- Chicken pox outbreak puts illegal immigrant facility on lockdown
- Obama to Republicans: ‘Stop just hatin’ all the time’
- U.S. chemical sites vulnerable despite millions spent on security: Congress
- Driverless cars to hit the British streets by 2015
- GOP presses to scrap IRS commissioner position — but put in panel
- New bill would make sure women in military can get free birth control
- Trafficking bust reveals worries over missing kids; minors as young as 11 found
- Catholic League slams Obama: ‘Do Christian lives mean so little to you?’
- National laboratory cancels ‘Southern Accent Reduction’ classes after outcry
- U.S. woman with Ebola is stable, improving, son says
Few women will qualify for land combat: report
Loophole feared in ‘gender-neutral’ qualifications
Question of the Day
A new report to Congress predicts that relatively few women will be able to perform land combat tasks on the same level as men, and it says the Pentagon’s pledge to maintain “gender-neutral” physical standards has a loophole.
Meanwhile, the Marine Corps, viewed as the service most resistant to opening the infantry to women, will test male and female troops together in strength and endurance to determine how women can perform ground warfare, according to an internal memo obtained by The Washington Times.
The congressional report and the Marine Corps memo come as pro-defense conservatives are exploring ways to ensure that the Obama administration does not ease rigorous standards as a way to make sure women qualify for direct combat jobs.
When Defense Secretary Leon E. Panetta last month removed the policy prohibiting women from serving in direct combat units — infantry, armor and special operations — he vowed not create two standards, citing the 1993 Gender-Neutral Occupational Performance Standards as the guide.
However, that law might not prevent the creation of a two-tiered qualification system, the Congressional Research Service said in a Feb. 7 report to Congress. The Times has obtained a copy of the document.
Citing the Air Force as an example, the report said that the armed services today employ significantly different physical standards for men and women. It notes that women are not required to do as many situps and pullups or to run as fast as men.
“The use of the term ‘gender-neutral physical standards’ raises questions depending on how it is defined,” David Burrelli, a military-manpower specialist, said in the report. “A plain reading of the term suggests that men and women would be required to meet the same physical standards in order to be similarly assigned. However, in the past, the services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and women must exert the same amount of energy in a particular task, regardless of the work that is actually accomplished by either.”
Said Elaine Donnelly, who runs the Livonia, Mich.-based Center for Military Readiness: “Despite a law mandating ‘gender-neutral’ standards, every military training program open to both men and women is gender-normed in some way. These standards can only be justified if women are not eligible for fighting battalions.”
Fueling fears of lower combat standards for women is a statement from Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who said that if the military branches conclude that standards are too tough for women to succeed, they better have a good reason why the bar is that high.
Mr. Burrelli says the 1993 law is vague because it does not contain a clear definition of gender-neutral.
“As written, this language can be the subject of differing interpretations,” he said in the report. “Since no standards exist for women in the then-closed occupations, would women be required to meet the current existing standards, would separate standards be created, or would the existing standards be re-evaluated? What is lacking is a clear definition of ‘gender-neutral’ vis-a-vis the goals to be attained. Recent quotes from senior military leaders seem to suggest different things.”
Mr. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey have made it clear to commanders that they want a significant number of women to gain access to combat units.
Skeptics question whether an ample number of military women want the challenge and whether more than a few can pass tests that require long marches while toting 60 pounds of gear, carrying large objects such as artillery shells or a wounded comrade, and possessing the upper-body strength for rope climbs.
Wrote Mr. Burrelli: “Although it has been shown that there are women who can meet and exceed many male physical standards, it does not appear that large numbers of women will succeed if held to these same higher standards. In addition, forcing women to continuously meet higher standards has been found to increase their injury and attrition rates.”
The Marine Corps is trying to address that key issue as it prepares to report with the other services in May to the defense secretary on what combat occupation specialties women can master.
© Copyright 2014 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.
About the Author
- Family of Marine killed in Afghanistan pushes back against cover-up
- Afghan who killed three U.S. Marines in 2012 to serve over 7-year prison sentence
- State Department indicates Nouri al-Maliki's days numbered as Iraq prime minister
- Marine Corps whistleblower lands new Pentagon position
- Elusive target: U.S. believed Iraq terror mastermind al-Baghdadi killed 3 times
TWT Video Picks
- Geraldo Rivera: Matt Drudge 'doing his best to stir up a civil war'
- Lois Lerner hated conservatives, new emails show
- Catholic League slams Obama: 'Do Christian lives mean so little to you?'
- CARSON: Rudderless U.S. foreign policy
- Patent workers paid to exercise, shop, do chores: report
- Fla. mom arrested for allowing 7-year-old son to walk to park alone
- Obama thanks Muslims for 'building the very fabric of our nation'
- Obama mum on where illegal immigrant children are sheltered
- National laboratory cancels 'Southern Accent Reduction' classes after outcry
- Federal judge grants 90-day stay in D.C. gun case
Obama's biggest White House 'fails'
Celebrities turned politicians
Athletes turned actors
20 gadgets that changed the world