“Motherland” in Russian).13 Crewed 

by three women, the Rodina broke the women’s international 

record for flight over a straight-line distance and established a 

new nonstop flight record of just over 26 hours.14 The fact that 

the three women each held commissions in the Soviet air force 

only added to the propaganda value of the flight. Further, the 

navigator on the Rodina, Maj Marina Raskova, survived alone 

for 10 days in the subarctic forests of Russia on a couple of 

candy bars and wild berries following her bail out prior to the 

Rodina’s emergency landing. Raskova immediately became a 

heroine within the Soviet Union, and Stalin himself propagated 

this heroic image. At a dinner celebration, Stalin reportedly stated 

that the crew of the Rodina “avenged the heavy centuries of the 

oppression of women.”15 Despite his insistence that the role of 

Soviet women remained entrenched in the traditional expectations 

of life givers and nurturers, the accomplishments of Raskova 

and her fellow aviators appear to have intrigued Stalin. 

While Stalin appears to have indulged the escapades of Raskova, 

his interests resided primarily in the accomplishments of Soviet aviators, male and female, and less in the aspect of promoting Marxist gender equality.16 The rise of fascism and threat 

of German invasion returned women to nontraditional roles 

and provided an incentive for social acceptance of women in 

these roles. The feats of female aviators in particular served to 

inspire the Soviet public, and the adulation women such as 

Raskova received “can only be compared to that of American 

film stars of the period, but with the added aura of the war-
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

24

rior.”17 The popularity and proven capabilities of female aviators, nested in Amazonian legends and Marxist ideology, provided the impetus for the first state-sanctioned use of women 

in combat. At the request of Hero of the Soviet Union Raskova, 

Stalin agreed to establish three all-female aviation groups.18

Hitler Invades the Soviet Union

Despite the popularity of the female military officers of the 

Rodina, when Hitler initiated Operation Barbarossa there were 

very few women in the Soviet military.19 While not specifically 

denied acceptance into the military by any government regulation, Soviet military leadership discouraged women from volunteering for active military service and often turned volunteers 

away. Instead, Soviet leadership encouraged women volunteers 

to join paramilitary groups to receive various types of military 

training, including flight training. Sponsored by the Soviet 

Komsomol (a communist youth organization), Soviet women maintained higher levels of fitness through military-related sports, 

received weapons training to include sport sharp shooting, and 

even flight training for some.20 In response to the German invasion in June 1941, military training opportunities for women 

increased. The Administration for Universal Military Training 

of the People’s Commissariat of Defense sponsored 110 hours 

of military training for women beginning in October 1941.21

This training provided the Soviet Union with an extensive reserve force to help resist the invading German armies. By 1942, 

these paramilitary groups throughout the Soviet Union had 

trained over 220,000 women in military operations; the German invasion forced the Osoaviakhim (Organization for the 

Promotion of Defense and Aviation-Chemistry Construction) to 

provide further training in specific military specialties.22

Raskova sought to tap this wealth of fighting potential and 

used her influence with Stalin and the defense ministry to persuade them to press forward with female aviation units. A number of female veterans further suggest that public pressure 

heavily contributed to the decision to create the units, claiming 

that it was only due to their consistent demands for acceptance 

that the military finally ceded to their wishes.23 The Nazi invasion only increased the fervor among Soviet women to join the 
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

25

military and defend their nation. Women, particularly female 

instructor pilots, inundated Raskova with requests to join her 

units or asked how they could “put their skills to use in the 

service of their country—more particularly, how they could get 

to the front, preferably in an airforce [sic] unit.”24 The accounts 

of these female veterans reveal that a “fever of patriotism” compelled them into action, similar to the response of American 

men following the Japanese attacks on Pearl Harbor.25 With 

evidence of such strong devotion to the Motherland, coupled 

with extensive flying experience since Raskova required a minimum of 500 flying hours for those who desired to fly fighter or 

bomber aircraft, Stalin agreed to establish the 122nd Composite Air Group.26 Three all-female regiments comprised the unit: 

the 586th Fighter Regiment, the 587th Bomber Regiment, and 

the 588th Air Regiment. 

The 586th Fighter Regiment

The Soviets activated the 586th Fighter Regiment in April 1942 

and assigned it to defend Saratov on the Volga River; the unit 

would later play a critical role during the Battle of Stalingrad.27

The first commander of the 586th, Maj Tamara Kazarinova, led 

the unit for six months. Kazarinova and her sister, Militsia, had 

both served on Raskova’s staff and were among the few career 

female Soviet military officers.28 There appears to be a dispute 

as to why air force leadership removed Kazarinova from command. Some veterans of the unit testified that Kazarinova and 

her sister were stern disciplinarians and had disagreeable personalities, yet the official explanation remains that Kazarinova 

had medical issues that inhibited her command abilities.29 Kazarinova did not fly while assigned to the 586th, which was not 

representative of the contributions of her unit’s female members. Just as male aviators in air forces across the globe in that 

era chafed under the authority of nonflying leaders, Kazarinova’s 

demonstrated lack of fighter skills put her at odds with many 

of the experienced pilots under her command. This led to the 

assignment of Kazarinova’s most vocal opposition to male units.30

According to a 1993 interview with Kazarinova’s successor, 

Alexander V. Gridnev, Lilya Litvyal and Katya Budanova had 

requested Kazarinova’s removal for “not being suitable for fill-
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

26

ing the position.”31 Their request, in conjunction with the requests of other prestigious pilots in the unit, created a strong 

rift between Kazarinova and her squadron leadership. This rift, 

according to Gridnev, explains to some extent the logic behind 

assigning these experienced pilots to male units since their reassignment essentially removed the “troublemakers.”32 The 

troublemakers, however, proved to be formidable pilots against 

the Luftwaffe. 

Litvyak, initially assigned to the 586th, flew with the 437th 

Fighter Regiment, the 9th Guards Fighter Regiment, and 

eventually with the 73rd Fighter Regiment of the 6th Guards 

Air Division of the Eighth Air Army. All three regiments were 

regular military units.33 Litvyak’s name appears throughout 

the limited literature on this subject, and within the former 

Soviet Union Litvyak remains a heroine to her people. During a temporary assignment to the 73rd, Litvyak and fellow 

“troublemaker” Budanova, flew as wingmen to veteran male 

pilots. Both pilots proved their abilities and earned the right 

to conduct “lone wolf” or freelance operations just like the 

best male pilots of the 73rd.34 Lone-wolf missions involved 

individual fighters patrolling without the support of wingmen or any form of backup. Similar to fighter sweep tactics, 

lone wolf missions sought out the enemy to engage them in 

air-to-air combat.35 The fact that both women conducted 

lone-wolf missions attests to their capabilities as pilots, since 

sending poorly skilled pilots on such risky missions most 

likely would have resulted in the loss of much needed aircraft and skilled aviators. 

Litvyak always had a passion for flying and began her early 

training in the profession by sneaking into the local aero club 

at night.36 By the time the war began, Litvyak had mastered 

flying and risen to instructor pilot. As German bombers began 

to make their runs over Moscow, an enraged Litvyak sought to 

join an operational unit but officials ordered her to evacuate 

instead.37 The formation of Raskova’s female units provided 

Litvyak with the opportunity to defend her nation and she 

jumped at the opportunity. 

After mastering the Yakovlev Yak-9 fighter in training, Litvyak 

quickly demonstrated her abilities during her first sortie over 

Stalingrad with the 437th. Following her flight lead and squad-
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

27

ron commander and fellow female pilot, Raya Belyayeva, Litvyak 

engaged a flight of Luftwaffe Focke-Wulf 190s and successfully shot one down.38 When Belyayeva ran out of ammunition 

while under attack, Litvyak shot down a German Messerschmitt aircraft to defend her commander.39 After this historic 

first action in which she became the first woman fighter pilot 

to shoot down an enemy aircraft, Litvyak met one of the pilots 

she had shot down. The POW was a decorated ace of the German Air Fleet 4 who vehemently denied that a woman had 

shot him down. Upon hearing the details of her account, the 

astounded pilot had to admit that Litvyak had indeed bested 

him in aerial combat.40 Litvyak herself went on to become an 

ace and participated in a number of notable air battles over 

Stalingrad and beyond. Litvyak amassed 12 confirmed kills 

and assisted in the downing of two more before the Germans 

shot her down.41

Litvyak’s close friend and fellow member of the famous 9th 

Guards Fighter Regiment, Budanova also flourished as a pilot 

in this prestigious unit. To gain entry into the 9th Guards, 

pilots had to already be aces or have the demonstrated ace 

potential.42 Similar to Litvyak, Budanova had always been enthralled by flying and sought to become a pilot despite her 

mother’s reservations. Budanova joined the Kiev aero club 

just prior to the war and devoted herself to perfecting her 

skills. When the Germans invaded, Budanova “realized that 

her flying above the tiny airfield near Moscow was but a preparation for something important and irrevocable she was 

about to do. She decided in the very first few days of the war 

to devote her life, knowledge, and experience to service in the 

great cause of bringing about victory over the enemy.”43

Clearly, Budanova’s motivations rested in the love of her country and her experience as a pilot provided her with the opportunity to defend her nation. The contributions of Litvyak and 

Budanova provide evidence regarding three aspects of the role 

of Soviet women in the Great Patriotic War: they also held 

strong nationalistic views, they sought to defend their nation 

against invaders, and they could effectively operate in combat 

and succeed despite their gender. 
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

28

125th Guards Bomber Aviation Regiment

(Originally designated the 587th 

Bomber Aviation Regiment)

The regiment initially commanded by Marina Raskova began its service in January 1943 at the height of Germany’s 

siege of Stalingrad flying the Petlyakov Pe-2, a twin-engine 

dive-bomber. Raskova’s tenure as commander ended prematurely when she crashed her aircraft during severe weather en 

route to the unit’s reassignment to the western front.44 Despite the devastating loss, the regiment endured and went on 

to serve with distinction for the remainder of the war. Many 

veterans of the unit expressed heightened fears that Raskova’s 

death would signal an end to the female units, so they continued to prepare themselves for combat over Stalingrad.45 Their 

preparations enabled the unit to achieve a number of notable 

military successes, and the “regiment was rewarded for its 

successful actions in the North Caucasus by being named after this, its first, remarkable commander.”46

Raskova’s replacement, Maj Valentin Markov, served as the 

regiment’s commander until its disbandment in February 1947. 

Initially unhappy with his assignment to the female unit, Markov remained loyal to the women who proved themselves formidable fighters for the Soviet Union.47 Markov, better than anyone, understood the male assumptions about the female fighters. 

Upon his selection as the 125th commander, his friends regarded 

him with pity and felt his career was over.48 The initial response 

to his command met with equal disappointment; the women of 

the 125th did not want a male commander anymore than their 

male commander wanted a female regiment. As Markov and the 

women of the 125th adjusted to each other, Markov marveled at 

the work ethic and dedication demonstrated by everyone in the 

regiment. He recalled that “sometimes, seeing how the girl armorers hung heavy bombs from the aircraft, how the mechanics 

prepared the airplanes at night, in snowstorms and frost, I 

thought: ‘well okay, we men are supposed to do all this . . . but 

them?! How they, who for the most part are still girls . . . how 

they must love our homeland!’ ”49

After repeated demonstrations of their flying abilities and extensive training programs implemented by Markov, the 125th 
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

29

soon experienced success in the skies over the western front. 

The male units assigned to Stalingrad looked askance at the 

125th when it arrived at an airfield on the Volga River.50 According to squadron navigator, Galina Ol’khovskaia, “they met 

us with distrust in the division. The male pilots could not accept the idea that, just like men, some girls had mastered complicated equipment and would be able to complete any sort of 

combat mission.”51 Combat successes rapidly changed the opinions of the male aviators. Further, Markov frequently arranged 

training tests during breaks in combat operations to prove the 

abilities of the women to other male regiments.52 Not surprisingly, men from other regiments began to regard their aviation 

sisters as competent aviators, if not as equal combatants. 

Unlike the other two units that flew antiquated aircraft, the 

125th flew the latest innovation in Soviet bombers, the Pe-2.53

The Pe-2 was a difficult aircraft to fly and required a three-person 

crew. Despite the physical challenges of flying the Pe-2, the 

women of the 125th demonstrated remarkable flying skills even 

under dire circumstances. A difficult plane to land under normal 

situations, the Pe-2 became very unstable during emergency 

conditions. On one occasion during the 1944 summer offensive, Lena Malyutina received severe wounds from a shell fragment that rendered her unconscious.54 Her navigator, Lena 

Yushina, and tail gunner, Sasha Sychova, managed to stabilize 

the aircraft and revive Malyutina. Malyutina, struggling to remain conscious for the remainder of the flight, managed to land 

the aircraft successfully. According to a later account, 

Lena did not see the airfield. Everything swam and rocked before her 

eyes, and only her body, trained in the course of hundreds of flights, felt 

the machine and her hands and legs automatically reacted by operating 

the control wheel and the pedals. Her ability to react was growing 

weaker and each of her motions was resulting in an unbearable pain, 

but she exerted all her strength, forcing herself to hold on and to fight 

for the lives of her friends who had refused to abandon her. At best, any 

landing of the Pe-2 was tricky and the seriously wounded pilot was very 

much afraid of an excessive airspeed loss during the descent, which 

could have resulted in the machine falling into a fatal spin. Her last 

thought was, before passing out again: “I landed after all.”55

Following a two-month recovery, Malyutina rejoined the 125th 

and continued to fly missions until the end of the war. Malyutina, 
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

30

along with her crew, would fly sorties over Riga, Liepaja, 

Klaipeda, and Koenigsberg, and “fought side by side with the 

pilots of [Charles] de Gaulle’s Normandie-Niemen Regiment.”56

The Night Witches:

The 46th Taman Guards Night 

Bomber Aviation Regiment

(Formerly the 588th Night 

Bomber Regiment)

The 46th became the most famous of the Soviet female units 

and the Germans rewarded their efforts by calling them the 

“Night Witches (Nachthexen).”57 A fictional tale of the unit entitled The Night Witches by Bruce Myles is often cited as an official account of the unit and its female members. The 46th flew 

the decrepit Polikarpov Po-2 (also known by an earlier designation, U-2) in combat missions that included the defense of Stalingrad, Sevastopol, and Minsk, and offensive missions over 

Warsaw and Berlin.58 The 46th had only one commander during its existence, Evdokia Bershanskaia. In addition to the tactical call sign awarded the unit by the Germans, the unit also 

remained singularly distinctive from the other units created by 

Raskova. As each veteran of the unit attests, the unit “was the 

only one of the original three regiments that remained allfemale throughout the war, and to have its campaign record 

examined systematically in several books.”59

Perhaps it was because of its status as an all-female unit 

that the 46th flew the outdated Po-2, despite the desire of most 

of its pilots to fly more advanced fighters. The Po-2 was a 

wooden, open cockpit biplane that could only fly at night due 

to its vulnerability to flak. Undeterred by the aircraft’s limitations, the women of the 46th continuously sought to improve 

their tactical skills in the fragile little Po-2. 

Although the 46th would soon prove their worth as combatants, the men within the Soviet air forces and army initially 

regarded the unit with disgust and trepidation. On one occasion, 

Soviet male pilots harassed a formation of the 46th during flight 

and caused them to scatter.60 Military leadership also frowned 

upon the unit even though communist ideology espoused the 
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

31

idea of gender equality. In spite of the lofty political rhetoric, in 

reality, gender evoked the assumption that they were merely 

“little girls,” and the Po-2 was all they could handle.61

The women of the 46th soon proved their worth in the war. 

At the height of the German invasion during the siege of Stalingrad, the 46th engaged in their first combat sorties. Often 

equipped with only four to six small bombs and gliding to their 

targets with their engines cut off, the women of the 46th successfully harassed German troop supply lines and provided 

critical reconnaissance information.62 The psychological effects 

of the night-bombing raids often exceeded the actual physical 

destruction. According to Reina Pennington, historian of Soviet 

aviation, the Germans admitted the unpredictability of the 

raids “reduced the already short rest of the troops and had an 

adverse effect on supply operations.”63

The limited range of the Po-2 forced the unit to operate close 

to the front line, so the 46th flew shorter sorties. This provided 

them with the opportunity to quick turn their aircraft and crews 

to put more sorties in the air and more bombs on target with 

an average crew “flying five to ten missions each night.”64 Until 

the end of the war, most Po-2s had no weapons other than their 

bombs and no parachutes, compounding the rigorous demands 

of nighttime combat flying. Yet, the women of the 46th continued to fly and fight successfully. In order to maintain or increase their harassment of the Germans, the regiment took on 

“increasingly more difficult tasks aimed at slowing down the 

enemy advance by bombing his rail and motor transport. They 

bombed all night long; yet, in addition to reconnoitering, they 

flew daytime liaison missions to assist in command and control 

of troops, and transported high commanders. They slept almost anywhere; on the ground under the wing, in haystacks, 

and in sheds.”65 According to 46th veteran, Polina Gelman, the 

motivation to continue went beyond the demands of nationalism or self-preservation. Gelman explained, “that’s the way it is 

in war. Whoever didn’t want to be there could leave. There 

weren’t any people like that in our regiment. Only the dying 

and the wounded left. And the wounded, after the hospital, 

even despite the protests of the doctor returned to the regiment 

and continued to fight and even to perish.”66
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

32

One explanation for this devotion comes from the regiment’s 

former chief of staff, Irina Rakobolskaia. When asked why the 

women of the 46th flew so many missions, Rakobolskaia simply 

responded, “Out of enthusiasm . . . to prove that we could do 

anything.”67 Rakobolskaia also described the methods the 46th 

used to replace women lost in combat while ensuring that the unit 

remained exclusively female. According to Rakobolskaia, the regiment “began to train our own personnel as replacements.”68

The Po-2 actually provided the 46th with the means to train replacements. As a training aircraft, it had dual controls, enabling 

navigators to train as pilots during their missions. Rakobolskaia 

described the training regimen as self-generated; navigators trained 

as pilots on return flights from missions, mechanics trained as 

navigators, and weapons loaders trained to become mechanics.69

As more women volunteered to defend the Mother­land, recruits to 

the 46th entered as weapons loaders and worked their way up to 

pilot. The ramifications of this innovation in training occurred when 

Yevdokia Nosal received a fatal wound to the head and her navigator, Irina Kashirina, had to land the aircraft.70

Nosal’s story represents the tragedies that befell many women 

involved in the war. During the early stages of the German invasion, Nosal lost her newborn son during a German bombing 

raid in Belorussia that destroyed the hospital where she gave 

birth.71 After barely surviving the hospital’s destruction and 

her journey home, Nosal volunteered to serve at the front to 

seek revenge for the death of her son and for the destruction of 

her beloved homeland.72 Nosal received the regiment’s first 

Hero of the Soviet Union award posthumously. 

In February 1943, the regiment received its first of many accolades from the Soviet leadership. In recognition of their successes in combat over Stalingrad, the North Caucasus Front, 

and in the Kuban, the 588th officially received its Guards designation.73 The unit flew over 24,000 missions and 23 of its 

members became heroes of the Soviet Union, a testament to 

the capabilities of female combatants.74

The End Result

While the women of Raskova’s regiments and others who 

served amid traditional male units proved themselves as equally 
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

33

capable as all-male aircrews, the Soviet government stood down 

the female units after the war’s conclusion. Some of the female 

combatants successfully continued careers within the Soviet 

military, but most returned to their civilian lives. The experience did leave a lasting impact on the female Soviet psyche: 

many women continued to demonstrate their equality to men, 

despite a lack of support from the Soviet government. 

One veteran of the 46th, Marina Chechneva, continued to fly 

even after the birth of her first child and death of her pilot husband. Even though the government demobilized her from the 

military reserves, “she devoted herself to flying as a sport, in an 

attempt to show that here too, women were men’s equals.”75

Chechneva validated her belief in female equality. She established a number of flying records and her instrument and landing skills in the Yakovlev Yak-18 earned her the title of “Champion of the USSR for 1953.”76 After her flying career ended, 

Chechneva continued to promote gender equality. An established Communist Party member, she represented a number of 

Soviet committees within her nation and abroad. In 1968, the 

department of history of the Plekhanov Institute awarded her 

“the title of Candidate of Historical Sciences” for her dissertation on Soviet women combatants in World War II.77

Other female veterans also went on to proclaim the contributions of women during the Great Patriotic War. Mariya Smirnova 

of 46th Taman Guards Night Bomber Regiment, also forced 

into the reserves after the war, continued to speak to Soviet 

youths and service members about the role women played in 

the Soviet victory.78

Despite the attempts to highlight the contributions of women 

during the war, the Soviet public and military apparently knew 

very little about the female combatants. Maj Marta Meritus of 

the 125th regiment described a reunion for veterans following 

the war: “The commander of the front, under whom we fought 

during the war, asked why we had been asked to this reception 

and who we were. We had to explain that we were the pilots and 

mechanics of the 125th regiment. He had thought it to be a 

male regiment, and it surprised him to learn about us after the 

war. Even now, very few men can believe that women crews 

could fly the dive bomber.”79 Western reactions, until recently, 

were even further dismissive.
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

34

According to Kazimiera Cottam, Western scholars tended to 

regard female Soviet combatants as merely Soviet propaganda 

and accounts of “female success in the military are often dismissed as anecdotal, propaganda-type stories.”80 The Soviet 

government and military did little to dispel such assumptions. 

Despite historical female successes in combat, the Soviet government continued to deny women, for the most part, access to 

military schools and careers.81 Currently, the Russian military 

has very few women in its ranks and very few female pilots. As 

recently as the early 1990s, Svetlana Protasova had to beg Boris 

Yeltsin and defense minister Pavel Grachev for admittance into 

the Russian Air Force and permission to fly the prestigious 

Mikoyan and Gurevich MiG-29.82

More recently, Russian president Vladimir Putin highlighted 

the Russian army’s “Beauties in Shoulder-Straps” competition 

to select the prettiest woman in the Army.83 The aim of the 

beauty pageant was not to recruit more women to serve in the 

Russian armed forces, but merely to lift the morale of the male 

majority of service members and recruit more men to the fight 

in Chechnya. Although Russia has a rich history of women 

successfully serving in combat, their modern armed forces represent a more conservative approach to women in uniform and 

in combat. 

Russian defense ministry officials also cite recent military 

experiences with women in combat in Chechnya that support 

these conservative policies. During the 1990s, half of the conscripts in the Russian Army were women and many of these 

served in combat positions, including machine gunnery positions.84 The performance by these female combat troops bodes 

ill for future female combat inclusion. According to Gen Vladimir 

Konstantinov of the Organizational-Mobilization Main Directorate of the General Staff, “in 1999 all female contract soldiers 

of the Leningrad Military District 138th and 200th Permanent 

Readiness Motor-Rifle Brigades refused to go to fight with their 

units in the second Chechen campaign, causing immense problems in refitting the units with men.”85 The Defense Ministry 

reports that the current percentage of female recruits is holding steady at 24 percent and that in future operations, the ministry will exclude women from combat operations.86 While the 

future for Russian women serving in combat remains bleak, 
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

35

recent developments suggest the roles of women in the Russian 

military may yet improve. In March of this year, Vladimir Putin 

appointed Lyubov Kudelina to the post of deputy minister of 

defense, the first woman in Russian or Soviet history to serve 

in such a position.87 Putin has tasked Kudelina with rooting 

out corruption and reigning in a careening defense budget to 

bring some stability to the military. Kudelina, if successful, 

could pave the way for more Russian women to serve in the 

military the way Raskova did in the last century. 

Notes

1. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 2.

2. Ibid.

3. Ibid., 3.

4. Noggle, Dance with Death, 4.

5. Ibid.

6. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 5.

7. Noggle, A Dance with Death, 4.

8. Stockdale, “My Death for the Motherland Is Happiness.”

9. Noggle, Dance with Death, 5.

10. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 8.

11. Cottam, Women in War and Resistance, xviii.

12. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 9.

13. Noggle, Dance with Death, 6.

14. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 25.

15. Ibid., 26.

16. Ibid.

17. Ibid.

18. Despite the propaganda the all-female units provided Soviet leaders, 

few Western and Russian academics have conducted extensive research into 

this aspect of Soviet history. Further, until the fall of the Soviet Union, Western historians had limited access to official documentation. What little documentation that exists is in Russian. Thus, the majority of this research has 

depended on the efforts of three women: Reina Pennington, Kazimiera Janina 

Cottam, and Anne Noggle. In the course of my research, I came across contradictions in unit designations, spelling of names, and translations of interviews and speeches. I have done my best to provide the most accepted interpretations of the data provided.

19. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 31.

20. Cottam, Women in War and Resistance, xix.

21. Ibid., xix–xx.

22. Ibid., xix.

23. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 36.

24. Noggle, Dance with Death, 7.
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

36

25. Ibid.

26. Ibid.

27. Ibid., 8.

28. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 46.

29. Ibid., 145.

30. Ibid., 148.

31. Ibid.

32. Ibid., 149.

33. Cottam and Markova, Soviet Airwomen in Combat, 6.

34. Ibid.

35. Maj Paul Spaven, F-15C pilot, interviewed by the author, 4 February 

2008.

36. Cottam, In the Sky above the Front, 222.

37. Ibid., 224.

38. Ibid., 226.

39. Ibid.

40. Cottam, Women in War and Resistance, 150.

41. Noggle, Dance with Death, 157.

42. Cottam, Women in War and Resistance, 150.

43. Cottam, In the Sky above the Front, 196.

44. Cottam and Markova, Soviet Airwomen in Combat, 12.

45. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 135.

46. Cottam and Markova, Soviet Airwomen in Combat, 12.

47. Cottam, In the Sky above the Front, 21.

48. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 137.

49. Ibid., 139.

50. Cottam and Markova, Soviet Airwomen in Combat, 12.

51. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 136.

52. Ibid., 143.

53. Ibid., 130.

54. Cottam and Markova, Soviet Airwomen in Combat, 14.

55. Ibid.

56. Ibid.

57. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 115.

58. Ibid.

59. Cottam and Markova, Soviet Airwomen in Combat, 15.

60. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 119.

61. Ibid.

62. Cottam and Markova, Soviet Airwomen in Combat, 19.

63. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 123.

64. Ibid.

65. Cottam and Markova, Soviet Airwomen in Combat, 20.

66. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 124.

67. Ibid.

68. Ibid., 125.

69. Ibid., 126.

70. Cottam, In the Sky above the Front, 75.
THE SOVIET FEMALE FLIERS OF WORLD WAR II

37

71. Ibid., 73.

72. Ibid., 74.

73. Pennington, “Wings, Women and War,” 125.

74. Ibid., 115.

75. Cottam, Women in War and Resistance, 47.

76. Ibid.

77. Ibid., 48.

78. Ibid., 114.

79. Noggle, Dance with Death, 137.

80. Cottam and Markova, Soviet Airwomen in Combat, xii.

81. Ibid., xiii.

82. O’Neill, “Russian Women Aviators.”

83. Bigg, “Russia.”

84. Felgenhauer, “Russian Military.”

85. Ibid.

86. Ibid.

87. “Russia: New Deputy Defense Minister Breaks Mold.”

39

Chapter 4

Shahida in a Brave New World

One of the most surprising developments has been the 

way in which suicide terrorism has opened the stage for 

the entry of female combatants, who are increasingly 

involved in what was once a male dominated arena.

––Clara Beyler

Most Americans associate the global war on terror (GWOT) 

with the current conflict between Western secular ideals and 

radicalized Islamic traditionalists. The American press and media continue to reinforce this notion. However, organizations 

have used terrorism as a “threat or use of physical coercion, 

primarily against noncombatants, especially civilians, to create 

fear to achieve various political objectives” throughout history.1

Terrorism serves as a tool for oppressed peoples and groups 

seeking political upheaval, but state actors also often resort to 

terrorism to control their populations. In the modern era, both 

the oppressed and oppressors have used terrorism without 

mercy and without limit. 

Context Still Matters––

Societal Expectations in the 

Modern Age of Terrorism

While the American press has focused upon the terrorism implemented by a single transnational terrorist group, al-Qaeda, 

the reality is that terrorism and more specifically, insurgent 

terrorism exists throughout the world. Bard O’Neill, director of 

studies of insurgencies and revolution at the National War College, contrasts the transnational terrorism of al-Qaeda, using 

the entire world as a battlefield, with the more defined insurgent terrorism of groups like Hamas and Hezbollah who have a 

specific enemy, Israel. The American press initially used the 

term “insurgency” to describe the current conflict in Iraq; however, the situation is much more complicated than a simple 
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

40

insurgency. O’Neill defines insurgent terrorism as an attempt 

to overthrow a state, to

erode the psychological support by instilling fear into officials and their 

domestic and international supporters. In the short term, terrorists often pursue one or more objectives such as extracting particular concessions (e.g., payment of ransom of the release of prisoners), gaining publicity, undermining or seeking to join a negotiating process, demoralizing 

the population through the creation of a widespread disorder, provoking 

repression by the government, enforcing obedience and cooperation from 

those inside and outside the movement, enhancing the political stature 

of specific factions within an insurgent movement, and fulfilling the 

need to avenge losses inflicted upon the movement.2 (emphasis added)

An insurgency certainly exists within Iraq, primarily of Sunni 

Muslims, against the US-sponsored government. However, there 

are also elements of the transnational terrorism of al-Qaeda, of 

international terrorism sponsored by states such as Iran, of 

secular rivalries between competing ideologies, and of religious 

conflicts between the Shia majority and the Kurdish and Sunni 

minorities. What Americans may refer to as terrorism, Iraqis 

may refer to simply as resistance. 

Americans further assume that the religion of Mohammad 

seeks to relegate women to subservient roles and that most 

Muslim women would resist this subjugation, if able, as Americans did in the women’s suffrage and equal rights movements. 

These assumptions are incorrect. In the traditions of the three 

religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, arising out of the 

Middle East, the role of a woman remains subservient to the 

man of the household. While male children, male nonbelievers, 

and male servants can rise above their initial positions of inferiority through age, conversion, and emancipation, women remain “irredeemably fixed in [their] inferiority.”3

Islam initially improved the condition of Arab women and 

many modern female Muslims believe that Islam protects and 

uplifts its female believers. When Mohammad first introduced 

the Koran to ancient Arabia, the religion “brought enormous 

improvement in the position of women,” and provided women 

“with property and some other rights.”4 Islam further provided 

women with “a measure of protection against ill treatment by 

their husbands or owners.”5 Many Muslim women believe 

their religion continues to protect them. A German Web site, 
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

41

Qantara.de, geared toward creating understanding between 

Western ideals and Islam, describes how Hamas supported 

schools in the Palestinian territories. A student at the University of Nablus, Alaa, explained that their oppression did not 

derive from Islam but instead flowed from Israeli occupying 

forces. “Out there [outside her window] is the Israeli military. 

It’s dangerous [there]. Islam and its regulations protect us.”6

The hijab or veil has come to symbolize this struggle between 

the traditions of Islam and modern Western ideals. French government attempts to remove the veil from Algerian women during Algeria’s war for independence actually resulted (in addition to other, more gruesome, consequences such as rape) in 

women joining the Algerian resistance movement. In ceremonies across Algeria, French military and colonial leaders encouraged women to unveil themselves in front of crowds of their 

fellow Algerians and Muslims.7 The steps taken by the French 

military to emancipate Algerian women from the cultural and 

societal traditions revealed two ironies of the French strategy. 

First, the French strategists demonstrated their ignorance of 

Algerian culture: prior to their initiatives, Algerian women did 

not wear the veil.8 Second, while the act of unveiling was meant 

to represent the release of Algerian women from male oppression, French soldiers also used rapes of Algerian women to coerce obedience and acceptance of French rule by all Algerians.9

After the colonial government instituted a program to lift the 

veils of Algerian women in 1958, Algerian women began to don 

their veils in defiance of the French authorities.10

Current attempts to introduce Western dress and equality 

measures among Muslim women have resulted in similar backlashes. Alaa, the student at the University of Nablus in the 

Palestinian territories, described her fight to wear the anklelength hijab.

11 Her mother regarded the ankle-length traditional 

Palestinian dress as oppressive, yet many modern Palestinian 

women regard the veil as a political symbol. The veil for young 

Palestinian women represents their dedication to their people, 

to the Palestinian cause to oust Israel from Palestine, and to 

resist Western secularism.12

Instead of winning the hearts and minds of half the targeted 

populations in unstable areas in the world, Western attempts 

at liberating women from their traditional cultures have re-
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

42

peated the results seen in French-controlled Algeria. Women 

have turned away from Western ideals of freedom to seek justice for their oppressed peoples. As Bernard Lewis notes, “One 

of the most noticeable consequences of Islamic revival has been 

the return, by women though not men, to full traditional attire.”13 Further, Lewis explains, Muslims have traditionally believed “the converse of tyranny was not freedom but justice.”14

Terrorists have furthered this belief on the Muslim street in 

their calls for jihad against the spread of Western secularism 

and the sponsorship of Israel.

The return to traditional dress is not the only way in which 

Muslim women currently demonstrate their dedication to their 

culture, religion, and society. Increasingly, women from across 

the Muslim spectrum seek to join the fight against perceived 

Western oppression. Women from various backgrounds routinely volunteer to conduct insurgent operations in a number 

of states around the world. Female combatant units began to 

form within the Palestinian territories. In 2002, four young 

women conducted suicide-bombing missions against the Israeli 

military and civilians. These shahida (female martyrs) served 

as role models for Palestinian women who seek the return of 

their communities from Israeli control. In 2005, the first allfemale unit formed under the military wing of Hamas, Izz al-Din 

Al-Qassam (derived from the name of a famous Palestinian religious leader who resisted the British rule of Palestine and 

founded the Palestinian Black Hand).15

The impetus for women to join the armed resistance and to 

sacrifice their lives for their community parallels the motivations of World War II resistance fighters, primarily to contribute 

to the defense and improvement of their countries while bringing honor and security to their families. The greatest difference 

between the resistance fighters of World War II and contemporary fighters is in their tactics: choosing to use suicide bombing 

as their instrument of defiance.

Likewise, recent female insurgents participate increasingly 

in combat operations as well as in the more traditional supporting roles. The use of women in suicide operations by conservative Islamic groups has initiated a new phase in insurgent 

struggles worldwide. In the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Palestinians have used women to send Israelis a deadly message: 
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

43

“Terrorism is not just a fringe phenomenon. Terrorists are not 

just strange young men whispering in dark rooms. Terrorists 

are high-school students, terrorists are women—and terrorists 

are all around you.”16

The Modern Implications––

Do Extreme Methods Indicate 

Different Motivations?

Resistance seems to be motivated by defiance of perceived oppressors for reasons similar to those of the Nazi resistance 

fighters: personal experiences (that demand retribution) and 

political objectives. Religion, often cited as a primary motivation 

for recent terrorist activities, certainly shapes the cultures that 

have produced suicide bombers. While Western leaders emphasize that the war on terror is not a war against Islam waged by 

Christians or Jews, the reality is that religion plays an important cultual role in the motivations behind many modern terrorist and insurgent groups, and subsequently, suicide bombers. 

The common assumption is that this new breed of female 

resistance fighter (pick an appropriate enemy: Zionist Israel, 

imperialist and infidel Americans, Sinhal domination, or Russian oppression to name a few) has been forced into their new 

role as a suicide attacker. Despite personal proclamations that 

these women choose this path for themselves, many in the West 

believe that religious or cult leaders must coerce female suicide 

attackers with brainwashing, drugs, rape, or blackmail and 

then compel them to carry out their operation.17

Russian political and military leaders claim coercion remains 

the primary explanation as to why so many Chechen women 

choose to become Black Widows in the conflict between Russia 

and Chechnya. Mark Francetti, British journalist and one of 

the few journalists to enter the besieged Moscow theater that 

Chechen rebels seized in 2002, disagrees with the Russian 

claims that rebel leaders coerce the Black Widows. Francetti 

suggests these women have been “brutalized by war, have lost 

most of their male relatives in the war either through fighting 

or . . . been killed by the Russians,” leaving them little alternative than to take violent actions against their oppressors.18 Most 
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

44

of these young women thus choose to take drastic measures to 

affect the political or military outcome in their nation, tribe, or 

religious situation. 

Political scientist Robert Pape theorizes that three causal 

factors form the main reason behind the recent increase in suicide terrorism: resistance to foreign occupation, resistance to 

the Western form of democracy, and religious differences between the occupied and occupying forces.19 While religion 

played a role in the motivations of many anti-Nazi resistance 

fighters and continues to inspire a new generation of resistance 

fighters particularly in the case of Islamic fundamentalists, it is 

by no means the only reason, especially with regard to the importance placed on ethnicity and identity in certain cultures.20

The common thread between the motivations of modern terrorists and the resistance fighters in Nazi-occupied Europe is 

clear: occupation by a foreign force. Combine the desire to oust 

the occupying force with religious, personal, or political motivations, and the evolution of terrorist organizations often mirrors that of the evolution of anti-Nazi resistance organizations. 

While not acknowledged by historians or current terrorism experts, the development of female resistance fighters and the 

modern equivalent, female terrorists, also bears strikingly similar evolutions. While initially shunned by their male counterparts, women are increasingly becoming the best weapon; in 

fact, a stealth weapon, against their enemies.21

During the recent intifada by Palestinians against the Israelis, a shift in Palestinian terrorist tactics occurred. Initially terrorist and Muslim leaders rejected the use of women in suicide 

attacks. In 2002, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, the former spiritual 

leader of Hamas, denounced the use of women in battle based 

on “reasons of modesty.”22 Palestinian leaders eventually 

changed their minds when the tactic proved to be beneficial in 

their struggle. Since Palestinian men, especially the young and 

unemployed, came under scrutiny by Israeli Defense Forces, 

groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah moved to use female volunteers to carry out their operations. As the violence continues 

to escalate in the Palestinian territories, terrorist groups are 

seeing an increase in their female volunteers, and even mothers are encouraging their children to martyr themselves for the 

Palestinian people.23
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

45

Honor, a Muslim Woman’s Last Gift 

to Her Family and Community

Although cultural restrictions placed on women are more 

conservative in Muslim societies, the role of women in the 

struggle against Israel, the United States, and their allies is 

evolving. In August 2001, a fatwa issued by the High Islamic 

Council of Saudi Arabia actually encouraged Palestinian women 

to conduct suicide operations against Israel.24 Following the 

successful detonation of a suicide bomb by a mother (and 

Hamas member) that killed four Israelis and wounded seven, 

Yassin finally acknowledged the necessity of using female fighters as a “significant evolution in our fight.”25

Even though the Koran prohibits killing one’s self, female 

suicide bombers do not view their actions as suicide but as a 

means to contribute to their communities as martyrs. For 

women, the promise of virgins awaiting them in paradise has 

little meaning, but the promise of receiving Allah’s glory is 

much greater: “Although the individual’s life is given up, it is 

not suicide, for it is done not for self-fulfillment but to the glory 

of Allah. It is not suicide to know one will die in the act of defending your God, your people and your religious beliefs.”26 Bestowing Allah’s glory onto their family and defending their religious beliefs, which are often in direct contrast to the more 

secular cultures of the United States and other Western nations, is a key motivator for female Muslims engaged in resistance operations. 

The first female Palestinian suicide bomber, Wafa Idris, regarded suicide bombing as her only means of contributing to 

her community. Barren after the stillbirth of her only child, her 

husband divorced her since she could not bear children.27 By 

serving as a suicide bomber, she signaled a change in terrorist 

tactics but not in the motivations of the female fighters. The 

personal experiences of the modern female terrorist mirror 

those of the widowed, orphaned, and childless woman of Nazioccupied Europe who searched for ways to contribute to the 

community after the loss of their families.

Muslim-based groups and other terrorist organizations have 

thus recognized a tactic that European resistance groups capitalized upon during the Nazi occupation. This tactic exploits 
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

46

the basic cultural assumption that women in general do not 

engage in killing, resistance, or sabotage since women are the 

givers of life and the nurturers of society. Western strategists, 

similar to the Nazi strategists coping with the resistance, continue to assume that women are not prone to violence and 

could not willingly endanger the lives of their children. Therefore, women terrorists are quintessential resources in the conduct of asymmetric operations against superior military forces, 

and terrorists groups increasingly use them in their operations.

Chechen Black Widows––

Honor is All That Remains

One group that has certainly exploited the tactical advantage 

women terrorists provide is the Chechen rebels. Most Americans, if they are aware of the conflict between Chechnya and 

Russia at all, assume the Chechens are simply another terrorist group motivated by a radical form of Islam. This assumption 

is incorrect and fails to acknowledge the key motivating factor 

for Chechen rebels, including the female fighters: the cultural 

importance of personal honor. Chechen Black Widows adhere 

to the “rules of Adat, a traditional Chechen code of honor,” 

which inspires them to “exact retribution for the sake of honor” 

against the Russian occupying presence in Chechnya.28

Chechen Black Widows have conducted numerous operations against the Russians, including the bombing of Russian 

airliners, the seizure of a Moscow theater, and the seizure of a 

school in Beslan. During the seizure of the Moscow theater, 18 

out the 41 terrorists were women; the only ones with bombs 

strapped to their bodies. Of all the terrorists in that theater, the 

female members created the greatest fear and anxiety among 

the victims. One of the victims, who lost her husband during 

the rescue attempt, said a female Chechen simply stated, “Russians did not understand the suffering” the Chechens must 

endure under Russian rule, and they were there (in the theater) 

to make sure that Russia felt the same pain.29

In 2003 Chechen rebel commander Abu al-Walid al-Ghamidi 

explained why women account for 60 percent of Chechen suicide bombers: “These women, particularly the wives of the mu-
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

47

jahedin who are martyred, are being threatened in their homes, 

their honour and everything are being threatened. They do not 

accept being humiliated and living under occupation.”30 Just 

as the grief over the loss of their loved ones and the humiliation 

of a Nazi occupation inspired European women in World War II 

to resist the Fascists, Chechen women have also sought retribution against the Russians. These Chechen women are not 

the only women in the modern era who have suffered personal 

tragedies and then turned to terrorism; resistance fighters in 

Sri Lanka have also turned their grief and anger into weapons 

against their government.

Tamil Black Tigresses––

Hindu Honor with a Nationalist Twist

The Liberation Tamil Tigers of Eelam (LTTE) (Eelam is Tamil 

for Sri Lanka), the minority Hindu Tamil population in Sri 

Lanka, are seeking the establishment of an independent Tamil 

state, free from the majority Buddhist Sinhalese. The LTTE actively recruits and advocates the use of women in its operations 

to secure political objectives. Such action brings considerable 

honor to the woman and her family; Tamil society in turn reveres 

the Black Tigresses as saints since they are willing to die for 

their people. The acceptance of women in the Tamil insurgency 

even led to innovations in terrorist operations. The LTTE developed 

the first suicide belt, for example, and designed it for female use 

since it made the wearer look pregnant and allowed the female 

insurgent to pass through security checkpoints with ease.31

The LTTE proclaims the emancipation of women from traditional Hindu and Buddhist cultures to propagate the idea of 

freedom for all Tamils. Evidence of the LTTE’s support of equality 

for women goes beyond its use of women as suicide bombers. 

Within each branch of service of the LTTE, there are female 

units under the command of women.32 While the motivations of 

female members, and more specifically, the Black Tigresses, 

remain primarily personally or nationalistically based, the presence of all-female units and female leadership cadres indicates 

a type of feminist ideology.33 The LTTE male leadership exploits 

all of these motivations in their efforts to seek both greater sup-
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

48

port from among the populace they claim to represent and from 

the international forum. 

When the progressive attitude of the LTTE towards women 

fails to generate the desired response, the LTTE has been effective at capitalizing on the personal stories of its infamous Tigresses. The LTTE goes further and accentuates supposed 

atrocities that befell their Tigresses to encourage public outcry 

against their Sinhalese oppressors.34 Some detractors accuse 

the LTTE of fabricating tales of personal tragedies to attract 

greater support from among oppressed communities. Others 

see these incredible stories of personal tragedies as attempts to 

garner sympathy from external organizations. 

The first female Tamil Tiger suicide bomber, later honored as 

a saint by the LTTE, was Thenmuli Rajaratnam, also known as 

Dhanu, who detonated a bomb that killed 16 bystanders during 

her assassination of Rajiv Gandhi. According to most sources 

and supported by LTTE propagandists, Dhanu’s motivations 

for her action were rooted in her personal experience of gang 

rape at the hands of Indian soldiers sent by Gandhi to Sri Lanka 

to suppress the Tamil separatist movement.35 The accepted explanation of her actions began when occupying Indian forces 

slaughtered her family and proceeded to rape her.36 In these 

cultures, martyrdom for their people is seen as their only option. According to Pape, “Some of the female suicide bombers 

in Sri Lanka are believed to be victims of rape at the hands of 

the Sinhalese or Indian soldiers, a stigma that destroys her 

prospects for marriage and rules out procreation.”37 Not only 

does suicide bombing release a woman and her family from the 

stigma of rape, it provides women unable to produce children 

with a means to mother society. In the Tamil culture, “Tamil 

mothers make great sacrifices for their sons on a daily basis; 

feeding them before themselves or the girl children, serving 

them and so on. Acting as a human bomb is an understood and 

accepted offering for a woman who will never be a mother.”38

The lack of marriage prospects and personal experiences of 

rape or loss of a husband illustrate one primary difference in 

motivations between women and men in regards to terrorist 

activities. The fact that many female terrorists are older than 

their male counterparts is the result of cultures that place certain expectations upon their women. When those expectations 
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

49

remain unfulfilled, they must find other ways to contribute to 

the community.39

For many of the women of the LTTE and Chechen insurrections, personal experiences certainly influenced their decisions 

to become Black Tigresses or Black Widows, but nationalism 

also appears to elicit desires among women in their decisions to 

take up arms. Many female fighters among the LTTE, Chechens, 

and other terrorist groups, such as Hezbollah in Lebanon, are 

simply resisting occupation based on nationalistic motivations. 

Nationalism––Placing the State above Self

During the Lebanese conflict with Israel in the early 1980s, 

the acts of female suicide attackers had little to do with religious ideology but centered upon the desire to oust the Israelis 

and enable the Lebanese people to determine their own government. In that conflict, women of varying backgrounds, including a Christian high school teacher, a Christian factory worker, 

and members of the Lebanese Communist Party, chose to use 

suicide bombings to force Israel out of southern Lebanon. 

One attacker, 17-year-old Sanaa Muhaidly, explained her motivations for conducting a suicide attack in a video testimony: 

“I have witnessed the calamity of my people under occupation. 

With total calmness I shall carry out an attack of my choice 

hoping to kill the largest number of the Israeli army. . . . [D]o 

not cry for me, do not be sad for me, but be happy and smile. I 

am now planted in the earth of the South irrigating and quenching her with my blood and my love for her.”40 While Muhaidly 

clearly understood her actions would not end the occupation 

by Israeli forces, she believed the sacrifice of her life would contribute to the eventual liberation of her country. Such actions, 

in combination with international political factors, did force Israel out of southern Lebanon in 2000. 

Nationalism has also revealed itself among many failed Palestinian female suicide bombers. Although opinions differ on 

the actual inspirations behind female Palestinian nationalism, 

Western and Arab media outlets have glamorized the nationalist motivations proclaimed by these shahida. The Palestinian 

national leadership promoted the shahida actions “as evidence of 
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

50

a trend towards equality insofar as Palestinian patriotism was 

concerned, a subject that permeated the national discourse.”41

Videotaped testimonies left behind by successful suicide 

bombers such as Hamas supporter Darin Abu Eisheh sustain 

claims by both Palestinian and militant Islamic leaders that 

these women volunteered to martyr themselves for Palestine. In 

her video statement, Eisheh proudly proclaimed “Let [Israeli 

Prime Minister Ariel] Sharon the coward know that every Palestinian woman will give birth to an army of suicide attackers, 

even if he tries to kill them while still in their mother’s wombs, 

shooting them at the checkpoints of death.”42 Eisheh further 

declared that the role of every Palestinian woman would “not 

only be confined to weeping over a son, brother, or husband; 

instead, she will become a martyr herself.”43 Eisheh presented 

herself as a willing participant in militant operations, in spite 

of continual statements by Palestinian and militant leaders 

that women’s role in the jihad remained grounded in their roles 

as mothers and wives who support the shahid (male martyrs). 

There is recognition by these leaders, however, of the use of 

women for tactical operations and propaganda purposes.

The placement of women into recruiting roles in an effort to 

enlist female supporters provides clear evidence that Palestinian leadership acknowledges the usefulness of women in their 

resistance fight. The Islamic Jihad, for example, uses sayings 

or hadith attributed to the Prophet Mohammad to support their 

attempts to recruit women and to justify the use of women in 

combat operations. Jamilla Shanti, a female recruiter for the 

Islamic Jihad movement, claimed that women are equal to men 

when it comes to martyrdom. Shanti and others base this notion on a hadith that calls upon all Muslims to resist “if even 

one centimeter of Muslim soil is conquered.”44

Some Palestinian men also acknowledge the equality among 

male and female suicide bombers. Muatez Haimouni argues 

that there is “no difference between men and women as suicide 

terrorists.”45 Haimouni not only sent women to their deaths in 

suicide attacks––including Andalib Taqtaqah, who killed six 

people in the Mahane Yehuda market in Jerusalem in 2004––

but currently uses the Internet to recruit potential female combatants. Haimouni logically justifies his actions. The intense 

motivations of women desiring to join the fight, coupled with 
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

51

the tactical difficulties Israeli security measures create, force 

him to use women in his operations.46 The elevation of female 

suicide bombers to shahida status provides some Palestinian 

women with two alternatives once denied them due to gender. 

First, the acknowledgement that these women also want to die 

for Palestine and are also ardent nationalists, aside from the 

propaganda use, recognizes that they are equal citizens to the 

male shahid. Second, the fact that the patriarchal Palestinian 

society honors these women in similar fashion to the male suicide bombers culturally elevates them above their original stations in society, even if temporarily. 

Notes

1. O’Neill, Insurgency & Terrorism, 33.

2. Ibid., 34.

3. Lewis, The Middle East, 206.

4. Ibid., 210.

5. Ibid.

6. Adler, “The Women of Hamas.”

7. Lazreg, Torture and the Twilight of Empire, 151.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid., 150.

10. Ibid., 151.

11. Adler, “The Women of Hamas.”

12. Ibid.

13. Lewis, The Middle East, 318.

14. Ibid.

15. Adler, “The Women of Hamas.”

16. Applebaum, “Girl Suicide Bombers.”

17. Ling, National Geographic.

18. Ibid.

19. Pape, Dying to Win, 126.

20. Ling, National Geographic.

21. Ibid.

22. Zedalis, Female Suicide Bombers, 7.

23. Ling, National Geographic.

24. Zedalis, Female Suicide Bombers, 7.

25. Ibid., 8.

26. Skaine, Female Suicide Bombers, 18.

27. Ling, National Geographic.

28. Reuter, My Life Is a Weapon, 150.

29. Ling, National Geographic.

30. Pape, Dying to Win, 32.

31. Skaine, Female Suicide Bombers, 51.
SHAHIDA IN A BRAVE NEW WORLD

52

32. Gunawardena, “Female Black Tigers: A New Breed of Cat?” 81.

33. Ibid., 83.

34. Ibid., 85.

35. Pape, Dying to Win, 229.

36. Ibid., 230.

37. Ibid.

38. Gunawardena, “Female Black Tigers,” 84.

39. Pape, Dying to Win, 208.

40. Ibid., 134. The “South” she refers to is southern Lebanon, which borders 

Israel. This is the same area where the most recent conflict between Israel 

and Hezbollah occurred in 2006.

41. Tzoreff, “The Palestinian Shahida,” 22.

42. Greenberg, “Portrait of an Angry Young Arab Woman.”

43. Pedahazur, Suicide Terrorism, 139.

44. Tzoreff, “The Palestinian Shahida,” 22.

45. Schweitzer, “Palestinian Female Suicide Bombers,” 30.

46. Ibid.
53

Chapter 5

American Women at War

I’ve seen female officers commanding Military Police 

companies in some of the toughest spots in Iraq, leading a hundred men––and Iraqis, whose culture doesn’t 

put women in such positions. Because of their pure 

leadership qualities, it wasn’t a problem.

––Lt Gen Ray Ordierno, US Army

Unlike the women in Nazi-occupied Europe or in the Palestinian territories, American women have not had to face the 

life-altering dilemma of resisting or submitting to an occupying 

force. The cultural myth that evolved over the role of women 

during World War II centered upon the glamorized depiction of 

Rosie the Riveter. The desire to contribute to the war effort 

that permeated American society led women to enter into factories in vast numbers, and American society regarded their 

actions as noble since they freed up more men to fight in direct combat. 

The American Context

After the war ended, the cultural myth suggests, women willingly returned to their prewar lives as wives and mothers. While 

women continued to serve in limited capacities in the military 

with the passage of the Women’s Armed Services Integration 

Act of 1948, the services actually regarded these women “as 

convenient temporary help until recruiting picked up again.”1

The legislation also capped the number of women allowed in 

the military at 2 percent, limited promotions, and curtailed 

command opportunities.2 The military services went even further and prohibited those women from serving who had dependent children or discharged those who became pregnant.

As the Equal Rights Movement gained momentum in the 

early 1970s, restrictions on women in the military slowly began 

to recede. When the draft ended in 1973, the Department of 
AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR

54

Defense (DOD) initiated manpower studies on the usefulness of 

women in military positions once filled by male draftees. One 

DOD study “concluded women were less physically capable, so 

laws and policies prohibiting them from serving in combat were 

kept in place” but also recognized they “could increase the utilization of women by 22 percent without impacting combat effectiveness.”3 At the end of the draft, women made up less than 

2 percent of the all-volunteer force. By 1996, the number of 

women in uniform increased to 13.1 percent.4 As of 2007 

women averaged 15.9 percent of the officer corps and 14.4 percent of the enlisted corps across the four services.5

Operation Desert Storm revealed just how critical and routine the role of women had become as well as illuminated the 

shortcomings of some policy mandates in the US military. First, 

the number of women who deployed to the area of operations 

(AOR) was unprecedented. About 35,000 women from all the 

services deployed and made up 7 percent of all US forces in the 

AOR.6 Second, the Iraqi use of Scud missiles against support 

locations highlighted the lack of an identifiable battlefield: in 

essence, the entire AOR became the battlefield. Third, women 

in support roles participated in combat operations, despite the 

prohibitions against women in combat roles. Air-refueling 

tanker pilots like Col Kelly Hamilton flew within range of Iraqi 

air defense forces to refuel fighter aircraft, while others flew on 

tactical airlift missions and drove refueling tankers into Iraq to 

support ground operations. Fourth, women proved capable of 

performing under combat situations and even excelled. Finally, 

the American public appeared to accept the realities of women 

dying in combat. During Desert Storm, 11 women lost their 

lives, five were killed in action, and two were taken prisoner, yet 

there was no huge outcry from the American public.7

The ramifications of Operation Desert Storm led to several 

revisions to US policy regarding women in combat roles. Prior 

to 1991, the DOD had adopted the Combat Exclusion Policy 

that prohibited the assignment of women to combat and combat 

support units in an effort to standardize the restrictions on women 

in combat-related positions across the services. The performance of women and the nature of the conflict during Desert 

Storm forced the DOD “to reassess and revise” the policy.8 Despite recommendations from a presidential commission to re-
AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR

55

tain the exclusion of women from combat aircraft, Congress 

repealed Title 10, US Code, § 8549 in December 1991. Newly 

elected president Bill Clinton supported the repeal, and in 1993 

Defense Secretary Les Aspin moved “to address the remaining 

restrictions on the assignment of women.”9

Although women finally received the opportunity to fly combat aircraft with the repeal of Title 10, US Code, § 8549, the 

debate raged over the question of allowing women to participate in direct ground combat. The secretary allowed the individual services to define restrictions on female assignments 

based on a redefining of the Risk Rule that had governed policies such as § 8549. According to Aspin’s new directives, 

“Women could not serve in units that 

1) engaged an enemy on the ground with weapons, 

2) were exposed to hostile fire, and 

3) had a high probability of direct physical contact with personnel of a hostile force.”10

The Army and Marine Corps thus chose to continue to restrict 

women from infantry, artillery, armor, and air cavalry units. The 

chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, Gen John Shalikashvili, 

also directed that all special operations forces (SOF) aviation 

positions were to remain closed to women.11

As the debate continued among political leaders, American 

women began to enter into the fields once denied them. Many of 

these women demonstrated, not only to their peers and superiors 

but to the American public as well, their capabilities and worth in 

combat positions. The 1990s also led to another evolution in the 

conduct of military operations. The nature of US military operations transitioned from the conventional force engagements expected during the Cold War to limited wars that moved counterinsurgencies, antiterrorism, humanitarian relief, and counterdrug 

operations from the periphery to the center of operations.

The Realities of Current 

US Military Operations

In the remote eastern Paktia province of Afghanistan, a roadside bomb exploded through a four-vehicle convoy of Humvees 
AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR

56

in April 2007 and wounded five soldiers. The medic assigned to 

the convoy rushed to protect the wounded from insurgent gunfire “as mortars fell less than 100 yards away.”12 After the convoy held off their attackers, the medic told the Associated Press, 

“I did not really think about anything except for getting the 

guys to a safer location and getting them taken care of and getting them out of there.”13 The medic moved the wounded to a 

safer location over 500 yards away, where they received treatment on site before a helicopter evacuated them. 

That Army medic, SPC Monica Lin Brown, received the Silver 

Star in March 2008 for her actions, yet ironically remains prohibited by Army regulations from serving in a frontline combat 

role. The reality of combat operations has forced the Army to 

ignore those regulations, since both Afghanistan and Iraq present cultural challenges where the presence of female soldiers 

remains necessary. In both locations, “female soldiers are often 

tasked to work in all-male combat units—not only for their 

skills but also for the culturally sensitive role of providing medical 

treatment for local women, as well as searching them and otherwise interacting with them.”14 The restrictions remain despite 

the Army’s recognition that Specialist Brown’s “bravery, unselfish action and medical aid rendered under fire saved the 

lives of her comrades and represents the finest traditions of 

heroism in combat.”15 The 19-year-old Brown became the second woman since World War II to receive the Silver Star, the 

nation’s third highest medal for valor. 

Brown’s actions that resulted in her Silver Star directly contradicted the policies of her commander-in-chief, Pres. George 

W. Bush. In a 2005 press conference, President Bush announced that he would not authorize women to serve in ground 

combat units although he accepted the roles of women on combat surface ships and in aircraft.16 While President Bush forbade women from serving in the infantry, artillery, armor units, 

and all special operations forces, he did not order women out of 

those combat support units and duties, such as medics, since 

that directive would hamper the military’s performance in Iraq 

and Afghanistan.17

Therefore, women carried on in their support duties and continued to excel in combat environments, with the exception of 

Specialist Brown. Within a week of the firefight that earned her 
AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR

57

a Silver Star, the Army chose to withdraw Brown from the field 

since, as Brown put it, “her presence as ‘a female in a combat 

arms unit’ had attracted attention.”18 The Army’s reaction to 

pull Brown from her unit appears dubious. The same year 

President Bush issued his policy on women in combat, SGT 

Leigh Ann Hester from the Kentucky National Guard came under fire during an ambush of her unit in Iraq which eventually 

led to her nomination for a Silver Star. 

As a member of the 617th Military Police Company, Hester’s 

squad was escorting a supply convoy when Iraqi insurgents attacked. During the middle of the fight, “Hester led her team 

through the ‘kill zone’ and into a flanking position, where she 

assaulted a trench line with grenades and M203 grenadelauncher rounds.”19 Yet, Hester went on to clear two trenches 

of insurgents and killed three insurgents with her rifle. Hester 

did not demonstrate a sense of pride at being the first woman 

since World War II to win the Silver Star. Sergeant Hester simply 

took pride in “the duties I performed that day as a soldier.”20

Hester explained that her response under fire came because of 

the training she received and claimed she reacted, as any soldier should; “It’s your life or theirs. . . . You’ve got a job to do––

protecting yourself and your fellow comrades.”21 Furthermore, 

Hester was not the only woman in that particular convoy, nor 

the only one recognized for her actions on that day.

SPC Ashley Pullen also served as a driver in the same convoy. When the insurgents attacked, Pullen fired upon insurgents and then “exposed herself to heavy AIF [anti-Iraqi forces] 

fires to provide medical assistance to her critically injured comrades.”22 Pullen’s actions saved several lives and resulted in her 

selection for the Bronze Star. The award of these medals to female soldiers highlights the realities of the current conflicts 

facing the United States. According to the Washington Post, the 

awarding of Hester’s Silver Star “underscores the growing role 

in combat of U.S. female troops in Iraq’s guerrilla war, where 

tens of thousands of American women have served, 36 have 

been killed and 285 wounded.”23

Female soldiers are not only engaged in combat on the 

ground. Col Laura J. Richardson commanded the 5th Battalion, 

101st Aviation Regiment (5-101) during the first year of Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF). At the 2007 Air Force Women’s Train-
AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR

58

ing Symposium, Richardson recounted the challenges of leading others into combat. The 5-101 flew the UH-60 helicopters 

that transported the airborne troops of the 1st Brigade, 101st 

Airborne Division (Air Assault), within the combat theater. 

Richardson’s greatest concern was not over her own personal 

safety or that of her husband who commanded the 3rd Battalion, 101st Aviation Regiment (3-101); it remained focused on 

the safety of the 305 personnel in her immediate command.24

In an interview with Time magazine prior to the start of OIF, 

Richardson emphasized her anxiety over the potential use of 

chemical weapons by the Iraqis. Richardson explained, “There 

are things I can actively do to avoid or destroy an Iraqi airdefense site. There is not much I can do about a WMD [weapon 

of mass destruction] except sit there and take it.”25

During her presentation at the Women’s Training Symposium, 

Richardson continually stressed the importance of training in 

preparation for combat. By preparing her subordinates and 

their families for the demands of combat and demonstrating 

her competence as a pilot and commander, Richardson felt she 

earned the respect of her battalion.26 In her final assessment, 

she believed her troops did not see her gender as a constraint 

to her abilities to lead the battalion into battle. She emphasized 

that the men and women in her battalion, along with their families, “wanted a good leader and a master of their profession.”27

When the 5-101 crossed the Kuwait border into Iraq on the 

opening night of OIF, Richardson felt she had done her best to 

prepare herself and her subordinates for battle. Although this 

was her first time in combat, Richardson handled the challenges with ease. She bunked with her crew under her helicopter when a massive sandstorm grounded the UH-60 fleet and 

delayed the invasion.28 She also dealt with the loss of a member 

of her battalion as any commander would. She focused on the 

morale and mental attitude of her battalion while providing 

comfort for grieving family members of the fallen soldier.29 The 

challenges Richardson faced as a commander paralleled the 

obstacles her husband faced as the commander of the 3-101, 

which flies Apache helicopters.30 The realities of combat compounded by harsh weather conditions and the loss of personnel 

can challenge anyone, regardless of gender. Colonel Richardson 

handled those difficulties as well as any male commander. 
AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR

59

Richardson’s experience also provides evidence of the new realities of combat in the twenty-first century. Even in supporting 

roles, women face the same dangers traditionally associated with 

direct combat roles since the “nature of the wars in Afghanistan 

and Iraq, with no real front lines, has seen women soldiers take 

part in close-quarters combat more than previous conflicts.”31

The actions of Richardson, Brown, Pullen, and Hester demonstrate that women can also handle the rigors of combat situations. Their successes further contribute to the debate over the 

role of women in combat positions within the Army. 

The Quiet Pioneers––

Air Force Female Combat Aviators

Unlike the women in the Army, who must enter into either 

the Aviation Branch or the Military Police Corps for combat opportunities, the Air Force has allowed and even encouraged 

women to volunteer for combat positions. Once Secretary Aspin 

opened assignment to combat aircraft to women in 1993, 

women slowly began to enter the male-dominated world of combat fighters and bombers. Beginning with then-captains Martha 

McSally, Jeannie Flynn, and Sharon Preszler, women who had 

demonstrated exceptional proficiency in undergraduate pilot 

training (UPT), received offers to begin initial fighter follow-on 

training. McSally flew the A-10 and became one of the first 

American female pilots to engage in combat operations and the 

first female commander of a fighter combat flying squadron.32

Flynn went on to earn accolades in the F-15E, including being the first woman to graduate from the USAF Fighter Weapons School, and logged 200 hours of combat time during Operation Allied Force.33 Preszler piloted the F-16 and participated 

in no-fly-zone operations over Iraq in Operation Northern Watch. 

Preszler described the realities for women entering the fighter 

world for the first time as not being very different from that of 

men entering the fighter fraternity. Preszler explained, “fighter 

pilots care how other pilots fly. I’m going to fly and it’s not going 

to be a big deal. It is a performance based industry.”34 While 

Preszler admitted there were some of her fellow male pilots who 
AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR

60

did not want her there, most accepted her as an equal and 

judged her on her flying skills.35

Despite Air Force encouragement and recruitment efforts to 

coax women into fighter and bomber aircraft, the number of 

female combat pilots remains small. As of 2008, only 70 women 

fly fighter aircraft.36 That number, though, has almost doubled 

since 2002 when only 47 women flew fighter aircraft; and still 

more women are flying intelligence, reconnaissance, and other 

strike platforms such as the AC-130.37

One female fighter pilot in this new generation is Maj Melissa 

“Shock” May. May flies the F-16 and recently received the Distinguished Flying Cross for a combat mission flown over Bagdad. During that mission, May and her four-ship formation 

took out Soviet-made mobile surface-to-air missiles to allow 

the Army to continue its movement into the city by enabling US 

air superiority.38 One wingman took fire and had to drop his 

external fuel tanks to evade an incoming Roland missile. May 

described the scenario in an interview with the Air Force Times: 

“There we were, in the weather and getting shot at. And, after 

dropping his tanks, he [her wingman] was low on gas.”39

May and some of her peers recently created an organization 

dedicated to the growing sisterhood of female fighter pilots. 

Dubbed the Chick Fighter Pilot Association (CFPA), the group 

serves as point of contact for 49 active duty pilots, 16 weapons 

system officers (WSO), and 17 Air National Guard “fighter 

chicks.”40 As of this writing, the informal group has expanded 

to include Navy and Marine Corps female fighter pilots and 

WSOs. The CFPA provides advice and networking to achieve 

three stated goals: 

1. Encourage and strengthen mutual support in our unique 

environment,

2. Help each other succeed, and 

3. Provide a professional and social network for women in 

fighters.41

While critics may regard this organization as divisive and evidence that women cannot endure the rigors of combat aircraft, 

the group proudly disagrees. CFPA seeks “not to set ourselves 

apart” since its members all believe that they “are, first and 
AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR

61

foremost, Fighter Pilots,” and that serving as fighter pilots remains their primary focus.42 The CFPA also remains one out of 

many various social and networking organizations within the 

fighter community including groups like the Daedalians or the 

Tuskegee Airmen. 

Not all airborne female combatants are at the controls of 

fighter or bomber aircraft. Capt Allison Black, a navigator on 

the AC-130 gunship, has become a pioneer for women in special operations. She received the Air Force Combat Action 

Medal in 2007. Black was the first to receive the medal along 

with five male Airmen for her actions over the skies in Afghanistan in 2001.43 While providing close air support for ground 

special operations forces and Northern Alliance partners near 

Kandahar, Black’s crew attacked advancing Taliban forces. 

During that sortie and “under large caliber, enemy antiaircraft artillery fire, Captain Black continued the assault at below minimum altitude, destroying enemy personnel and equipment, and leading to the eventual capture of Taliban and 

Al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan.”44

During a panel on “Women in Combat” at the Women’s Training Symposium, Black testified that she does not feel her male 

squadron mates judge her by her gender but rather by her 

skills and professionalism in and out of the aircraft.45 During 

Black’s first deployment to Afghanistan, she became “the first 

female AC-130H navigator to shoot in combat,” and through the 

course of events earned herself a new nickname, the “Angel of 

Death.”46 Black, whose soft-spoken voice could be heard broadcasting over the radio, became the focus of taunting against the 

Taliban by Gen Abdul Rashid Dostum of the Northern Alliance. 

According to Black, Dostum “couldn’t believe it” and “thought 

it was the funniest thing” that a woman carried out the attack 

on Taliban forces.47 Upon hearing Black’s voice over the radio, 

Dostum grabbed a radio to re-broadcast her voice to the Taliban radios proclaiming that, “America is so determined, they 

bring their women to kill the Taliban. You’re so pathetic. It’s the 

angel of death raining fire upon you.”48 Black remains humble, 

despite the press accolades over her actions and her gender. 

She insisted, both in press articles and during her speech at 

the Women’s Training Symposium that she is “just another airman doing her job” and is simply proud to serve.49
AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR

62

MSgt Kimberly Sulipeck also feels proud for the chance to 

serve her country. Sulipeck, a sensor operator on the AC-130H, 

has over 450 combat hours over Afghanistan and estimates 

she has “targeted and eliminated more than 150 enemy combatants.”50 Sulipeck dismisses concerns over female shortcomings during combat and urges fellow female service members to 

excel at any tasks assigned to them. Sulipeck advises women, 

and men, to “do your job and do it right.”51 If everyone focuses 

on the mission and accepts the differences among service members, Sulipeck told the audience at the Women’s Training Symposium, the mission will succeed, and that is what matters 

most.52 Sulipeck’s observations represent the opinions of many 

current US female combatants. Most women serving in the US 

armed forces desire the meritocracy the military usually provides its members and do not desire special treatment.

The reality of women serving in combat exists despite the 

best attempts of some pundits to restrict or completely deny 

women the opportunities to serve in combat roles. In the allvolunteer force that depends on the skills and professionalism 

of women, who make up nearly 15 percent of the force, military 

leaders across the services recognize the crucial roles women 

fulfill in successful mission accomplishment. Even though 

women have proven themselves capable of handling the rigors 

of various combat roles and senior military leaders acknowledge the necessity of female participation, there remains strong 

political opposition on the issue of women in combat. 

Notes

1. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 147.

2. Skaine, Women at War, 58.

3. Ibid., 59.

4. Ibid., 61.

5. Yeager, “Soldiering Ahead,” 54.

6. Skaine, Women at War, 64.

7. Ibid., 65–66.

8. Botters, “How the Army Can Meet the Intent of Policy,” 71.

9. Skaine, Women at War, 104.

10. Ibid., 106.

11. Ibid.

12. Associated Press, “Female Texas Teen to Receive Silver Star.”

13. Ibid.
AMERICAN WOMEN AT WAR

63

14. Tyson, “Woman Gains Silver Star.”

15. Associated Press, “Female Texas Teen to Receive Silver Star.”

16. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 141.

17. Ibid.

18. Tyson, “Woman Gains Silver Star.”

19. Wood, “Female Soldier Receives Silver Star in Iraq.”

20. Ibid.

21. Ibid.

22. Tyson, “Soldier Earns Silver Star.”

23. Ibid.

24. Richardson, panel discussion.

25. Gibbs, “An American Family Goes to War.”

26. Richardson, panel discussion.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.

29. Ibid.

30. Ibid.

31. Associated Press, “Female Texas Teen to Receive Silver Star.”

32. Bergquist, “First Female Pilot in Combat Reflects on Career.”

33. Grant, “The Quiet Pioneers.”

34. Storey, “First Female Active-Duty Fighter Pilot Retires.”

35. Ibid.

36. Weaver, “Meet the Air Force’s First Female African-American Fighter 

Pilot.”

37. Grant, “The Quiet Pioneers.”

38. Winn, “Female Airmen Deadly in Iraq, Afghanistan.”

39. Ibid.

40. Chick Fighter Pilot Association, “Fighterchicks.Com.”

41. Ibid.

42. Ibid.

43. Randolph, “Airmen Receive First AF Combat Action Medals.”

44. Ibid.

45. Black, panel discussion.

46. Winn, “Female Airmen Deadly in Iraq, Afghanistan.”

47. Ibid.

48. Ibid.

49. Ibid.

50. Ibid.

51. Ibid.

52. Sulipeck, panel discussion.

65

Chapter 6

The Way Backward

There is no question that women have valor. No question that they are as intelligent, capable, and brave as 

men. And yet I know of no society which has routinely 

treated men and women as interchangeable and equivalent units in war—the policy now being pursued by the 

American military.

––Olivia Vlahos, anthropologist

Although the US military currently utilizes female soldiers in 

Iraq and Afghanistan to gather intelligence through conversations with local women and to assist in policing female suspects, these same female soldiers are explicitly restricted from 

assignment to combat positions.1 A 2005 proposal in the House 

of Representatives sought to increase restrictions on female 

participation in the war on terror by prohibiting women from 

serving in forward support companies. In a paper issued in response to the outcry over the proposed amendment, supporters 

stated “[t]here is no military or demographic reason, however, 

why America must expose young women, many of them mothers, 

to direct ground combat.”2

The Realities of War and Social Politics

The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) goes even further in 

its objections to women in combat. The CMR proclaims that the 

discussion is not just about exposing young mothers to the violence of combat but also about a gender-integrated force fighting effectively. The CMR espouses that the realities of physical 

capabilities, unit discipline, deployability, and unit cohesion 

trump calls for equal civic opportunities.3 The CMR claims to 

support the right for women to serve but only in those jobs that 

do not involve direct ground combat. The CMR continuously 

emphasizes the common arguments made by very vocal critics 

of women serving in combat. Elaine Donnelly, the president of 
THE WAY BACKWARD

66

the CMR, explains that women should “serve their country 

without deliberate exposure to greater, unequal risk,” since, 

Donnelly argues, “Experts in the field have noted that female 

captives, unlike their male counterparts, are almost always violated sexually” (emphasis in original).4

In his scathing criticism of women serving in the military, 

Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military, and his 

1998 follow-up, Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster, 

Brian Mitchell pushes the debate beyond women serving in 

combat to women serving in the military altogether. Aside from 

the implications inherent in both titles, Mitchell’s choice of 

chapter titles reveals his position on the role of women in the 

military and combat. Titles such as “Myths in the Making,” 

“Damn the Services, Full Speed Ahead,” “The Last Class with 

Balls,” and “From Here to Maternity,” clearly indicate Mitchell’s 

view that women do not belong in the military, much less in 

combat.5 He bases his conclusions on the fact that women do 

not adhere to the expectations of typical male combatants and 

uses evidence from the service academies and recent sexual 

assault scandals to drive home his point: “There are two kinds 

of cadets and midshipmen at today’s federal service academies. 

One is male: aggressive, strong, daring, and destined for combat; the other is female: none of the above.”6

Written in 1989, Mitchell’s Weak Link remains relevant in the 

modern debate over the role of women in combat since many of 

his arguments continue to reverberate, particularly with conservative Americans, evidenced in his re-release of this book in 

1998 under the Women in the Military title. Mitchell suggests 

that allowing women to integrate more fully into the American 

military will ultimately hinder the institution’s ability to fight 

and win wars. Trumpeting the same arguments put forth by 

conservative organizations like the CMR, Mitchell also suggests 

that military service does not call to women the way it does to 

men. He claims, “Higher attrition rates, both before and after 

graduation, and their consistently poorer performances in history and military science prove that women at the academies 

simply do not want to be soldiers or sailors or airmen as much 

as the men do.”7 Mitchell asserts that military service calls men 

whereas women see it as merely another occupation. The recent Russian experience in Chechnya seems to support this 
THE WAY BACKWARD

67

assertion. Russian officials cite the refusal of female conscripts 

to deploy to combat operations in Chechnya as justification for 

limiting the inclusion of women into combat roles.8

Thus, at the heart of the debate over women in combat there 

remain three basic propositions. First, female physical capabilities, including pregnancy issues, obviously differ from men 

and thus affect overall unit effectiveness. Second, critics argue 

that the presence of women hinders unit cohesion by limiting 

male bonding and creating disciplinary challenges due to the 

sexually charged nature of coed units. Finally, many assert 

that a civilized society based on Judeo-Christian morality 

should not send its mothers and daughters into harm’s way.9

This final argument also uses the sex argument to suggest that 

captured female combatants will certainly become victims of 

rape or sexual brutality and therefore should avoid exposure to 

such risks.

Physical Capabilities: Women are Different

One of the most effective arguments against women serving 

in combat is the simple fact that women are physically different 

from men. Usually smaller in stature, bone structure, and 

muscle development, women have traditionally been regarded 

as the weaker and therefore, the less aggressive of the two 

sexes.10 The physical ability of women to carry 80-pound rucksacks on their back over a 10-mile run remains a central point 

to the argument against allowing women into combat positions. 

SPC Monica Brown, for instance, had to drag injured soldiers 

by their body armor with the help of fellow soldiers instead of 

picking them up and carrying them over her shoulder.11

Since the average female recruit, who “is about five inches 

shorter than the average man,” has 55 to 60 percent less upper 

body strength, and has lighter bones more likely to fracture, 

the scientific evidence seems to support the theory that women 

have a decided disadvantage as compared to men.12 In 1997, 

an Army research study reported that women accounted for 

over half of the reported cases of stress fractures in advanced 

training programs.13 The data reinforced findings from studies 

done a decade earlier. According to tests completed by the Army 

of its 1980 West Point recruits, women possessed “only 80 per-
THE WAY BACKWARD

68

cent of overall strength of men,” and even after eight weeks of 

intensive training, men still outperformed their female counterparts.14 This disparity between strength abilities provides a 

persuasive argument against women in combat. As Brig Gen 

Margaret A. Brewer, USMC, retired, suggests, “military women 

could appropriately be assigned to all occupational fields except the direct ground combat specialties. These specialties 

generally require a high degree of physical strength.”15

The critics of women in combat also disparage the concept 

that technological advances counteract this disadvantage. While 

proponents of women in combat argue that technology has mitigated the need for hand-to-hand combat with the advent of 

long-range artillery and aerial bombs, critics opposed to women 

in combat suggest technology has only increased the physical 

demands of combat. Mitchell suggests, “The notion that technology has alleviated the need for physical strength is almost 

universally accepted,” and points to a report from Time magazine that implied “the physical demands of the military have 

been exaggerated.”16 The CMR also strongly disagrees with the 

technological solution to female physical limitations. On its 

Web site, the CMR argues:

Equipment and survival gear carried by today’s combat soldiers, including electronic weapons and ammunition, satellite communication 

devices, batteries, and water weigh 50–100 pounds—a burden that is 

just as heavy as loads carried by Roman legionnaires in the days of 

Julius Caesar. Modern body armor alone weighs 25 pounds. This weight 

is proportionately more difficult to carry by female soldiers who are, on 

average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45–50% less upper body 

strength and 25–30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance. Even in current non-combat training, women suffer debilitating bone stress fractures and other injuries at rates double those of 

men. To summarize an enormous body of well-documented evidence 

produced by physiologists in the U.S. and Britain, in close combat 

women do not have an “equal opportunity” to survive, or to help fellow 

soldiers survive.17

Mitchell’s assessment is even blunter as he expands his critique to include noncombat conditions. He proclaims that many 

daily duties remain beyond the capability of women, since “routine tasks are often too much for them,” and that some women 

have “trouble carrying their own tool boxes.”18
THE WAY BACKWARD

69

There is research data to support the declarations of Mitchell 

and the CMR, and critics are quick to use this evidence. Mitchell 

sites a Government Accounting Office (GAO) study that revealed, “62 out of 97 female aircraft mechanics could not perform required tasks such as changing aircraft tires and brakes, 

removing batteries and crew seats, closing drag chute doors, 

breaking torque on bolts, and lifting heavy stands.”19 The 1992 

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the 

Armed Forces also referenced scientific studies that documented female physical disparities with their male counterparts. Specifically, the commission cited “a test of Reserve Officer Training Corps cadets using the standard Army physical 

fitness test,” which “found that the upper quintile of women 

achieved scores equivalent of the bottom quintile of men.”20 The 

commission used other evaluations to support its recommendation to continue combat restrictions. Primarily, the commission 

highlighted that only a “few women can meet the male mean 

standard. Men below the standard can improve their scores, 

whereas the women who have met the standard have already 

achieved a maximum level beyond which they cannot improve.”21

Critics emphasize that the military services responded to the 

physical realities they faced in their female force by gender 

norming the physical fitness requirements instead of establishing an appropriate training program for female recruits. Dr. 

Charles Moskos, professor emeritus at Northwestern University and a member of the 1992 Presidential Commission, uses 

the double standards of the military services’ physical fitness 

tests as evidence that women do not belong in combat. Moskos 

references a 2002 British Ministry of Defence study that revealed under standardized fitness requirements, “injury rates 

for women were nine times that of men.”22

The existence of dual physical fitness standards leads to the 

assumption that the services must lower physical requirements 

to accommodate weaker females. Helena Carreiras observes 

that “on the one hand, when gender-specific physical tests are 

implemented (the most common situation in NATO countries) 

change associated with gender integration may be interpreted 

as a lowering of standards,” since a woman earns a passing 

grade on a performance that produces a failing grade for a 

man.23 The double standards, according to Mitchell, also go 
THE WAY BACKWARD

70

beyond the physical fitness tests. Mitchell suggests, “The need 

to accommodate smaller, weaker soldiers played a part in the 

Army’s decision to replace the M1911 45 caliber Colt pistol 

with the 9 millimeter Beretta,” and dismisses the likelihood 

that standardization of projectiles among NATO members actually drove the decision.24 Likewise, the 1992 Presidential Commission cited evidence that “Age also makes a difference: A 

20- to 30-year-old woman has about the same aerobic capacity 

as a 50-year-old man. Because women begin losing bone mass 

at an earlier age than men, and are more susceptible to orthopedic injuries, those initially selected for the combat arms 

would probably not survive to career-end [sic].”25

Stephanie Gutmann, a critic of the integration of women into 

the military services, suggests a panorama of double standards 

exists among all the services. In her analysis, Gutmann argues 

that “in the chase for women and to cajole them along once 

they managed to bag a few, the obsequious services (less so the 

Marines) allowed double standards (de facto, de jure) to influence everything from recruiting, to basic training graduation, 

to moral conduct, to promotion qualifications. Women were allowed to come into basic training at dramatically lower fitness 

levels and then to climb lower walls, throw shorter distances, 

and carry lighter packs when they got there.”26 In principle, the 

services touted the equality of women in performing military 

duties. In practice, however, the services used lower standards 

in recruitment, training, and utilization of female service members. This clash between de facto (in practice ) and de jure (in 

principle) created a number of double standards in favor of 

women, according to Gutmann. 

Other accommodations, specifically the reproductive issues 

and other female medical requirements, further hinder the performance of a military unit in combat. In his testimony to the 

commission, Moskos explained the impact of pregnancies on 

military units. Moskos suggested that in “mixed-gender units, 

particularly as it [sic] get[s] closer to the combat area, have 

lower deployment rates, higher attrition, less physical strength, 

more sexual activity, higher costs, et cetera, et cetera.”27 Most 

opponents use the argument that since women can get pregnant, they receive special consideration when deployments to 

war zones occur. Pregnancy results in the aeromedical evacua-
THE WAY BACKWARD

71

tion of the pregnant woman, and since it takes time to generate 

a replacement, the unit will have to function without one of its 

members. During Desert Storm, the 1st Cavalry Division reported over a period of five months there were 24 cases of pregnancy out of 1,065 women assigned.28

Pregnancies seemingly also highlight another problem with 

gender integration that critics readily point to as evidence 

women do not belong in combat units. When women and men 

are in close proximity to one another, various issues such as 

fraternization, inappropriate behavior, and in general, lax discipline arise. Gutmann highlights the results of integration on 

the repair ship USS Acadia during Desert Storm. Nearly onetenth of the women serving onboard had to leave midcruise due 

to pregnancy, indicating violations of several rules, including 

fraternization, resulting in the remaining crew members having to make up for the lost workforce.29 Many critics argue that 

these discipline issues can degrade unit morale and cohesion 

while creating an atmosphere more prone to sexual harassment and assault problems.

Unit Cohesion, Discipline, and 

a Sexually Charged Culture

Mitchell argues that the presence of women forces a more 

relaxed, cultured attitude upon organizations that rely on harsh 

brutality and killer mentalities. There is evidence to suggest 

women “civilize” military culture; men serving on the integrated 

USS Eisenhower testified that they showered more and swore 

less with the introduction of female sailors.30 Gutmann explains 

that the Navy’s senior leadership, when faced with demands for 

integration, chose to “insist that in fact a kinder, gentler soldier 

is just what’s needed in an era in which we are increasingly assigned as peacekeepers.”31

In his article, “Women Can’t Fight,” former Navy secretary and 

current Virginia Senator James Webb suggests the presence of 

women harms the military’s ability to conduct warfare. Webb 

warns, “There is a place for women in our military, but not in 

combat. And their presence at institutions dedicated to the preparation of men for combat command is poisoning that prepara-
THE WAY BACKWARD

72

tion. By attempting to sexually sterilize the Naval Academy environment in the name of equality, this country has sterilized 

the whole process of combat leadership training, and our military forces are doomed to suffer the consequences.”32 Mitchell 

also emphasizes the organizational role in civilizing the once 

brutal and harsh military service, using the service academies 

as prime examples of how the integration of women irrevocably 

changed the institutions’ abilities to produce warrior officers. 

To accommodate the perception that female cadets required 

more privacy than their male counterparts, the academies issued shower curtains and opted not to shave the heads of female Midshipmen.33 Webb quotes a classmate of his who appreciated the presence of women among the Midshipmen. 

Webb’s classmate believed women “brought a measure of . . . 

refinement to the place.”34

The Navy struggled and continues to struggle with the integration of Annapolis. Webb describes his time as a Midshipman 

as a test of not only his character, but also manhood. He details the rigors of his time at Annapolis and the ramifications of 

introducing women into this bastion of military leadership:

That was the plebe system. It was harsh and cruel. It was designed to 

produce a man who would be able to be an effective leader in combat, 

to endure prisoner-of-war camps, to fight this country’s wars with skill 

and tenacity. And it is all but gone. They still call it Plebe Year at the 

Naval Academy. Freshmen still have to memorize certain facts called 

“plebe rates” and still have to call the upperclass “sir.” But there it ends. 

Now you cannot physically punish a plebe. You cannot unduly harass a 

plebe. God forbid that you should use abusive language to a plebe. Plebes 

do not “brace up” in the mess hall or in the corridors of Bancroft Hall. 

It is now a punishment, limited to fifteen minutes maximum, to require 

plebes to do what they once did as a basic activity for a year: stand at 

attention.35 (emphasis added)

Webb believed at that time that the presence of women had 

changed Annapolis for the worse. He argues that the integration of female Midshipmen into Annapolis has led to a “system 

[that] has been objectified and neutered to the point it can no 

longer develop or measure leadership. Internally, sexual attractions and simple differences in treatment based on sex 

have created resentments and taken away much of the institution’s sense of mission.” Webb even goes on to describe the 
THE WAY BACKWARD

73

dormitory at Annapolis, Bancroft Hall, as “a horny woman’s 

dream,” since the vast majority of residents is male.36

Webb’s lewdness aside, the fact remains that women make 

up a small minority of the student population at each of the 

military academies. Each school faces continuing challenges in 

the integration of female cadets. Highlighted by Webb, the supposed underlying sexual tensions between male and female cadets, and their active duty counterparts in the military at large, 

have created sexually charged atmospheres. Some suggest that 

these atmospheres have resulted in the phenomenon of sexual 

assault against female cadets and active duty personnel. In a 

2005 report on sexual harassment and violence at the military 

academies, the DOD revealed that an unusually high percentage of female cadets reported incidents of sexual harassment. 

Leading the other service schools, the US Military Academy at 

West Point had by far the highest rates of sexual harassment 

committed against female cadets, reported to be at 80 percent 

from 1993 to 1994.37

While a seemingly high number, the most common forms of 

harassment involved the kind of banter Webb suggested was 

commonplace at the academies before the integration of women. 

Each institution represented the friendly field of strife, destined 

to serve as the birthplace of successful military leaders. For 

West Point, the successes of Army leaders like Douglas McArthur 

and Omar Bradley reflected the assumption that West Point 

produced tough, manly combat leaders. Thus, the introduction 

of women into this stronghold of masculinity inferred an attack 

on “West Point’s mystique.”38

Consequently, senior leadership initially failed to address 

these cultural paradigms before allowing women to enter the 

academies. The resulting reactions to accusations of sexual 

misconduct within DOD led senior leaders to deem any “verbal 

or physical conduct of a sexual nature” that creates “an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment,” as sexual 

harassment.39 The very atmosphere described by Webb as pivotal in his development as a Marine Corps leader thus equated 

to sexual harassment. This represented a failure of military 

leadership to “separate the defense of a masculine institution 

from the defense of traditionally male activities and attitudes 

that were ugly and sometimes criminal.”40 Defined as “sexual 
THE WAY BACKWARD

74

harassment,” the complaints from 1993 to 1994 at West Point 

for the most part involved “derogatory personal comments and 

comments that standards were lowered for women.”41 These 

comments reflect the underlying culture present at each institution while revealing the difficulties faced by and, to some 

extent, the failures of senior leadership in dealing with these 

complex challenges. 

Mitchell also points to similar challenges that the US Air Force 

Academy (USAFA) had in 1976 integrating women into the 

school. Instead of the unsympathetic discipline male recruits 

routinely received, academy officials observed that women responded better to positive motivation and created “several special measures to protect women from the worst of cadet life.”42

Webb and Mitchell both argue these organizational changes 

weakened the effectiveness of producing combat leaders since 

the measures often abandoned the aggressive, in-your-face behaviors evident in the military prior to gender integration. 

Some argue this approach still permeates Air Force Academy 

culture. Following the 2003 sexual assault scandal that rocked 

the institution, a scandal that allows critics to demonstrate the 

efficacy of their arguments, academy leadership implemented 

the “Agenda for Change.” Changes included the controversial 

removal of the “Bring Me Men . . .” sign, segregated classes on 

sexual assault, and mandatory training for faculty on what to do 

if a cadet admitted to committing or was the victim of sexual assault. The Air Force chief of staff also replaced the top four officers 

in command during the scandal and chose a woman, Col Debra 

Gray, as a vice commandant of cadets. Her primary responsibility 

was to oversee the implementation of the “Agenda for Change.” 

The most controversial measure implemented actually provided amnesty for other infractions to anyone who reported or 

witnessed a sexual assault. The “Agenda for Change” stated:

In all reported cases of sexual assault, amnesty from Academy discipline arising in connection with the alleged offense will be extended to 

all cadets involved with the exception of the alleged assailant, any cadet 

involved in covering up the incident, any cadet involved in hindering the 

reporting or investigation of the incident, and the senior ranking cadet 

in attendance. The senior ranking cadet present will be responsible and 

accountable for all infractions committed by junior cadets.43
THE WAY BACKWARD

75

This policy created the perception that female cadets could 

drink, behave inappropriately, and avoid disciplinary action if 

they merely accused someone of sexual assault. It further led to 

the belief that female cadets received defferential treatment based 

on their gender. That belief also extended to female officers. 

Gray, a member of the first gender-integrated USAFA class, 

oversaw the academy’s “sexual climate issues” and remained 

the primary officer in charge of implementing the “Agenda for 

Change.”44 Gray’s selection created some controversy when one 

male cadet sent an e-mail to the chief of staff, Gen John P. 

Jumper, that Gray’s only “qualifications is [sic] that she is female, 

and an Academy graduate.”45 The belief that Gray received her 

new position based on gender and not her professional qualifications illuminated the residual problems of integrating women 

into the military services. 

In order to integrate women, the services had to adapt their 

assignment processes to include consideration for married military couples, establish systems to support dependent family 

members, update physical fitness requirements, and institute 

formalized education programs on sexual harassment and assault. Furthermore, when Secretary Aspin lifted the ban on 

women flying combat aircraft, the Air Force used aggressive 

tactics to encourage women to move to fighter cockpits. The 

primary means to recruit women into fighters involved designating fighter aircraft assignments out of UPT for women only. 

While there was no formal backlash to the policy, the Air Force 

eventually removed the designations. The service also no longer assigns an action officer to track “female pilot” issues, a 

practice common during the 1990s.46 The damage had been 

done, however, as the stigma attached to affirmative action–

type policies began to permeate the services. An e-mail from an 

18-year-old cadet to the Chief of Staff in 2003 reveals the reality 

that sexism is still present in the military services, despite the 

best attempts of the services to educate its members on sexual 

assault and harassment.

Although the services have declared zero-tolerance policies 

for sexual harassment since the early 1980s, cases such as the 

USAFA sex assault scandal, the Tailhook scandal, and the sexual assault scandal at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds, demonstrate that “such a goal is far from reality.”47 Despite policy 
THE WAY BACKWARD

76

declarations, the military has failed to eradicate this behavior 

and has focused on the symptoms instead of the causation of 

sexual assault, which has created a significant dilemma for the 

services.48 In an attempt to eradicate this illicit behavior, the 

military chose to train and educate its members about sexual 

harassment in the workplace through a series of equal opportunity training classes. 

Also known as “sensitivity training,” the classes were the object of ridicule and resentment reminiscent of the race-based 

sensitivity training conducted during the racial integration effort 

of the early Cold War. The classes emasculated the male members and isolated the female members further despite instructors’ best attempts to make scenarios gender neutral. The overriding lesson was men always needed to behave as they would 

around their wives or mothers; if your wife or mother would be 

offended, do not say or perform the intended action. It became a 

zero-sum contest between the macho locker room of Wellington’s 

“fields of friendly strife” and the family dinner table.

One Navy officer best described the sentiment of those who 

chafed under the services’ attempts to thwart sexual harassment and assault. A lieutenant commander EA-6B Prowler pilot explained in 1998 that “They’re [senior leadership] trying to 

legislate how we think and act and trying to change something 

that men have done for centuries. It’s going to take a long time 

for society to change. There’s nothing wrong with trying to be a 

New Age Sensitive Guy. You can do that, but there’re also times 

when you just wanta [sic] be with the boys, go out drinking and 

have a good time and act like pigs.”49

Mitchell suggests that the central problem to situations such 

as this rests on “the natures of men and masculinity.”50 Men 

think and act in a very different way than women. Attempts to 

educate and train men on how to behave around women, critics 

argue, diminishes their more aggressive nature and inhibits 

their baser impulses, like violence and angry reactions to failure 

or threats. A set of constant truths, Mitchell posits, lies in the

importance of the military’s masculine character in attracting men. In 

all societies, it is necessary for young males to do things that establish 

their identity as men. In our own society, the proof of manhood often 

takes frivolous and destructive forms: restless young men devote themselves fanatically to sports, rock music, or crime. In healthier societies, 
THE WAY BACKWARD

77

the proof is more constructive. Young men can be persuaded to endure 

years of dirt, danger, and drudgery in occupations whose only attraction is their manly character. Military service has always been considered the most manly of roles and therefore always been able to attract 

recruits, despite its abundance of detractions.51

The failure to eradicate sexual scandals therefore is not due to 

a lack of education; the recent sexual scandals merely highlight the serious problems associated with introducing women 

into organizations built upon decades or even centuries of a 

masculine heritage.

The tendency, some analysts suggest, for sexual assault to 

occur in gender-integrated organizations “may be seen as the 

effect of pressures to reassert the masculinity of service members,” especially as women continue to prove their abilities in 

operations other than combat, like peacekeeping or humanitarian interventions.52 Webb provides one explanation for the 

causes of sexual assault and rape. The fundamental difference 

between men and women remains the fact that “Man must be 

more aggressive to perpetuate the human race. Women don’t 

rape men, and it has nothing to do, obviously, with socially induced differences.”53

Webb expands this argument even further and suggests that 

with women integrated into combat units, the focus drifts from 

combat to procreation, which leads to disciplinary issues and a 

reduction in combat effectiveness. Webb assesses that “Introducing women into combat units would greatly confuse an already confusing environment and would lessen the aggressive 

tendencies of the units, as many aggressions would be directed 

inward, toward sex.”54 And while the issues surrounding sexual 

harassment remain politically charged and garner greater press 

coverage, the moral question about women serving in combat 

remains the most controversial and provocative argument 

against the notion of women in military service. 

The Moral and Cultural Issue––

Sending Mothers and Daughters into Battle

At the heart of the debate of allowing women into combat 

rests the question of the role of women in society in general. 

The traditional perception, still held by many men and women 
THE WAY BACKWARD

78

of all cultures, of the role of women has been one of nurturer, 

life giver, and mother. During the suffrage movement, American 

women demanded civic equality and the right to participate in 

the public forum by casting their own votes. Critics of the Suffragists suggested women already had a prominent position in 

society and “that in their role as mothers they were performing 

a public service: that the women who died in childbirth were 

sacrificing their lives as much as men who died in battle.”55

The association between motherhood and citizenship dates 

back to Spartan society. The only way to assure glory in the 

afterlife for Spartan citizens was for men to die in battle or 

women to die in childbirth.56 This cultural association between 

motherhood and political status created “a troubling legacy; 

women and men have been incorporated into citizenship in different ways: men primarily as soldiers and workers and women 

primarily as mothers.”57 Erin Solaro, author of Women in the 

Line of Fire, suggests maternal mortality played (and still plays) 

a significant role in the establishment of these gender norms 

for citizenship. She argues that even in modern American society, the maternal mortality rates are “high enough to account 

for the very strong emotional reaction many people have against 

women serving in combat.”58

Civil society reinforced (and continues to reinforce) this emotional reaction. Western societies adopted a Victorian perception that through motherhood, women remained morally superior since they gave life instead of taking it.59 Furthermore, even 

as the modern era has witnessed women entering the workforce en masse, the role of women in child rearing and homemaking still often defines their contributions to society. After 

an intense study on the implications and integration of women 

into Western democratic militaries, Prof. Helena Carreiras concluded that two main aspects underline the cultural exception 

to women in combat: “first, the persistence of a shared cognitive model that supports gender asymmetries; second, the disproportionate share of work and family responsibilities between 

men and women.”60

The CMR suggests the most fundamental reason for limiting 

female participation in combat remains the cultural notion that 

violence against women is unacceptable. In an explanation of 

the organization’s support of the Hunter/McHugh Amendment 
THE WAY BACKWARD

79

to the 2005 National Defense Authorization Act, the CMR argued, “Cultural values also matter. Assigning female soldiers to 

close combat units would be tantamount to acceptance of deliberate violence against women, as long as it occurs at the hands 

of the enemy” (emphasis added).61 In his article on the subject, 

Webb also pointed to the cultural ramifications of a society encouraging its women into combat roles. He highlighted that 

“This is the only country in the world where women are being 

pushed toward the battlefield. The United States also has one 

of the most alarming rates of male-on-female violence in the 

world: Rapes increased 230 percent from 1967 to 1977 and the 

much-publicized wife-beating problem cuts across socioeconomic lines.”62 Additionally, the patriarchal Western culture 

has evolved in such a way that it assumes women require protection because of their physical inferiority and because women 

create life in the continuance of the society and remain vulnerable to maternal mortality. 

Maternal mortality remains a constant risk in even the most 

medically advanced societies and, therefore, creates the notion 

that men need to protect women from all other harm since they 

face death with each pregnancy. According to political essayist 

Erin Solaro, men seek “to redeem a blood debt with blood” on 

the battlefield.63 If societies allowed women to participate fully 

in combat that perceived societal balance of sacrifice would tilt. 

Societal acceptance of women in combat, critics argue, would 

lead to further problems within that society as barriers between 

men and women diminish.

In fact, a major argument used by Representative Duncan 

Hunter in debates over the inclusion of women in combat support units focused on the cultural dilemma of a nation sending 

its mothers and daughters to war. Just prior to the debate over 

his amendment, Hunter declared, “The nation should not put 

women into the front lines of combat. In my judgment, we will 

cross that line soon unless we make a policy decision. Forward 

support companies go forward into battle. That is why they are 

labeled ‘forward’ support companies. The American people have 

never wanted to have women in combat, and this [amendment] 

reaffirms that policy.”64

An example of the disparities between the societal expectations of men and women exists in the press coverage of combat 
THE WAY BACKWARD

80

deployments and combat fatalities. During the initial deployments for Desert Storm, OEF, and OIF, frequent reports focused on the mothers leaving their children behind. The concern over mothers having to deploy created such a political 

frenzy that Congress spent a number of hours debating legislation “such as the ‘Gulf War Orphans Act’ to keep parents out of 

combat zones.”65 The focus remained primarily on the mothers 

who left their children behind and not the fathers. The emphasis on mothers deploying and potentially dying provided critics 

of women in combat and in the military another argument in 

their favor.

This cultural concept is not exclusive to America. As noted 

previously, even though Soviet women proved their abilities to 

fight in combat in a variety of roles, they only did so because of 

the threat against the Soviet Union. These Soviet women firmly 

believed that women performing activities traditionally reserved 

for men represented an aberration created solely by the Nazi 

invasion, and civil society should not willingly send its women 

into combat.66 Carreiras’ research 50 years later exposes a similar cultural stigma attached to the thought of women serving in 

the military and in combat. She suggests, “Most women share 

with men the dominant and asymmetric cultural model of gender relations,” which results in the institutionalizing of cultural 

norms within military organizations and society as a whole.67

This sentiment persists today in most nations around the 

world and accounts for the small numbers of women in the 

military services. Carreiras concludes that the “cultural resistance to women’s presence is among the factors that are pushing women away from the military” and further preclude women 

from engaging in combat operations.68 Carreiras’ research reveals the patriarchal undertones that discourage female involvement in combat. The attempts at integration in the Dutch 

military service, Carreiras suggests, exemplify the strong cultural influences that actually discourage women from entering 

into the military, much less combat.69

Even during the American debate over allowing women into 

fighter aircraft in 1991, then-chief of staff of the Air Force, Gen 

Merrill A. McPeak, admitted his own personal biases in testimony to the Senate Armed Service Committee about women in 

combat aircraft. McPeak explained that despite logical evidence 
THE WAY BACKWARD

81

proving female capabilities, “I have a very traditional attitude 

about wives and mothers and daughters being ordered to kill 

people,” and that he would choose a male pilot over a female 

pilot when going into combat.70

Critics of women in combat suggest that the real motivation 

behind the push for opening combat to women remains hidden 

behind feminist agendas. The question is not about civic equality, 

as Anita Blair suggests, but about “conquering manhood.”71

Gutmann also dismisses the argument put forth by feminists 

suggesting women deserve the same civic right to die for their 

country as men. Instead, Gutmann argues, the proponents of 

women in combat want women “to bask in the special glory and 

adoration that comes to soldiers returning from or marching 

off to war.”72 If the integration process hinders the military’s 

ability to conduct war, critics argue, antimilitary feminists would 

doubly rejoice. 

Some in favor of opening combat positions actually argue 

that enlightenment does occur when women enter into organizations such as the political and military branches, which could 

result in fewer wars in the long term. Gutmann references comments made by Betty Friedan to illustrate this position. Friedan 

claims she 

feels safer somehow because these powerful nuclear weapons that can 

destroy the world and the new human strategies therefore needed to 

defend this nation will hence forward be in the hands of women and 

men who are, with agony, breaking through to a new strength, strong 

enough to be sensitive and tender to the evolving needs and values of 

human life—if only the last gasps of threatened machismo do not stop 

this evolution.73

In other words, the enlightening or feminization of a military 

organization diminishes the aggressive, masculine elements traditionally associated with military units which naturally inhibits 

the violent tendencies of its members. Mitchell also believes that 

in a version of this feminist enlightenment. He writes that a “Progressive society prides itself with having evolved to a higher level 

where ancient impulses are deplored as childish machismo and 

where most socially respectable motivations are, ironically, the 

most material and most selfish” (emphasis in original).74

The debate over the role of women in combat in the US military continues to occur. While critics, like Webb, appear to ac-
THE WAY BACKWARD

82

cept the equality of women in other professions such as the 

medical, legal, and political career fields, there remains a vocal 

chorus of detractors on the issue of women in combat. While 

the country accepts the potentiality of having a female commander in chief, many still believe women do not belong in 

combat or even in the military. 

Senator Webb, however, provides an interesting indicator of 

how this debate is potentially evolving in light of current operational demands. Webb appears to have reconsidered his opposition to women in combat. During the 2006 senate race, Webb 

apologized if his 1979 article on women in the military offended 

readers and stated he had changed his opinion on the issue of 

women in combat. Perhaps Webb’s conversion evolved out of 

political necessity. He has sought the support of the more liberal Democratic Party since writing a similar article in 1997 

about the attack on the masculine military culture.75 On the 

other hand, perhaps Webb recognized the successful contributions of American female combatants since 1997 and now truly 

believes women can contribute equally to the defense of the 

United States. 

Are the Arguments Valid?

These three arguments have remained and continue to remain central to the debate put forth by critics of women in 

combat and military service. In spite of 30 years of evidence of 

the successful integration of women into combat units and 

their sustained exceptional performance, critics continue to 

use these three fundamental arguments to implore a return to 

a more civilized method of national defense built upon an allmale military. Regardless of the evidence contradicting their 

arguments, critics continue to repeat them. 

Mitchell, for example, published another book on the subject 

in 1998 entitled Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster, 

where he essentially republished his 1989 book, Weak Link: 

The Feminization of the American Military. The only major differences between Mitchell’s two works was his inclusion of the 

1992 Presidential Commission (which he referred to as “The 

War Games Commission”) the Navy Tailhook scandal, the controversies over former Air Force 1st Lt Kelly Flinn, the death of 
THE WAY BACKWARD

83

Navy LT Kara Hultgreen, and the Aberdeen Proving Ground 

sexual assault scandal.76 Mitchell also presented his arguments 

before the 1992 Presidential Commission, citing his analysis of 

purported evidence of the impact women had on military institutions, like the service academies. Interestingly, Mitchell either ignored or remained ignorant to scientific studies and 

cases of successful combat unit integrations that occurred between the publications of his two books.

Most notably absent from his follow-up analysis of the debate is the 1997 study by the US Army Research Institute of 

Environmental Medicine. The study examined how female soldiers responded to physical fitness regimens focused on improving their abilities to perform specified tasks associated with 

their assigned duties, such as heavy lifting and long-distance 

marches with 75-pound backpacks.77 While following the prescribed Army time constraints for physical fitness programs, 

the study revealed appropriate training vastly improved the female soldiers’ physical performances. The training regimens, 

which replicated the actual work the women would do instead 

of focusing on the typical push-ups, sit-ups, and long-distance 

running programs, revealed that 78 percent of the female participants could meet the Army’s minimum requirements for “very 

heavy” Army jobs, up from the prestudy level of 24 percent.78

The results of the study suggest that with proper training, 

women can perform physically demanding duties despite their 

perceived physical inferiority. Furthermore, the women’s physical 

sizes can provide benefits that exceed that of their male counterparts. For example, the smaller bone structure of a female mechanic enables her to reach areas within an aircraft engine that 

an average man cannot reach.79 Women are also not the only 

military members hampered by their smaller stature. 

During the last two weeks of his Marine Corps basic training, 

Daniel Motamedi had to figure out how to lift the three heaviest 

platoon members and their body armor onto improvised 

stretchers.80 While on a hike up a mountain in full combat 

gear, Motamedi also had to decide whether to help a weaker 

platoon mate. Although restricted from assisting weaker platoon 

members during the hike, “Motamedi told him [his friend] to hang 

on to his pack, and he dragged his friend along.”81 The military 

encourages, values, and lauds effective teamwork. Motamedi’s 
THE WAY BACKWARD

84

actions adhered to the Marine Corps standard to leave no one 

behind, yet what would the response have been had the friend 

in need been a woman? Col Lorry Fenner, USAF, suggests that 

the past socialization of men “prepared them to recognize an 

individual woman’s need for assistance as a particular instance 

of women’s general weakness but did not allow them to draw a 

similar conclusion with regard to individual men whose comrades (including, sometimes, women) helped them carry a load 

when they otherwise would have fallen behind.”82

If Mitchell had included the results of the 1997 study in his 

recent book, he most likely would have highlighted the fact that 

the study revealed female participants could still only lift 81 

percent of the weight lifted by their male counterparts.83 Yet 

this argument would have not sufficed since the majority of 

female participants met Army standards for those “very heavy” 

jobs without regard to gender. The study provides evidence 

that with appropriate physical training, most individuals are 

capable of performing assigned tasks. 

It also highlights an important aspect in regards to military 

readiness, the gender issue aside. Traditionally, prescribed 

physical standards for military jobs have had little to do with 

the actual job at hand.84 A perfect example is the obstacle 

course present at most military installations. While most military jobs do not require a service member to jump up and over 

a wall, an obstacle of this type remains a common element of 

the military obstacle courses of all the services. While women 

and men both struggle to overcome this kind of an obstacle if 

they do not have the upper body strength required to pull one’s 

body over the wall, critics of women in the military and combat 

“pointed at women’s failure with the wall as a sign of general 

incapacity or weakness.”85

Both those for and against the inclusion of women into combat and the military have likewise overlooked a recent shift in 

American cultural norms as they pertain to female participation in sports. The advent of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 essentially forced high school and college athletic programs to offer women the opportunity to participate in 

sports. Women participate in physical fitness programs at earlier ages. There appear to be no official studies regarding the 

impact of Title IX on current female military recruits and their 
THE WAY BACKWARD

85

physical capabilities. However, as more young women expose 

themselves to physically demanding sports like soccer, boxing, 

wrestling, martial arts, and weight lifting, the argument that 

women are physically less capable than men may potentially 

diminish. If the military services adopted a capabilities-based 

selection process for duty assignments, the physical fitness arguments would become moot. The services would fill their duty 

positions with the most qualified persons, regardless of gender.

Respecting the other two arguments opponents of women in 

combat and the military readily point to, there remains even 

less documentary evidence disproving their suppositions. Nevertheless, the impact of women on unit cohesion and discipline 

clearly lies within the responsibility of unit leadership, whether 

it be at the squad or at the cabinet level. Prior to the integration 

of women into the military, unit cohesion and the good order 

and discipline of a unit certainly were leadership challenges.86

Military leaders at all levels had to make concerted efforts to 

sustain morale and enforce discipline, and yet incidents still 

occurred in all-male units that revealed breakdowns in unit 

cohesion and discipline. At the height of the conflict in Vietnam, “Bounties as high as $10,000 were sometimes offered by 

disgruntled troops for the murder of an overaggressive officer 

fighting a war no one believed in any longer.”87 Known as “fragging,” these incidents highlight the continuous challenge military leaders face. At the same time incidents of fragging were 

increasing, military leaders also faced black servicemen who had 

become “increasingly militant in their opposition to institutional 

racism in the Army, especially those who had been energized by 

the civil rights movement.”88 Military leadership has always faced 

the challenges of creating cohesiveness and maintaining discipline, regardless of the gender makeup of the organization.

The challenges to all military leaders remain constant: motivation, discipline, unit cohesion, and mission effectiveness. 

Moreover, there simply has not been any extensive research on 

the links between combat effectiveness and unit cohesion, and 

proponents of gender inclusion policies “assert that the relevance 

of cohesion for combat effectiveness has never been proven.”89

The arguments made by the CMR, Mitchell, Guttman, Webb, 

and echoed by some members of the 1992 Presidential Commission imply that the underlying reasons the government 
THE WAY BACKWARD

86

must continue to exclude women from combat positions and 

even the military in general remains the societal implications of 

allowing women into combat roles. Each critic suggests that 

the assignment of women to combat roles tears at the fabric of 

American culture and will eventually lead to the demise of 

American military forces. 

Therefore, the heart of the debate for these critics rests on the 

notion that it is immoral for the nation’s political leaders to allow 

and condone organized violence against the female segment of 

the population. This argument also appears difficult to prove 

since it derives from subjective views on morality. On the one 

hand, it is acceptable to allow women to serve in traditional female roles in the military since they are not directly involved in 

violence. Mitchell stated in his testimony to the 1992 Presidential Commission that “Women are desperately needed as military 

doctors and nurses, for the very reason that the military cannot 

get enough doctors and nurses, male or female, as it is.”90 As 

long as women remain protected from organized violence, social 

values remain intact. As Webb implied in 1979 and the CMR 

currently suggests, allowing women to serve in the military condones and even encourages violence perpetrated against them. 

On the other hand, Mitchell argues that the reduction of 

forces during the 1990s eliminated the need for female service 

in the military. Mitchell summarizes that “with a military that 

is a full 30 percent smaller than it was ten years ago (down 

from 2.1 million members in 1988 to 1.5 million members at 

the end of 1996), no one can seriously argue that the military 

must recruit women to make up for a lack of men.”91 Recent 

military operations certainly contradict Mitchell’s assessment. 

In a RAND study on the assignment of Army women during 

recent operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, personnel in the 

field testified, “there were simply not enough personnel to do 

the job without women.”92

Furthermore, none of the critics address whether it is socially acceptable and noble for men to engage in organized violence against other men. Each opponent to the inclusion of 

women in combat and the military in general implies that violence perpetuated by men against other men remains an acceptable societal norm. Their arguments essentially break down 

into two simple explanations: (1) it is acceptable for men to en-
THE WAY BACKWARD

87

gage in violence against other men but not for women to engage 

in or become victims of violence, and (2) society values its female 

members more since they deserve protection from violence. 

Again, this aspect of their argument appears untenable. 

From a different perspective, it appears that American society 

places the safety of its female citizens above the safety of its 

male citizens and thus discriminates against its male members. Moreover, a closer examination of the arguments put forth 

by opponents of women reveal a lack of respect for half of the 

American population. Mitchell, Guttmann, and Webb suggest 

men serving in the military need to behave inappropriately to 

bond, develop their violent tendencies, and become effective 

combatants. They further imply that men cannot control their 

impulses when women are present in close proximity or under 

stressful situations, with the exception of the medical career 

field as noted by Mitchell. Their arguments dismiss the professionalism possessed by a majority of the men serving in the 

American military who treat women and other men with dignity 

and respect. Their arguments instead paint a picture of a past 

US military as an institution rife with lewd and violent members who did not reflect the standards of their society, and 

these critics suggest the military needs to return to those bygone days of male dominance. 

If Mitchell’s argument holds and civilian leadership removes 

the women currently comprising 15 percent of the Army, would 

combat effectiveness diminish? Moreover, what would tear the 

fabric of American society greater: full inclusion of women into 

the military based on physical capabilities or revocation of the 

laws that have allowed women to serve in the American military 

for almost a generation? Finally, has the integration of women 

into combat roles truly impeded combat effectiveness? The final assessment remains unclear; however, women have thus 

far proven formidable combatants whether participating in official or unofficial capacities.

Notes

1. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 16.

2. Despite objections from senior Army leadership and female service 

members, the legislation forced the Army to renew its commitment to ban 
THE WAY BACKWARD

88

women from ground combat roles, such as the infantry and field artillery. 

Center for Military Readiness (CMR). “CMR Policy Analysis.”

3. CMR, “Women in Combat.”

4. Donnelly, “Private Lynch and Amazon Myths.”

5. Mitchell, Weak Link.

6. Ibid., 86.

7. Ibid., 83.

8. Felgenhauer, “Russian Military.”

9. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 89.

10. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 242.

11. Tyson, “Woman Gains Silver Star.”

12. Gutmann, Kinder, Gentler Military, 247.

13. Ibid., 256.

14. Mitchell, Weak Link, 157.

15. Skaine, Women at War, 174.

16. Mitchell, Weak Link, 156.

17. CMR, “Women in Combat.”

18. Mitchell, Weak Link, 157.

19. Ibid.

20. CMR, “Women in Land Combat.”

21. Ibid.

22. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 272.

23. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 90.

24. Mitchell, Weak Link, 161.

25. CMR, “Women in Land Combat.”

26. Gutmann, Kinder, Gentler Military, 15.

27. Presidential Commission, “Alternative Views.”

28. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 274.

29. Gutmann, Kinder, Gentler Military, 155.

30. Ibid., 271.

31. Ibid.

32. Webb, “Women Can’t Fight.”

33. Mitchell, Weak Link, 70.

34. Webb, “Women Can’t Fight.”

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid.

37. Department of Defense, “Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual 

Harassment,” 3.

38. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 205.

39. Department of Defense, “Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual 

Harassment,” 1.

40. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 221.

41. Department of Defense, “Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual 

Harassment,” 3.

42. Mitchell, Weak Link, 48.

43. Public Affairs, “United States Air Force Academy: Agenda for Change.”

44. Mientka, “Congress Criticizes Investigation.”
THE WAY BACKWARD

89

45. Snopes.com, “Space Cadet.”

46. Grant, “The Quiet Pioneers.”

47. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 54. The Tailhook Association is a 

group for naval aviators similar to the Daedalians for all military aviators. 

The Tailhook Convention in Las Vegas in 1991 was notorious for lewd conduct, and several claims of sexual harassment and assault by female military 

and civilian participants led to a major investigation by the Navy inspector 

general. For more information on this particular scandal, consult Frontline: 

Tailhook ’91. For information on the Aberdeen Proving Grounds scandal, in 

which supervisors abused their authority to gain sexual favors from trainees, 

see CNN, “Three Soldiers Arraigned.”

48. Devilbiss, Women and Military Service.

49. Gutmann, Kinder, Gentler Military, 105.

50. Mitchell, Weak Link, 217.

51. Ibid.

52. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 54.

53. Webb, “Women Can’t Fight.”

54. Ibid.

55. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 66.

56. Elshtain, Women and War, 169.

57. Carreiras, Gender and the Military.

58. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 134.

59. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 70.

60. Ibid., 206.

61. CMR, “Women in Combat.”

62. Webb, “Women Can’t Fight.”

63. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 140.

64. Bender, “Combat Support Ban Weighed on Women.”

65. Gutmann, The Kinder, Gentler Military, 135.

66. Elshtain, Women and War, 178.

67. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 207.

68. Ibid.

69. Ibid.

70. Sagawa and Campbell, “Women in the Military,” 3.

71. Gutmann, The Kinder, Gentler Military, 152.

72. Ibid.

73. Ibid., 151.

74. Mitchell, Weak Link, 185.

75. Webb, “War on Military Culture.”

76. 1st Lt Kelly Flinn was the first female B-52 pilot and created a controversy over her affair with an enlisted woman’s husband. For more information, see New York Times, “Times Topics.” LT Kara Hultgreen, who attended 

the 1991 Tailhook Convention, was the first female F-14 pilot in the Navy. 

She died in an aircraft accident while on final approach to an aircraft carrier 

when she lost one engine. During the mishap inspection, questions about her 

capabilities and training surfaced, causing a scandal about the use of women 

in combat aviation. For more information on LT Hultgreen, see Manegold, 
THE WAY BACKWARD

90

“Lives Well Lived.” In 1996, the Aberdeen Proving Grounds had a series of 

sexual harassments, assaults, and incidents of rape, which led to the convictions of several Army NCOs and officers. See CNN, “Three Soldiers Arraigned.”

77. Harman et al., “Effects of a Specifically Designed Physical Conditioning Program,” ix.

78. Ibid., 1.

79. Fenner and deYoung, Women in Combat, 10.

80. Zucchino, “Grueling March.”

81. Ibid.

82. Fenner and deYoung, Women in Combat, 9.

83. Harman et al., “Effects of a Specifically Designed Physical Conditioning Program,” 1.

84. Fenner and deYoung, Women in Combat, 7.

85. Ibid., 8.

86. Miller and Williams, Do Military Policies on Gender and Sexuality Undermine Combat Effectiveness, 389.

87. Kitfield, Prodigal Soldiers,121.

88. Ibid.

89. Ibid., 3.

90. Mitchell, Women in the Military, 350.

91. Ibid., 349.

92. Harrell et al., Assessing the Assignment Policy, 54.
91

Chapter 7

The Way Forward

The only civilization the United States should cherish is 

nothing less than that which men and women create 

together, intellectually and physically, and together defend, as equals in public and private.

––Erin Solaro

It has been evident since the Gulf War that without women 

serving in a variety of roles, units would struggle or even fail at 

their assigned missions. Military leadership recognizes that the 

“United States can no longer fight a major war or campaign 

without women.”1 Detractors counter that this reliance on 

women in critical roles is the direct result of the military services actively choosing to assign women to those roles. The resulting question is how should the military employ the women 

who enlist or earn their commissions? 

The Realities of the All-Volunteer Force 

in a Global War on Terror

The opponents of women in combat fail to acknowledge the 

role women have played and continue to play in the conduct of 

war. Instead of relegating women to support roles, current US 

military leadership seeks to arm them, train them to fight, and 

allow them the same privilege given to every man in this country as a birthright. Although initially the military required prodding by civilian leadership to integrate women, the results have 

shaped the assessment of the current military senior leadership 

on the efficacy of female service members. American women 

have proven their capabilities in a number of combat roles and 

directly contributed to successes in operations in Kuwait, 

Kosovo, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

This chapter examines three common arguments for opening 

all combat positions to women and applies these arguments to 

the case studies presented above. The first argument in favor of 
THE WAY FORWARD

92

allowing women derives from the demands and realities of the 

all-volunteer force (AVF) fighting the GWOT and performing 

humanitarian missions simultaneously. The second argument 

proposes a capability-based selection process for all military 

occupations regardless of gender. Finally, the third argument 

addresses the civic equality issues inherent to this discussion, 

including an American woman’s right to serve, kill, and die for 

her country, as well as be subject to the draft as is required of 

most American males between the ages of 18 and 25.2

The AVF––Limitations and Strengths

In 1973, Congress decided to end the draft and institute the 

AVF. Pres. Richard Nixon established the Gates Commission in 

1969 to “explore the feasibility of an all-volunteer force as an 

alternative to the draft,” but not to create the impetus to force 

gender integration as critics of women in the military have suggested.3 The political desire to find alternatives to the draft 

drove the initial considerations for creating the AVF. The ramifications of an unpopular war and the “obvious unfairness of 

the Selective Service System,” led to the realization “that middleclass white men were not going to join in large enough numbers,” to sustain a “Cold War strategy of Flexible Response.”4

Opponents and proponents for women in the military and combat cite that decision as the turning point for gender integration of the military services. The military faced morale and retention problems, a constant Soviet threat around the world, 

and a lack of desirable recruits. In addition, the military had 

provided civilian leadership with previous opportunities to impart social evolutions such as the integration of racial minorities. Gutmann suggests that these contextual circumstances 

in the 1970s and others, including an anti-Vietnam War counterculture that promoted drug use, draft dodging, and disgust for 

anything military, forced civilian leaders and the armed services 

to target women to fill recruiting quotas.5 While the creation of 

the AVF certainly increased opportunities for American women, 

it created a number of challenges for senior military leaders 

raised in all-male organizations. 

According to Carreiras, “the armed forces are Janus-faced 

organizations: on the one hand, they have to assure military 
THE WAY FORWARD

93

effectiveness to respond to the changes of the strategic context; 

on the other, especially in democracies, they must be responsive to wider social values and thus to the society in which they 

are embedded and which pays for them.”6 As the cries amongst 

the feminist movement grew louder in the mid-1970s, civilian 

leaders once again looked to the struggling armed services for 

opportunities to promote gender equality. Mitchell argues that 

the feminist agenda was and remains the primary justification 

for the integration of women into the armed forces. He suggests, “The AVF was never allowed to work without women. At 

the start, its architects resorted to greater use of women without considering the possibility that an all-male military, with 

its distinctly masculine appeal, might attract more young men 

than a more feminine force.”7

Those who favor gender integration of the armed forces disagree with Mitchell’s line of argument. Even during the early 

years of a gender integrated military, proponents argued that 

women provided the military with “a higher-quality recruit,” 

since they “tended to score higher on the academic tests given 

by recruiting stations; they tend not to get roaring drunk and 

start fights; they’re generally more dutiful.”8 Even Mitchell 

agrees that women are superior to men in regards to discipline. 

Mitchell grudgingly admits, “Women offer the services one 

single advantage over men: they are better behaved. They lose 

less time for disciplinary reasons and are less prone to alcohol 

and drug abuse.”9

As far as attracting high-caliber male recruits during the 

1970s, Solaro also challenges Mitchell’s assertion that an allmale force would have been more attractive to young American 

men. Solaro suggests that “as the Vietnam War wound down 

and the draft sputtered out, good soldiers, men who might have 

made the military their lives, left in droves and in disgust. Disgust over the war, disgust over what the war had done to the 

Army.”10 If the services could not retain their best when they 

were all male, how would the AVF attract top-quality recruits? 

Following Mitchell’s line of argument, the armed forces would 

most likely have remained depleted and broken organizations. 

The “Hollow Force” of the 1970s faced diminishing retention and 

recruiting numbers; the inclusion of women into the pool of re-
THE WAY FORWARD

94

cruits actually provided the armed services with the opportunity 

to “choose the best qualified individual for a given position.”11

The AVF continues to face recruiting challenges today. As 

recruiters search for top-caliber officer recruits, the college 

scene has also dramatically evolved since the creation of the 

AVF. Student demographics have seen a shift from the male 

dominance of three decades ago to a student body where women 

significantly outnumber their male peers.12 As a result, a trend 

has developed that supports early opponents’ suppositions of 

the caliber of female recruits. Women volunteering for military 

service are “on average better educated than men,” which promotes “an increase in educational levels” for the military as an 

organization.13 In the current technocentric US military, education levels and mental abilities certainly matter. 

Likewise, in the midst of an unpopular war in Iraq, recruiting 

and retention has once again surfaced as a problem facing the 

AVF. A recent article in the New York Times suggests that the 

calls for the Marines to close their recruiting station in Berkeley 

and attempts to ban military recruiters on college campuses 

has further hindered military recruiters’ abilities to attract 

qualified recruits.14 The response of the Marine Corps echoes 

the response of most of the services in the mid-1970s: when 

faced with recruiting challenges, seek out female recruits. Moreover, women have proven themselves worthy of the attention.

Making up an increasing percentage of the total force, women 

have repeatedly demonstrated their capabilities in combat operations from the first Gulf War to OIF.15 In 1993, the GAO released a report that had examined the performance of integrated units. The report revealed that nearly half of the men 

and women surveyed expected women to perform as well or 

better than men; 67.2 percent actually assessed that female 

performance met or exceeded the male performance.16

Recent examples that support this conclusion include the 

actions of Sgt Leigh Ann Hester, Silver Star recipient, who demonstrated that women also possess killer instincts, aggressiveness, and loyalty to their brothers and sisters in arms. For 

Hester, it was not about being a woman in a man’s world. It 

was about serving her country, defending her unit comrades, 

and being a good soldier.17 Hester represents the growing trend 

in US operations around the world. Capt Lory Manning, USN, 
THE WAY FORWARD

95

retired, explains, “We now have units under fire with men and 

women in them. We have experience of women firing weapons. 

They don’t fall to emotional bits.”18

A-10 Warthog pilot, Capt Kim “Killer Chick” Campbell, also 

demonstrated the abilities of women in combat aviation. During the initial push into Baghdad in April 2003, Campbell provided close air support to US ground forces pinned down by 

Iraqi forces along the Tigris River. She described her thoughts 

about that particular mission to a crowd at the Smithsonian 

Museum: “These guys on the ground needed our help. That’s 

our job––to bring fire down on the enemy when our Army and 

Marine brothers request our assistance.”19 Campbell’s aircraft 

received extensive damage from ground fire during the mission, but she successfully flew her aircraft back to Kuwait and 

even had to perform a very difficult, physically challenging, and 

rare maneuver to land the aircraft safely. During the final approach, Campbell’s “aircraft was flying extremely well,” but as 

she crossed “the landing threshold, the aircraft started a quick 

roll to the left,” and she “quickly counteracted that with flight 

controls, and the A-10 touched down.”20 Campbell’s actions 

demonstrated that women could fly one of the most physically 

demanding aircraft under fire and still successfully accomplish 

the mission.

Even though the nature of combat has evolved since the introduction of the AVF, women have traditionally been at risk for 

harm during any conflict. Solaro emphasizes that the military’s 

initial attempts to protect women from the dangers associated 

with combat duty actually endangered them further. By concentrating women into noncombat support roles, the services, 

in particular the Army, understood the precarious position they 

placed women into especially in regards to the Soviet threat to 

Western Europe. Solaro highlighted the argument made by defense correspondent Arthur T. Hadley, Jr., that during the Cold 

War “More female soldiers, sailors, and airmen will die in the 

first five minutes of any next war we are forced to fight than 

were killed in World War II, Korea, and Vietnam combined. In 

fact, since females are clustered in the high-priority targets, 

initially women will die out of proportion to their numbers in 

the armed services.”21 Hadley’s argument suggests the military 

services placed female service members in potentially danger-
THE WAY FORWARD

96

ous combat situations without providing them the recognition 

or opportunity that official combat assignments warrant. 

Hadley further expounds upon the military’s acceptance of 

this reality when asked if the military understood this phenomenon. Hadley describes, “Over and over I hear from both highranking officers and civilian defense officials some such phrases 

as, ‘Yes, we realize women will die in the next war.’ Yet at the 

same time, I find everyone hiding behind the rubric that women 

are not in combat jobs.”22 Even though the military held fast to 

combat-exclusion policies during the first 20 years of the AVF, 

the reality remained that women, in and out of uniform, faced 

similar dangers as men serving in combat positions. The difference rested in the fact that armed forces trained men in official 

combat assignments to fight and provided them a means to 

defend themselves while women (and even other men) in noncombat roles received minimal combat training. 

While women in noncombat roles certainly faced dangers 

during the threat of a Soviet invasion into Western Europe in 

the 1970s and 1980s, the current conflicts confronting the 

United States present no clear delineation between front and 

rear lines. Sociologist and gender studies expert Rosemarie 

Skaine suggests, “The old front line no longer exists because 

present day conflicts are peacekeeping tasks and that modern 

weaponry is more technologically operated than in the past.”23

Current DOD, Army, and Marine Corps policies continue to 

restrict women from direct ground combat roles, yet support 

positions such as military police, supply, and intelligence have 

placed women into Iraq and Afghanistan’s “fluid lines of conflict, . . . challenging traditional ideas about what constitutes a 

‘combat’ position.”24

The notion that the combat-exclusion policies protect women 

from the dangers of combat directly conflicts with the realities 

of insurgencies or irregular wars presently ongoing in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. The disparity remains most evident in the Army’s 

use of women. Solaro describes how, “In our current war, for 

example, female soldiers drive fuel tankers all over Iraq. However, they cannot crew tanks. A fuel tanker is not a glamorous 

target, but it is a lucrative one, particularly if it is resupplying 

tanks or Bradley fighting vehicles.”25 Although the Air Force 

continues to be the leader among the services for integration, 
THE WAY FORWARD

97

specific fields remain closed to women in the special operations. Women who can fly close air support missions to assist 

special operations forces on the ground risk being shot down 

and captured by the enemy; however, they are still prohibited 

from serving in those ground units. 

Solaro suggests the military’s acceptance of women into support roles that are often involved in combat, but denial of direct 

ground combat positions stems from the military’s initial experiences with gender integration in the 1970s and 1980s. Solaro 

explains the Army in particular had to play “an intricate bureaucratic game,” in order “to maintain this charade [combat 

exclusion] while continuing to assign women where they were 

needed.”26 The Navy also attempted to circumvent combat exclusion policies when the operational mission demanded it. According to Skaine, “Women have served legally in temporary 

combat positions; on May 12, 1993, the Navy had 158 women 

on temporary duty on 20 [combatant ships].”27 The entirety of 

these experiences, from limited recruiting options to the caliber 

of female recruits to the operational demands of a Cold War 

stance, created an organizational schema that depended on the 

service and efficiency of women in uniform, regardless of combat risks. Even the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which for the most 

part recommended continued exclusion, also ceded the point 

that “because military readiness should be the driving concern 

regarding assignment policies, there were circumstances in 

which women might be assigned to combat roles.”28

Following the Gulf War, an examination of the combat-exclusion 

policies resulted in a defining of direct ground combat by the Army 

and Marine Corps to clarify where women could and could not 

serve. Both services based their new directives on the rule and 

definition of direct ground combat provided by Secretary of Defense Les Aspin. Aspin’s new rule and definition stipulated, 

A. Rule. Service members are eligible to be assigned to all positions for 

which they are qualified, except women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is 

to engage in direct combat on the ground as defined below:

B. Definition. Direct ground combat is engaging an enemy on the 

ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed 

to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical contact with 
THE WAY FORWARD

98

the hostile force’s personnel. Direct ground combat takes place well 

forward on the battle field while locating and closing with the enemy 

to defeat them by fire, maneuver, or shock effect.29

After delineating what defined direct ground combat, Aspin 

further clarified how the services went about closing positions 

to women to ensure opportunities for women availed themselves. Specifically, the services could justify exclusion if units 

remained collocated to direct ground combat units, the provision for separate living arrangements was prohibited because 

of operational requirements, the units were engaged in special 

forces missions, or if job-related physical requirements excluded the majority of women.30

The introduction of brigade combat teams (BCT) during the 

transformation of the military from a force-on-force establishment to a leaner, modular organization made enforcement of 

these restrictions nearly impossible. The concept of a BCT depends on creating a fighting force based on the correct module 

mix for the combat situation. Solaro witnessed the ramifications of this new method of waging war during visits to Iraq and 

Afghanistan. She describes, “Certain noncombat units, such 

as a medical company collocated with an infantry brigade, or 

combat correspondents with an infantry battalion, or MPs [Military Police] with the infantry at a forward operating base, were 

off-limits to women. But without women in these units, they 

increasingly couldn’t function: I saw women serving in all of 

the above situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the barriers 

against women serving in smaller infantry units have eroded 

still further since then.”31

Over the three decades since women integrated into the 

armed forces, organizational decisions, cultural shifts and evolutions, and the performance of women have contributed to an 

organizational schema, a thought process that pervades the 

current US military. The schema follows a convoluted pattern: 

policies exclude women from combat, yet women have performed well in combat; since operational needs sometimes dictate the use of women in these traditional combat roles, the 

armed forces will merely temporarily attach them to these restricted roles. 

Solaro explains how this organizational schema, instituted 

in the early years of the AVF and present today, demonstrates 
THE WAY FORWARD

99

“the lineal ancestor of the present pretense that women in Iraq 

and Afghanistan are not assigned to combat units, only attached” (emphasis in original).32 The armed services have always accepted that women may become involved in combat yet 

have willingly chosen to deny women the opportunities to serve 

in official direct ground combat positions. The reality remains, 

however, that women are performing duties in direct ground 

combat. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz clearly 

recognized the truth about the environment the integrated US 

military operates in: “As we consider the issue of womanpower 

in the service today it’s not just a matter of women being entitled to serve this country. It is a simple fact that we could not 

operate our military services without women. And as skill levels 

essential to our missions continue to increase, it will be even 

more essential that we draw from all our citizens, that we draw 

from the largest pool of talent available.”33

Wolfowitz identifies two fundamental truths about the issue 

of women in combat that critics choose to deny or ignore. First, 

the likelihood that the most-qualified person for a specific mission will be a woman is only increasing as women more often 

choose higher education in comparison to men. Second, the 

nature of the conflicts the United States presently faces demands women fulfill roles once deemed inappropriate due to 

their direct ground-combat nature. These roles include patrolling the towns and cities in Iraq and Afghanistan where insurgents often use their own women to hide their weapons, plans, 

and even identities, but cultural standards prohibit men from 

interrogating or searching these women. As chapter 4 reveals, 

these women are also increasingly joining the efforts of insurgent and terrorist groups and therefore must be considered 

potential targets. 

Critics of women in combat may suggest that concern for an 

enemy’s culture only provides further evidence of the feminization of the military; however, recent experiences reveal how 

catastrophic a heavy-handed military response can be in counterinsurgent operations. Further, potential enemies are also 

turning to women for the tactical advantage they provide. The 

rise and popularity of shahidas signifies that even conservative 

Islamic cultures appreciate the contributions of female combatants willing to die for their tribe, nation, culture, or religion. 
THE WAY FORWARD

100

Returning to a pre-AVF armed force structure does not provide 

a solution since an all-male military would still face the challenges of a counterinsurgency where half of the population and 

an increasing number of combatants are female. 

A return to an all-male military or barring women from serving 

in combat or combat-support roles would also indicate a critical 

shift in American cultural identity. Americans pride themselves 

on living in a democracy where every citizen is equal under the 

law. Despite attempts by critics like the CMR to argue that combat exclusion does not discriminate against women but in fact 

protects them from violence, the fact remains that the US government continues to discriminate against half its population.

Civic Equality––Does America Stand 

for Equality for All?

For young Americans, turning 18 years old marks a certain 

rite of passage. It acknowledges adult status, including the 

right to vote, marry, and make legal decisions in their own 

right. For young men, it also means registering for Selective 

Service. Although the draft ended in 1973, American men between the ages of 18 and 25 are required to register for any 

future drafts unless they fall into specific waivered categories. 

American women, however, are not required nor permitted to 

register for Selective Service. Often one of the more emotional 

arguments used by the critics of women in combat, the question of the draft remains a hotly contested subject even without 

the issue of women entering into the debate. For those who 

advocate for women in combat, however, the issue of Selective 

Service remains at the heart of their argument. Among those 

seeking full equality, liberal feminists remain the strongest and 

most vocal in advocating an extension “of all civil rights and 

responsibilities to women, including their equal exposure with 

men to the political will of the state.”34

Their argument draws down to a question of civic equality. 

Dismissed by critics as a feminist ploy to emasculate the military, 

the argument remains valid since “In the all-voluntary force, 

the draft is not an issue at this point but registering for the 

draft still is. Currently, only males are required to register for 
THE WAY FORWARD

101

the draft.”35 The implications are clear: America expects its men 

to be prepared to defend their nation when called; American 

women need not apply since their services are not wanted. 

The 1992 Presidential Commission overwhelmingly supported the continued denial of this civic responsibility. The 

commission found that “important government interests exist 

which are substantially related to excluding women from draft 

registration, e.g., the military effectiveness of our land combat 

forces.”36 In that one sentence, the commission reinforced the 

assumption that women remain detrimental to the combat effectiveness of the armed forces. The commission held that since 

the draft entails establishing a ground combat force and women 

remain restricted from ground combat, women should not be 

subject to draft registration. The commission’s recommendation, however, went beyond just stating the legal precedence 

behind its decision. It specifically demanded that Congress 

“should prohibit women from serving in direct ground land 

combat positions,” to preclude the requirement for female conscription.37 The members of the commission against the inclusion of women in any combat roles, including aviation and naval 

combat positions, suggested that women should remain excluded from combat to justify continued exclusion from draft 

requirements. Dissenters to the commission’s recommendations specifically correlated combat with conscription. They 

concluded, “Because womens’ [sic] exemption from the draft is 

inextricably tied by legal precedent to their exemption from 

combat duty, the only way to avoid the risk of losing that exemption from the draft is to embrace a consistent policy against 

assigning women to any combat military occupation specialty” 

(emphasis in the original).38

In the grand scheme of things, what did the commission conclude? Essentially, the commission held that civic responsibilities amongst the genders ought to remain unequal. Aspin’s 

policy also unfortunately concurred with the notion that the 

physical disparity between women and men permitted continued 

discrimination against women. This policy, which has remained 

in effect for the most part, creates the perception that “by both 

policy and law—both discrimination and prejudice are okay” 

(emphasis in original).39 In other words, the US government 

has legitimized the concept that women are not subject to the 
THE WAY FORWARD

102

same civic responsibilities as men and thus the government 

can treat half the population differently based on gender. 

Nevertheless, women do engage in or support direct ground 

combat actions in their roles as drivers, military police, and 

medics. Female soldiers such as Sergeant Hester and SPC 

Monica Brown remain merely attached instead of assigned to 

these combat units even though they have engaged in direct 

ground combat. The recommendation of the 1992 Presidential 

Commission has perpetuated a legal fiction. 

The commission’s dependence on the cultural influences of 

their recommendation also provides insight into recent attempts by Representatives Duncan Hunter and John McHugh 

to rein in the current influx of women into nontraditional combat roles. Citing a number of religious, sociological, and ethics 

based testimonies, the opponents to the commission’s recommendations concluded, “Permitting women in combat is egalitarianism of a different order than providing opportunities for 

them to become doctors, lawyers, and members of the U.S. 

Senate. Assigning women to combat would require reordering 

our cultural values and dismissing the experience of human 

and military history.”40 The case studies presented in this paper provide evidence that women in the modern era have contributed to combat operations in a variety of roles and will most 

likely continue to contribute even when patriarchal societies 

deem their participation inappropriate.

The case studies presented in this paper reveal that women 

do possess the aggressiveness and killer instinct critics accuse 

the “softer sex” of lacking in their nurturing nature. Feminist 

international relations theorist Prof. Ann Tickner suggests 

cases such as these debunk the myth of associating “women 

with peace,” since this assumption “has been invalidated 

through considerable evidence of women’s bellicosity and support for wars in many societies.”41 Victims of Nazi brutality like 

Duras and Sevier turned their hatred against the Germans to 

help defeat them. Palestinian women encourage their sons to 

seek martyrdom in their fight with the Israelis. American women 

like “Shock” May and “Killer Chick” Campbell revel in taking 

the fight to the enemy. 

The realities of the AVF and current military operations remain that women are serving in combat, whether in official 
THE WAY FORWARD

103

capacity or not. Legally denying women the right to register for 

selective service continues to differentiate them from their male 

peers despite any demonstrated capability in several ways. The 

association between combat participation and the draft reinforces the current exclusion policies. The cultures and bureaucracies of the US military adamantly and rightly define and 

maintain their roles in fighting the nation’s wars. However, 

Solaro argues, the legal exclusion of women from combat only 

serves to isolate them from that culture and bureaucracy since: 

“The military—the Army and the Marines especially—exist to 

fight. To be excluded from that core function is to be secondclass. To be second-class because, and only because, one is a 

woman is to invite disrespect, no matter how well one performs 

one’s job. . . . Even worse, to be second-class is to lead the good 

soldiers to believe, rightly or wrongly, that in a fight they can’t 

depend on you” (emphasis in original).42

Just as the female Soviet pilots struggled to earn the respect 

of their male counterparts since they often lacked support from 

their senior leadership, Solaro suggests American female service members must continuously prove themselves worthy of 

the trust of their male counterparts since policies still discriminate against them. The Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service Academies appears to 

accept this aspect of Solaro’s argument. Its 2005 report suggests that the disparities between male and female combat assignments and differing physical standards have led some to 

“not value women as highly as men.”43 The task force explains 

that this institutional devaluation of female service members 

has actually increased “the likelihood of harassing and even 

abusive behaviors.”44

Combat exclusion also inhibits promotion in the armed services, specifically the Army and Marine Corps, to senior ranks 

since “Those who risk their lives and take the lives of others 

control and determine the future of the institution in ways that 

no civilian could ever control a business; those who do not, 

however necessary their skills, remain second-class.”45 The 

system is currently set up such that a woman will never become the Army’s chief of staff; promotion depends on combat 

service and assignment.
THE WAY FORWARD

104

While the military certainly leads other civilian institutions 

concerning equal opportunities such as pay and benefits, men 

continue to possess an advantage over women when seeking 

higher positions within the military establishment. The fact remains that “men who served in a noncombatant unit are allowed, if qualified, to enter the combatant units. Women in 

noncombatant units may get the same pay, but not the same 

opportunity.”46 Without officially opening up combat positions, 

roughly 15 percent of the Army remains ineligible to compete 

for the top leadership positions, where the numbers of women 

“are small today in part because of their lack of combat experience.”47 As the Army and other services turn to women to fulfill 

recruiting demands, the percentage of soldiers denied promotion opportunities will likely increase. 

A number of proponents of women in combat equate the situation with the decision to end racial segregation in the services 

following World War II. Brig Gen Thomas Draude, USMC, retired, a member of the 1992 Presidential Commission, supported lifting the combat exclusion citing the integration of racial 

minorities into the armed services. Draude recounted in an interview with Solaro the response of the other commission members in using that comparison. The commission challenged witnesses who suggested the issue of female combat integration 

was analogous to the issue of racial integration in the 1950s. 

Draude vehemently disagreed with commission members 

who dismissed the comparison. He explained, “I saw a lot of 

parallels. We were excluding the majority of the population, not 

because of lack of desire, or patriotism, or expertise, or character, but because of the way they were born. And it drove some 

people crazy. And I said, tell me what’s different? Explain to me 

why it is right to exclude people because of the way they were 

born—when its gender, but not race. And no one, to my satisfaction, could do so.”48 Interestingly, Draude’s daughter, at the 

time, was training to become a Navy pilot. When asked if he 

would want to see her at risk of becoming a prisoner of war, 

Draude responded, “My answer is yes, because I believe we 

should send in the best.”49

The critics of Draude’s line of reasoning simply dismissed the 

analogy as irrelevant, stating that the analogy failed because 

“Dual standards are not needed to compensate for the physical 
THE WAY FORWARD

105

differences between racial groups, but they are needed where men 

and women are concerned. A proud history as successful warriors 

exists among men of different races, but not among women.”50

Solaro remains dubious of such opinions “that gender was a 

bigger obstacle to overcome than race, and that little if any 

meaningful parallel could be drawn between blacks and women 

because, black or white, men are men and women are not.”51

The Solution––Selection Based on 

Capabilities, Not Gender

Despite the best attempts of those more culturally conservative members of Congress, the 1992 Presidential Commission, 

academics, and the US military, the realities of current combat 

operations include active female participation and growing support from the American public. As early as 1990, the American 

public began to accept the role of women in combat operations. 

An NBC News and Wall Street Journal poll asking whether it 

was acceptable or unacceptable for women to be sent on potential combat missions found: “Seventy-three percent said it was 

acceptable, and 23 percent said it was unacceptable. Seventyone percent of the men and 74 percent of the women said it was 

acceptable.”52

As the generation that watched the first Gulf War on CNN 

enters into leadership positions throughout government, military, and civilian sectors, acceptance of gender equality has 

also increased. Skaine conducted an opinion poll of 889 college students in six universities in the United States in the 

mid-1990s. Skaine’s surveys revealed, “More college students 

agreed than disagreed that if men are drafted, women should 

be also.”53 A 2004 poll of active duty members by the Military 

Times revealed another interesting organizational reality. 

Members of the armed forces do not want to return to a draft 

at all. Seventy-five percent of those polled opposed drafting 

men while 83 percent opposed drafting women and 73 percent 

believed reinstating the draft would lead to a decline in the 

quality of service members.54

As the American society’s perception on women serving in 

combat appears to be evolving, the evidence that a cultural 
THE WAY FORWARD

106

shift is occurring also exists. In the two current wars, women 

have died in the line of duty and in combat operations with no 

outcry from the American public. Contrary to the opinion that 

the spectacle of women being brought home in body bags would 

trigger enormous public outcry, there is “little evidence that the 

[American] public is somehow less willing to tolerate their suffering than that of men.”55 The only public outcries have been 

primarily from antiwar critics who use the death of any service 

member to draw attention to their political position. 

Prophecies about declines in the military’s combat effectiveness if the armed forces allowed women into combat positions 

have also not materialized. The fact remains that influences 

other than women’s involvement, such as technological advances in communications, have created greater changes in 

the military.56 Likewise, the dependence on the AVF has also 

forced the military to adapt to the realities of women making up 

an increasing percentage of the force. Since “the country’s ability 

to maintain an all-volunteer army has been considered to depend on the effective use of the female labor force,” military 

leaders who deride a return to the conscripted force have had 

to find a way to exploit the capabilities of women.57

Not all attempts have been successful, as Solaro suggests, 

since “women clearly had every soldier’s right to be trained. In 

their case, the problem was not education, but physical capability. A remedial physical education program could have been 

designed to dramatically increase women’s capability, but the 

military chose to ignore the possibility; like supposed low intelligence of black soldiers, physical weakness in female soldiers 

was culturally imposed rather than innate.”58 However, just as 

the racial integration of black soldiers took time to overcome 

organizational biases and obstacles, the integration of women 

into combat roles is slowly moving forward. Senior Army leaders acknowledge the contributions of female soldiers in the 

counterinsurgency fight in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many Army 

leaders, including former Army chief of staff Gen Gordon 

Sullivan, challenged the Hunter/McHugh Amendment simply 

because such a reversal would hamstring Army operations 

around the world by closing 21,925 slots to female soldiers.59

The loss of those positions would certainly affect the combat 

effectiveness of Army units and send a strong message to po-
THE WAY FORWARD

107

tential female recruits. The ramifications of the amendment 

forced former defense secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, to intervene 

to avoid catastrophes in both AORs.60 Rumsfeld’s position, 

along with those of key military leaders, actually highlighted an 

important aspect often overlooked by those seeking to limit the 

role of women in the military and, by default, combat. As long 

as the United States continues to depend on the AVF concept 

and as long as “military resources [are] stretched thin, it is extremely important that the armed forces be able to recruit quality 

men and women into the services. The military will not be able 

to recruit quality women in large numbers if obstacles preventing their full and fair integration into the military are not addressed and resolved.”61

Military culture is evolving, albeit slowly, as evidenced in the 

stance made against the Hunter/McHugh Amendment. Certainly, at some point or another, there has existed a great “deal 

of ‘gender consciousnesses’ in military organizations. For a 

woman in the military, what matters first is her gender; for a 

man in the military, what matters first is his occupational identity.”62 The testimonies of current women in uniform reveal that 

this gender consciousness has evolved. The Chick Fighter Pilot 

Association, for example, embraces the fact that its members 

are women. At the same time, however, it revels in and glorifies 

the fact that its members are fighter pilots first and that fact 

trumps all other associations. Likewise, Sergeant Hester regards 

herself as just another soldier. The experiences of the women 

presented in this paper represent a continuing evolution in societal opinions of the role of women in those societies. 

For the American military, much of the focus has shifted to 

the capabilities brought to the fight. In the case of female soldiers 

on patrol in Iraq, their gender has provided the military with 

the capability to engage and interact with half of the Iraqi population without violating cultural taboos and restrictions. This 

provides the US military with greater human intelligence, threat 

assessment, and access to those often responsible for rearing 

the next generation of Iraqi citizens. Current policies, if followed 

to the letter, would deny the military these opportunities. 

Critics suggest that the words of GEN Norman Schwarzkopf 

condemn women to minor support roles in the military when 

he declared, “Decisions on what roles women should play in 
THE WAY FORWARD

108

war must be based on military standards, not women’s rights.”63

Schwarzkopf’s assessment actually supports the idea that capability, not gender should enable or preclude an American from 

serving in combat. Furthermore, policies “that continue to deny 

women equal opportunity based on capabilities will continue to 

propagate the notion that women are the weaker sex and therefore incapable to perform at expected levels” which will actually 

hinder combat effectiveness and mission accomplishment.64

Once capabilities drive selections for assignment rather than 

gender, all other issues associated with integrating women 

would fall under typical leadership challenges. Should members of an integrated unit, for example, engage in inappropriate 

relationships, unit leadership must address these situations 

and mete out appropriate punishment for violations under the 

Uniform Code of Military Justice. However, if the government 

and the armed services perpetuate myths of female inferiority 

and unreliability through their policies, women will never 

achieve full equality in the military or in this society. 

For her part, Col Martha McSally also emphasizes the capabilities all military members bring to the fight. In an article 

discussing her career and time as a fighter squadron commander in Afghanistan, McSally emphasizes her desire to be “a 

role model to both men and women because we are a fighting 

force and should not be concerned with differences between 

us.”65 The issue about women serving in combat is not so much 

about women’s rights but about the rights of all American citizens to defend this nation. 

Notes

1. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 165.

2. According to the Selective Service Web site, some are not immediately 

required to register including the disabled, the incarcerated, or those already 

serving on active duty. Selective Service System. SSS.gov.

3. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 201.

4. Fenner and deYoung, Women in Combat, 40.

5. Gutmann, Kinder, Gentler Military, 144.

6. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 72.

7. Mitchell, Weak Link, 8.

8. Gutmann, Kinder, Gentler Military.

9. Mitchell, Weak Link, 7.

10. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 158.
THE WAY FORWARD

109

11. Skaine, Women at War, 156.

12. Sklaroff, “A Woman’s World,” 63.

13. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 84.

14. Quenqua, “Sending in the Marines.”

15. Yeager, “Soldiering Ahead,” 54.

16. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 186.

17. Wood, “Female Soldier Receives Silver Star in Iraq.”

18. Yeager, “Soldiering Ahead,” 56.

19. Burnham, “A-10 Pilot Wows Smithsonian Crowd.”

20. Ibid.

21. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 161.

22. Ibid., 161–62.

23. Skaine, Women at War, 25.

24. Yeager, “Soldiering Ahead,” 56.

25. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 164.

26. Ibid., 162.

27. Skaine, Women at War, 25.

28. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 179.

29. Skaine, Women at War, 28.

30. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 187.

31. Ibid., 188.

32. Ibid., 162.

33. Corbett, Downgrading of DACOWITS, 1.

34. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 67.

35. Skaine, Women at War, 127.

36. Presidential Commission, Report to the President, 40.

37. Ibid., 41.

38. Ibid., 79.

39. Devilbiss, Women and Military Service.

40. Presidential Commission, Report to the President, 61.

41. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 71.

42. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 161.

43. DOD, “Report of the Defense Task Force on Sexual Harassment,” 9.

44. Ibid.

45. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 160.

46. Skaine, Women at War, 25.

47. Yeager, “Soldiering Ahead,” 56.

48. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 185.

49. Gordon, “Panel Is Against Letting Women Fly in Combat.”

50. Presidential Commission, Report to the President, 45.

51. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 154.

52. Skaine, Women at War, 121.

53. Ibid., 127–28.

54. “Military Times Poll,” Military Times.

55. Yeager, “Soldiering Ahead,” 56.

56. Ibid., 57.

57. Carreiras, Gender and the Military, 84.
THE WAY FORWARD

110

58. Solaro, Women in the Line of Fire, 154.

59. Ibid., 232.

60. Tyson, “Bid to Limit Women in Combat Withdrawn.”

61. Corbett, Downgrading of DACOWITS, 9.

62. Devilbiss, Women and Military Service.

63. Presidential Commission, Report to the President, 46.

64. Devilbiss, Women and Military Service.

65. Bergquist, “First Female Pilot in Combat Reflects on Career.”
111

Chapter 8

Conclusion

The real catch was to have a female medic out there 

because of the cultural sensitivities and the flexibility 

that gave commanders. It is absolutely not about gender in terms of how they [women] will do.

––Maj Paul Narowski, 73rd Cavalry Regiment

A society that wants weak women usually manages to 

produce them.

––Erin Solaro

The GWOT has created a number of challenges the US armed 

forces must face. From the role of air and space power to the 

debate over the assignment of American women to combat positions, the military must seek to answer these perplexing complications. The GWOT revealed the regulations governing the 

role of women in combat to be “vague, ill defined, and based on 

an outmoded concept of wars with clear front lines that rarely 

exist in today’s counterinsurgencies.”1 Despite the realities of 

the current conflicts, the debate over the role of women in combat will never cease so long as political leaders continue to relegate women to inferior roles in American society. 

By acknowledging the vital role women play in armed conflicts, the political leadership of the United States can shape 

American culture to recognize that women can and do engage 

in violence for and against the state. If Americans can culturally accept this fact, those fighting the war on terror will be 

better prepared to face future female insurgents. Ultimately, 

female insurgents share similar motivations and strive for the 

same universal objectives as their resistance predecessors and 

military women: they fight in order to provide a safe future for 

their children.

Modern female terrorists’ motivations mirror those of antiNazi resistance fighters, yet Westerners are still surprised and 

even aghast when a woman chooses to blow herself up in a terrorist attack. Abdullah Ocalan, the leader of the Kurdistan 
CONCLUSION

112

Worker’s Party, explains that the modern female resistance 

fighters and suicide bombers are “fully aware of being free 

women with an important message to pass on and who could 

be examples to all women the world over.”2 With seeming ignorance to that message and in spite of evidence to the contrary, 

an Israeli Defense Forces captain acknowledges that women are 

still less suspicious when crossing the border from Palestinian 

territories.3 Western strategists, both military and political, 

must come to appreciate this tactic if the West wants to win the 

war on terror. 

Furthermore, the tactics employed by terrorist organizations 

and insurgencies, including the use of female combatants, has 

rendered combat exclusion policies pointless. A recent study 

about the Army’s assignment of women to combat roles conducted by the RAND Corporation evaluated the current policy 

as “not actionable” since it was “crafted for a linear battlefield” 

that depended on “concepts such as ‘forward and well forward’ 

[that] were generally acknowledged to be almost meaningless” 

in current Iraqi operations.4 If America’s current enemies, undoubtedly more conservative about the role of women in their 

societies, acknowledge the efficacy of female combatants in 

their operations, political leaders must recognize what military 

leaders have accepted as fact. Women can contribute successfully to combat operations and remain ready to do so. 

American female warriors face strong criticism from pundits 

who desire a return to an all-male combat force. Similar to 

their sisters who fought for the Soviet Union, American women 

serve a nation that propagates notions of equality yet continues to discriminate based on gender. American political leaders 

who sought to liberate Afghani women from the burqua based 

on an American virtue of civic equality continue to deny half of 

the American population the same rights afforded the other 

half. When President Bush “forcefully backed the Army’s [combat exclusion] restrictions,” and proclaimed a policy of “no 

women in combat,” he reinforced the notion that American 

women are not the equals of American men.5 Such proclamations further inhibit the abilities of women to integrate fully 

and reinforce perceptions that women are incapable of effectively serving in combat roles. 
CONCLUSION

113

Operations in Iraq and Afghanistan directly contradict the 

arguments put forth by critics of women in combat. Women 

have proven they are formidable fighters who do have the capability to engage in direct ground combat. Combat units like 

Private Brown’s have accepted women as equal members; 

Brown’s unit considered her “one of the guys, mixing it up, 

clearing rooms, doing everything that anybody else was doing,” 

and wanted to keep her as their medic.6 Further, the American 

public has also revealed acceptance of female American combatants. In fact, as early as 1990 a majority of the American 

public felt the DOD should allow women to serve in combat 

zones. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll asked, “Do you 

feel it is acceptable or unacceptable for the United States to 

send women on military missions where they may be involved 

in combat?” Over 70 percent of respondents, male and female, 

answered it was acceptable to allow women to conduct these 

missions.7 Furthermore, protests against the war in Iraq, for 

example, do not center upon the use of women in combat roles 

but against the overall use of combat forces in Iraq. 

Equally important, if the United States wants to continue to 

represent freedom, democracy, and equality for all citizens, 

American women should be required to register for conscription with the Selective Service. Once American society establishes a standardized expectation for all of its citizens, then it 

can truly represent a free and equal society. Likewise, to provide a capable fighting force, the armed forces need to transition away from gender-normed physical fitness tests since they 

do not indicate how individuals perform their jobs in combat. 

Establishing minimum fitness requirements based on the 

physical demands of the job would eliminate the presumption 

of a double standard or diminished combat effectiveness. 

OIF and OEF have forced the United States to reevaluate a 

number of foreign and domestic policies, including preemptive war, the draft, and the organizational structures of the 

American armed forces. OIF and OEF have also highlighted 

the need for policy makers to reconsider combat exclusion 

rules that currently govern US combat operations. Women 

have always been subjected to the violence of war. It is now 

time for the United States to encourage and empower American women to serve in combat roles if they meet the physical 
CONCLUSION

114

requirements of those positions. Policy leaders should rescind 

current combat exclusion policies and welcome American 

women as civic equals. 

Notes

1. Tyson, “Woman Gains Silver Star.”

2. Reuter, My Life Is a Weapon, 155.

3. Ling, National Geographic.

4. Tyson, “Woman Gains Silver Star.”

5. Ibid.

6. Ibid.

7. Skaine, Women at War, 121.
115

Bibliography

Adler, Kai. “The Women of Hamas: ‘Islam Protects Us’.” Qantara.de. 

http://www.qantara.de/webcom/show_article.php/_c-478/

_nr-391/i.html.

Applebaum, Anne. “Girl Suicide Bombers.” Slate.com, 2 April 

2002. http://www.slate.com/?id=2063954.

Associated Press. “Female Texas Teen to Receive Silver Star: 

The 19-Year-Old Medic Shielded Fellow Soldiers from Fire 

with Her Body in Afghanistan.” CBS News, 9 March 2008. 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/03/09/terror/

main3920151.shtml.

Bender, Bryan. “Combat Support Ban Weighed on Women: Pentagon Opposes GOP Proposal.” Boston Globe, 18 May 2005. 

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/

articles/2005/05/18/combat_support_ban_weighed_for

_women/.

Bergquist, Carl. “First Female Pilot in Combat Reflects on Career.” 

Defenselink, 7 December 2006. http://www.defenselink.mil/

home/faceofdefense/fod/2006-12/f20061207a.html.

Bigg, Claire. “Russia: Army Puts on a Pretty Face.” Radio Free 

Europe/Radio Liberty, 22 June 2005. http://www.rferl

.org/featuresarticle/2005/06/978c9c04-e01d-468b-8d44

-52fce2570214.html.

Black, Capt Allison, USAF. Panel Discussion on “Women in 

Combat.” Air Force Women’s Training Symposium, “Heritage to Horizons: Earning Our Wings & Reaching the 

Stars.” Washington, DC, 29 October 2007.

Botters, Robert J. “How the Army Can Meet the Intent of Policy 

and Statute on Ground Combat Exclusion for Women.” In 

Women in Combat Compendium, edited by Michele M. Putko 

and Douglas V. Johnson II, 71–74. Carlisle, PA: Strategic 

Studies Institute, US Army War College, January 2008. 

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pubs/

download.cfm?q=830.

Burnham, SMSgt Rick, USAF. “A-10 Pilot Wows Smithsonian 

Crowd.” Air Force Print News, 29 March 2004.

Carreiras, Helena. Gender and the Military: Women in the Armed 

Forces of Western Democracies, Cass Military Studies. New 

York: Routledge, 2006.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

116

Center for Military Readiness. “CMR Policy Analysis––Frequently Asked Questions, Hunter/McHugh Amendment to 

H.R.1815,” 23 May 2005. http://cmrlink.org/CMRNotes/

HunterMcHugh%20FAQ’s%20052305.pdf.

———. “Women in Combat: Frequently Asked Questions,”22 

November 2004. http://www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat

.asp?DocID=237.

———. “Women in Land Combat,” 18 November 2004. http://

www.cmrlink.org/WomenInCombat.asp?docID=233.

Central Commission for the Investigation of German Crimes in 

Poland. German Crimes in Poland. Howard Fertig, New 

York, 1982. http://www.warsawuprising.com/witness/

atrocities4.htm.

Chick Fighter Pilot Association. Fighterchicks.Com. http://

www.fighterchicks.com/.

CNN. “Three Soldiers Arraigned in U.S. Army Sex Scandal: Judge 

Bars Prospective Jurors from Following Case,” Aberdeen, 

MD: CNN, 6 December 1996. http://www.cnn.com/US/

9612/06/aberdeen.arraign/index.html.

Corbett, Christianne. The Downgrading of DACOWITS: How President Bush Has Failed America’s Women in Uniform. Washington, DC: Office of Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney, 

US House of Representatives, October 2004. http://maloney

.house.gov/documents/olddocs/102204DACOWITS

report.pdf.

Cosner, Shaaron, and Victoria Cosner. Women under the Third 

Reich: A Biographical Dictionary. Westport, CT: Greenwood 

Press, 1998.

Cottam, Kazimiera Janina, ed. and trans. In the Sky above the 

Front: A Collection of Memoirs of Soviet Airwomen Participants in the Great Patriotic War. Manhattan, KS: Military 

Affairs/Aerospace Historian Publishing, 1984.

———, ed. and trans. Women in War and Resistance: Selected 

Biographies of Soviet Women Soldiers. Nepean, Ontario: 

New Military Publishers, 1998.

Cottam, Kazimiera Janina, and Galina Markova. Soviet Airwomen in Combat in World War II. Manhattan, KS: Military 

Affairs/Aerospace Historian Publishing, 1983.

Department of Defense. “Report of the Defense Task Force on 

Sexual Harassment and Violence at the Military Service 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

117

Academies.” Department of Defense, June 2005. http://

handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA436975.

Devilbiss, M. C. Women and Military Service: A History, Analysis, and Overview of Key Issues. Maxwell AFB, AL: Air University Press, 1990.

Donnelly, Elaine. “Private Lynch & Amazon Myths: No John 

Wayne.” National Review Online, 14 November 2003. 

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/donnelly2003

11140914.asp.

Elshtain, Jean Bethke. Women and War. New York: Basic Books, 

1987.

Felgenhauer, Pavel. “Russian Military: After Ivanov.” Boston 

University: Perspective 17, no. 3 (May–June 2007). http://

www.bu.edu/iscip/vol17/felgenhauer2.html.

Fenner, Lorry M., and Marie E. deYoung. Women in Combat: 

Civic Duty or Military Liability. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2001.

Frontline: Tailhook ’91. PBS, n.d. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/

pages/frontline/shows/navy/tailhook/.

Gibbs, Nancy. “An American Family Goes to War.” Time, 16 

March 2003.

Gordon, Michael R. “Panel Is against Letting Women Fly in 

Combat.” New York Times, 4 November 1992.

Grant, Rebecca. “The Quiet Pioneers.” Air Force Magazine 85, no. 

12 (December 2002). http://www.airforce-magazine.com/

MagazineArchive/Pages/2002/December%202002/

1202pioneer.aspx.

Greenberg, Joel. “Portrait of an Angry Young Arab Woman.” 

New York Times, 1 March 2002.

Gunawardena, Arjuna. “Female Black Tigers: A Different Breed 

of Cat?” In Female Suicide Bombers: Dying for Equality, ed. 

Yoram Schweitzer, Memorandum No. 84 (August 2006), 

81–90. Tel Aviv: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel 

Aviv University, August 2006. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/

Digital-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0C54E3B3

-1E9C-BE1E-2C24-A6A8C7060233&lng=en&id=91154.

Gutmann, Stephanie. The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America’s 

Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars? New York: 

Scribner, 2000.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

118

Harman, Everett, Peter Frykman, Christopher Palmer, Eric 

Lammi, Katy Reynolds, and Verne Backus. Effects of a 

Specifically Designed Physical Conditioning Program on the 

Load Carriage and Lifting Performance of Female Soldiers. 

Natic, MA: US Army Research Institute of Environmental 

Medicine, November 1997. http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/

ADA333437.

Harrell, Margaret C., Laura Weber Castaneda, Peter Schirmer, 

Bryan W. Hallmark, Jennifer Kavanagh, Daniel Gershwin, 

and Paul Steinberg. Assessing the Assignment Policy for 

Army Women. Arlington, VA: RAND National Defense Research Institute, RAND Corporation, 2007.

Kazik (Simha Rotem). Memoirs of a Warsaw Ghetto Fighter: The 

Past within Me. Translated by Barbara Harshav. New Haven, 

CT: Yale University Press, 1994.

Kirk, Tim, and Anthony McElligott. Opposing Fascism: Community, Authority and Resistance in Europe. Cambridge, UK: 

Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Kurzman, Dan. The Bravest Battle: The Twenty-Eight Days of 

the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. New York: Putnam, 1976.

Lazreg, Marnia. Torture and the Twilight of Empire. Princeton, 

NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.

Lewis, Bernard. The Middle East. New York: Scribner, 1995.

Ling, Lisa. National Geographic: The Best of Lisa Ling Collection. 

Burbank, CA: Warner Home Video, 2005. 

Lukas, Richard C. The Forgotten Holocaust: The Poles under 

German Occupation, 1939–1944, New York: Hippocrene 

Books, 1997.

Manegold, Catherine S. “Lives Well Lived: Kara S. Hultgreen: The 

Short Flight of a Fighter Pilot.” New York Times Magazine, 

1 January 1995. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage

.html?res=990CE2D7103CF932A35752C0A963958260.

Mientka, Matt. “Congress Criticizes Investigation of Air Force 

Academy Scandal.” US Medicine, May 2003.

“Military Times Poll, 2004 Index: Race, Gender, Gay.” Military 

Times, 3 January 2005. http://www.militarycity.com/polls/

2004_chart3.php#2.

Miller, Laura L., and John Allen Williams. “Do Military Policies 

on Gender and Sexuality Undermine Combat Effectiveness?” In Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds. Sol-
BIBLIOGRAPHY

119

diers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American 

National Security. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001.

Mitchell, Brian. Weak Link: The Feminization of the American 

Military. Washington, DC: Regnery Gateway, 1989.

———. Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 1998.

Noggle, Anne. A Dance with Death: Soviet Airwomen in World War 

II. College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 1994.

O’Neill, Bard E. Insurgency & Terrorism. Washington, DC: Potomac Books, Inc., 2005.

O’Neill, Craig. “Russian Women Aviators.” Aloft, 2006.

Pape, Robert Anthony. Dying to Win: The Strategic Logic of Suicide Terrorism. New York: Random House, 2005.

Pedahazur, Ami. Suicide Terrorism. Indianapolis: John Wiley & 

Sons, Inc., 2005.

Pennington, Reina. “Wings, Women and War: Soviet Women’s 

Military Aviation Regiments in the Great Patriotic War.” 

Master’s thesis, University of South Carolina, 1993.

Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the 

Armed Forces. Report to the President, November 15, 1992. 

Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992.

Public Affairs, Office of the Superintendant, US Air Force Academy. 

“United States Air Force Academy: Agenda for Change.” 

http://www.usafa.edu/superintendent/pa/agenda.cfm.

Quenqua, Douglas. “Sending in the Marines (to Recruit 

Women).” New York Times, 21 April 2008.

Randolph, Monique. “Airmen Receive First AF Combat Action 

Medals.” Air Force Link, 12 June 2007. http://www.af.mil/

news/story.asp?id=123056767.

Reuter, Christoph. My Life Is a Weapon: A Modern History of 

Suicide Bombing. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University 

Press, 2004.

Richardson, COL Laura J., USA. Panel Discussion on “Women 

in Combat.” Air Force Women’s Training Symposium, “Heritage to Horizons: Earning Our Wings & Reaching the 

Stars.” Washington, DC, 29 October 2007.

Rossiter, Margaret L. Women in the Resistance. New York: Praeger, 1986.

“Russia: New Deputy Defense Minister Breaks Mold, Faces Tough 

Challenge.” Foreign Broadcast Information Services Media 
BIBLIOGRAPHY

120

Analysis. Federation of American Scientists, n.d. http://

www.fas.org/irp/world/russia/fbis/KudelinaFMA.htm.

Sagawa, Shirley, and Nancy Duff Campbell. “Women in the Military Issue Paper: Women in Combat.” National Women’s 

Law Center, 30 October 1992. http://www.nwlc.org/pdf/

Combat.pdf.

Schweitzer, Yoram. “Palestinian Female Suicide Bombers.” In 

Female Suicide Bombers: Dying for Equality, ed. Yoram 

Schweitzer, Memorandum No. 84 (August 2006), 25–41. 

Tel Aviv: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, August 2006. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital

-Library/Publications/Detail/?ots591=0C54E3B3-1E9C

-BE1E-2C24-A6A8C7060233&lng=en&id=91194.

Selective Service System. SSS.gov, n.d. http://www.sss.gov/

FSwho.htm.

Sevier, Elisabeth. Resistance Fighter: A Teenage Girl in World 

War II France. Manhattan, KS: Sunflower University Press, 

1998.

Skaine, Rosemarie. Female Suicide Bombers. Jefferson, NC: 

McFarland, 2006.

———. Women at War: Gender Issues of Americans in Combat. 

Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 1999.

Sklaroff, Sara. “A Woman’s World.” Wilson Quarterly 31, no. 3 

(2007).

Slaughter, Jane. Women and the Italian Resistance, 1943–1945, 

Women and Modern Revolution Series. Denver, CO: Arden 

Press, 1997.

Solaro, Erin. Women in the Line of Fire: What You Should Know 

About Women in the Military. Emeryville, CA: Seal Press, 

2006.

“Space Cadet.” Snopes.com, 2003. http://www.snopes.com/

politics/military/airforce.asp.

Stockdale, Melissa K. “My Death for the Motherland Is Happiness: 

Women, Patriotism, and Soldiering in Russia’s Great War, 

1914–1917,” American Historical Review 109, no. 1 (2004): 

78–116. http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/ahr/

109.1/stockdale.html.

Storey, Tarsha. “First Female Active-Duty Fighter Pilot Retires.” 

Air Force Print News (2006), http://www.shaw.af.mil/

news/story_print.asp?id=123029084.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

121

Sulipeck, MSgt Kimberly, USAF. Panel Discussion on “Women 

in Combat.” Air Force Women’s Training Symposium, “Heritage to Horizons: Earning Our Wings & Reaching the 

Stars.” Washington, DC, 29 October 2007.

“The Story of Molly Pitcher.” http://sill-www.army.mil/pao/

pamolly.htm.

“Times Topics: Kelly J. Flynn.” New York Times, n.d. http://

topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/f/

kelly_j_flinn/index.html.

Tyson, Ann Scott. “Bid to Limit Women in Combat Withdrawn.” 

Washington Post, 26 May 2005.

———. “Soldier Earns Silver Star for Her Role in Defeating Ambush.” Washington Post, 16 June 2005. http://www.washing

tonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/16/

AR2005061601551.html.

———. “Woman Gains Silver Star––and Removal from Combat 

Case Shows Contradictions of Army Rules.” Washington 

Post, 1 May 2008.

Tzoreff, Mira. “The Palestinian Shahida: National Patriotism, 

Islamic Feminism, or Social Crisis.” In Female Suicide 

Bombers: Dying for Equality, ed. Yoram Schweitzer, Memorandum No. 84 (August 2006), 13–25. Tel Aviv: Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies, Tel Aviv University, August 2006. 

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Digital-Library/Publications/

Detail/?ots591=0C54E3B3-1E9C-BE1E-2C24-A6A8C706

0233&lng=en&id=91209.

Weaver, Justin. “Meet the Air Force’s First Female African-American 

Fighter Pilot.” US Air Forces in Europe, 21 March 2008. 

http://www.usafe.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123091118.

Webb, James. “The War on Military Culture,” Weekly Standard, 

20 January 1997.

———. “Women Can’t Fight.” Washingtonian, November 1979, 

http://www.washingtonian.com/articles/mediapolitics/

2182.html.

Weitz, Margaret Collins. Sisters in the Resistance: How Women 

Fought to Free France, 1940–1945. New York: J. Wiley, 1995.

Winn, Patrick. “Female Airmen Deadly in Iraq, Afghanistan.” 

Air Force Times, 13 January 2008. http://www.airforcetimes

.com/news/2007/12/airforce_deadly_women_071229w/.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

122

Wood, SGT Sara, USA. “Female Soldier Receives Silver Star in 

Iraq.” ARMY.MIL/NEWS, 17 June 2005. http://www.army

.mil-news/2005/06/17/1645-female-soldier-receives

-silver-star-in-iraq/.

Yeager, Holly. “Soldiering Ahead.” Wilson Quarterly 31, no. 3 

(Summer 2007). http://www.wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm

?essay_id=261679&fuseaction=wq.essay.

Zedalis, Debra D. Female Suicide Bombers, Carlisle Papers in 

Security Strategy. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, 

US Army War College, June 2004. http://www.strategic

studiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB408.pdf.

Zucchino, David. “Grueling March to Become Marines for Three 

Friends.” Los Angeles Times, 9 November 2007.
Femme Fatale: An Examination Alfonso

of the Role of Women in Combat 

and the Policy Implications for

Future American Military Operations

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

Cut along dotted line

After you have read this research report, please give us your 

frank opinion on the contents. All comments—large or small,

complimentary or caustic—will be gratefully appreciated.

Mail them to the director, AFRI, 155 N. Twining St.,

Maxwell AFB, AL 36112-6026.

Thank you for your assistance.

Femme Fatale

An Examination of the Role of Women in Combat and the 

Policy Implications for Future American Military Operations

Air University Press Team

Chief Editor

James S. Howard

Copy Editor

Carolyn J. Burns

Cover Art and Book Design

Daniel Armstrong

Composition and

Prepress Production

Ann Bailey

Quality Review

Mary J. Moore

Print Preparation and Distribution

Diane Clark