Military Review English Edition March-April 2015 | Page 51

WOMEN IN THE INFANTRY

effectiveness, and they are unlikely to realize any negative military consequences.4 No military justification
exists for this change. More important, this change
will be detrimental to military readiness and combat
effectiveness. Accordingly, the military community
must distill the issues and explain, from its perspective,
the ramifications of this policy change to the American
public.

Panetta’s Invalid Rationale
Secretary Panetta’s first justification for rescinding
the 1994 rule is the courage, sacrifice, and contribution
of women on today’s battlefield. In essence, he argues
that women have earned the right to serve in combat
arms. However, serving in harm’s way is not the issue.
Being on the receiving end of incoming fire does not
qualify anyone to be an infantryman. Nobody questions
the courage or patriotism of women who enlist and place
themselves at risk. However, such qualities alone do not
endow them with the abilities required to serve in the
infantry. (For this discussion, “infantry” includes ground
personnel such as medics and engineers who accompany
the infantry into close combat with the enemy.)
Second, Panetta states the goal of rescinding the
prohibition as ensuring “the mission is met with the
best-qualified and most-capable people.”5 This too is
flawed reasoning. If “best-qualified and most capable”
is the true test, then Panetta would have lifted the age
restrictions as well. Indeed, men over and under the current enlistment age parameters have proven themselves
capable in all types of combat, to include underage personnel being awarded the Medal of Honor.6 Arguably,
there are more 40-year-old men and 15-year-old boys
physically capable of performing the tasks of an infantryman than 20-year-old women.7
Allowing women to serve in infantry or