U.S. Rep. Tammy Duckworth nailed it. “I didn’t lose my legs in a bar fight – of course women can serve in combat,” she said. “This decision is long overdue.”
Duckworth, an Illinois Democrat, was reacting to questions about Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s announcement on Dec. 3 that he would open all military positions to women, with no exceptions. She lost both legs and suffered serious injuries to her right arm when her Army helicopter was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade while she was serving in Iraq.
Duckworth’s response highlights one of several sound reasons that Carter’s decision was right: It is fair, it effectively doubles the population from which the services can recruit and it reflects the reality of 21st century war.
What this is all about is what the Department of Defense calls a “military occupational specialty” or, more commonly, MOS. It is a code assigned to everyone in the service that effectively serves as a job description. A person assigned to the infantry will have one MOS, a mechanic another, a cook another and so forth.
What Carter did was, in essence, end the practice of labeling some MOS as combat positions and others as non-combatant. Those labels may have made sense in the past, but as Duckworth’s experience shows, in today’s wars it is a useless distinction.
A number of women serving in Iraq, for example, have been assigned the MOS for “motor transport operator,” ostensibly a non-combat job. But that means only that they were not handed a rifle and pointed at the enemy. They certainly have been targets for the roadside bombs called “improvised explosive devices.” In fact, the “motor transport operator” MOS has had one of the highest casualty rates of any in Iraq.
As Duckworth told the House Armed Services Committee earlier this year, “I was in combat, and women are in combat now.” Acknowledging that simply reflects reality.
It also lifts an impediment to women the service. While most of military life does not involve fighting, it is the defining function of the armed forces. As such, combat experience is a key element to advancement. Carter’s decision will open an estimated 200,000 jobs to women in 52 specialties. And with that will come any number of career opportunities.
Accepting women in more roles also helps the Pentagon. Speaking to troops in Sicily in October, Carter said, “You have to recruit from the American population. Half the American population is female. So, I’d be crazy not to be, so to speak, fishing in that pond for qualified servicemembers.”
Qualified, of course, will be the key word in all of this. And with that there has been the usual talk comparing physical strength and the relative size of men and women. That can be solved, however, by adopting strict, gender-neutral standards for each MOS – which the Department of Defense has been doing – and recognizing that not everyone can handle every job. The infantry will probably remain disproportionately male, although three women have passed the Army’s Ranger course.
Carter is right in saying American women represent too much talent to ignore. But the essence of his decision to allow women to serve in combat roles was Duckworth’s point: They already are.
