Air University Review, July-August 1977
Kenneth P. Werrell
LIKE other minority groups, women in recent years have made impressive advances toward equal status. The military has been affected by these changes, sometimes leading the way, sometimes being pushed along. Until the 1960s, women in the military were definitely treated as special and inferior.
While still not granted equal status, servicewomen have made dramatic gains in the last ten years. The right of women to remain in the service despite marriage, dependent children, and pregnancy has been recognized. A Congressional quota limiting the number of women in the service to two percent of the total personnel was eliminated in 1967. In June 1974,3.5 percent of U.S. military personnel were women, a figure expected to rise to 6.2 percent in 1978. In the Air Force the percentage is expected to rise from 3.8 (1974) to 8.5.1 Quotas on the numbers of women in the various officer grades have also been eliminated, and women have advanced into general grade. ROTC was fully opened to women in 1973.
The most recent victory for women, and a major one at that, was legislation allowing women to enter the service academies. In the summer of 1974, 15 women entered King's Point, the Merchant Marine Academy, and the service academies followed suit in 1976. The Air Force Academy enrolled 157 in the summer of 1976, where, from all reports, they have done a creditable job. Most agree that academy training is important to success in the military, since top military positions have traditionally been filled by academy graduates: 100 percent in the Navy, 82 percent in the Army, and 29 percent in the Air Force. Military jobs open to women have expanded greatly; although most servicewomen still serve in clerical roles, 434 of 482 Army jobs, 66 of the Navy's 88 jobs, and 98 percent of the Air Force jobs by Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) are now open to servicewomen. 2
The last major legal barrier facing women in the military is the law barring them from combat. This law was enacted as part of the 1948 legislation that permitted women to serve as part of the regular and reserve military. It states that women in the Navy "may not be assigned to duty in aircraft that are engaged in combat missions nor may they be assigned to duty on vessels of the Navy other than hospital ships and transports,"3 Similarly, Air Force servicewomen "may not be assigned to duty in aircraft engaged in combat missions."4 Curiously enough, tradition--not law, not regulation--prohibits Army women from combat. The omission of the Army from the combat ban, the absence of any Congressional debate on the subject when the measure was discussed, and the fact that these provisions were added to the original by the House Armed Services Committee suggest that no one really considered that women might go into combat. 5 These combat exclusion provisions seem to have been primarily aimed at keeping women from inadvertently straying into combat and only incidentally restrict them from combat.
Until the 1970s, the military applied the spirit of Congress's wishes broadly by keeping all but nurses off ships and aircraft. Since all Navy line officers and pilots can be ordered into combat, women are not permitted in these job categories. The Air Force went one step further and restricted women officers not only from pilot and navigator slots but also from missile operations--certainly well beyond the letter of the law. However, there are signs of loosening in this area. In early 1973 eight Navy women began pilot training, and six earned their wings. The Navy also ran tests of women at sea but stayed within the law by using the hospital ship U.S.S. Sanctuary for the experiment; when that ship was decommissioned, the program ended. In the summer of 1976, 19 Air Force women entered pilot training.6
Still the legal barrier remains. It too will fall: the only questions are when and how. Will the services push for its abolition? Or will executive action be employed, as was the case with racial integration of the military? Other possibilities are actions by either Congress or the courts. Finally, the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment may end the prohibition of women from combat.
American women have served as noncombatants with the military throughout this nation's wars, but their status was not regularized until 1901, when Congress established the Army Nurse Corps. During World War I about 11,000 American women performed numerous military roles at home and overseas. In World War II these numbers and roles expanded, with over one-quarter million women serving in uniform. About 40 percent of the women in the Army, the WACs, served with the Army Air Forces. More important, their performance was better and their problems fewer than most expected. Relative to the average male soldier, the average servicewoman was more motivated (all were volunteers) and better educated. While the military was careful not even to hint that women might be employed in combat--going so far as to ban weapon's training and drill with dummy rifles--a number of women served on noncombat aircrews. As women were banned from aircraft between 1945 and this decade, it is germane to inquire how they performed. The answer: very well indeed. The Women's Air Force Service Pilots (WASP) program graduated 1074 women as civilian pilots; they certainly showed their physical and psychological fitness and, also, that women could fly most aircraft as well as men.7
The valuable service of women convinced most of the military and Congress to regularize their service. This was accomplished in 1948 with laws that are still on the books. As already mentioned, two sections of this law prohibit service by Navy and Air Force women in combat.
Of course women have served in combat. During the Bicentennial year we were bombarded with much, including the exploits of Revolutionary War heroines. There are stories of other women in other wars, including Americans, who served in the military while disguised as men, but they served as individuals.
In modern times countries other than the United States have employed women in combat. In 1917 the Russians organized 1000 women into a unit with the awesome name of Battalion of Death. During World War II women saw even more extensive service in combat, in partisan as well as regular units. English women served in military posts, including at antiaircraft artillery guns that came under fire in the defense of Britain. Female agents were parachuted into German-occupied Europe. But it was the partisans and the Russians, fighting for their very existence, who made the most use of women in the greatest number of roles. Since 1945, women have fought in various guerrilla wars.
Today, Israel makes the most use of womanpower. Outnumbered and practically surrounded, Israel is a state under siege or, if you prefer, a frontier society where hostile gunfire is possible anytime, anywhere. Women are drafted and receive weapon training although they are not trained for combat. While Israeli servicewomen may be assigned to combat units as noncombatants, the purpose of their service is to free men for combat. 8
MANY HAVE argued for and against women in the American military, more often than not with greater emotion than intellect. The best argument the critics make to keep women from combat is that there is no need at this time. While true as far as it goes, it misses the point. It is precisely at this time when no emergency exists that action should be taken to carefully plan and implement measures that can be applied in an emergency.
The best argument of the proponents is that of increased military efficiency. There is always a need for recruiting the very best personnel, and to exclude a sizable personnel pool such as women is ridiculous. Soldiers should be judged on their ability to do the job, not their age, color, or sex. In an all volunteer military, which is relatively small and expensive, quality must be as high as possible. Military efficiency must be the first, main, and foremost determinant. Furthermore, the presence of female soldiers boosts overall morale: British and Israeli experiences indicate that the sight of women under fire has a bracing effect on male soldiers. In some U.S. military classrooms, the presence of females has increased the academic performance of males.9
Some critics claim that women would be unable to perform adequately in combat because of biological and emotional differences. Admittedly this is true of some women, but it is also true of some men. Experience in World War II indicates that women can take the emotional and physical stresses of combat. Recently the Commander of the Marine Training Base on Parris Island asserted that "there is no reason the female can't fight just like the male."10
While the average woman is both physically smaller and weaker than the average man, it should be noted that warfare has moved away from an emphasis on physical prowess. Modern operations with missiles and aircraft differ greatly from traditional warfare. The superintendent of the Naval Academy told a Congressional hearing in 1974 that he would be hard pressed to find a Navy combat job a woman could not do.11 Or as former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt said, " . . . women are able to do the work in any rating, and there is no question but that women will be able to serve in all ships effectively. . . . "12
Critics also note that the idea of women in combat is, in the words of an Air Force general, "an offense against the dignity of women."13 What is more dignified than service to one's country? The rights and responsibilities of citizenship should be extended to all, not only to all, not only to the male half of the population, and soldiering is one of the most important and most basic of these responsibilities. If the U.S. military is to be more than a band of mercenaries, our society must stress citizen responsibility.
Critics express concern over female casualties. Women might be captured by foes who, as in the last two American wars, have treated prisoners with little regard for the rules of war or Western traditions. True. But this concern should be extended to all soldiers, not just women, as should concern for all soldiers killed or wounded. If the thought of women being maimed and killed is repulsive to society, perhaps it will be a welcome incentive to choose carefully the wars we enter. Allowing only highly paid male volunteers to carry war's burden makes war all too easy, which it should not be.
A central concern of many of the critics, however, is the traditional hang-up of sex and sexism. What of toilets and sleeping facilities? How will the military and the country respond to the knowledge that men and women are living in close and stressful proximity for long periods of time? Problems, yes, but should policy be based on problems of this magnitude?
Finally, there is the practical importance for servicewomen of changing this situation. Lifting the combat ban will permit the full utilization of women in the military and open up avenues of promotion and roles now closed. Combat has always been the acme of the military profession. No group banned from combat training and combat service can hope to achieve equality. Combat training and service are symbolic of the military and what the military stands for. Certainly, combat training and service are a major factor in promotion.
Surely there will be problems. The integration of blacks indicates all too clearly the difficulties of implementing an overdue and correct action which was, at the very least, unpopular with numbers of the military and the general public. The same is true with women. But attitudes can be changed. The past performance of women in the military and their present motivation and abilities suggest that women can successfully handle this challenge and opportunity. In the end the measure should be simply equality across the board for all: black, white, rich, poor, young, old, male, female. Military efficiency should come first. The criterion should be simply: Can they do the job? The military and the country, as well as women, stand to gain. Now is the time to try--slowly, carefully, and reasonably--without the pressures of war.
What can the Air Force do? It can lead the way. At the very least women should be permitted to train for combat and service in positions that reflect the changes in the conduct of war--missile operators and aircrews. Why can't women serve as missile operators? Physical strength is not a primary consideration. Motivation, self-confidence, and psychological stability are the major requisites. As all American intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) are deployed within the U.S., there would be no problem with the question of capture. And if these weapons are used, we need concern ourselves little afterwards, if we have that luxury, with the welfare of the crews. 14
Likewise, women could perform pilot duties. Again physical strength counts little today, relatives to other attributes. Not only did American women pilots do well in World War II, but so did Russian airwomen who served in combat. One all-woman fighter unit downed 38 German aircraft, and at least two Soviet airwomen scored 12 or more of these victories.15 Former Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird put it simply, "I don't see why there shouldn't be a woman fighter pilot. . ."16 Even more impressive are the comments of General John C. Meyer, who was responsible for 24 aerial kills in World War II: "Physically, intellectually or emotionally, I cannot see any reason why some women can't be first-rate fighter pilots."17
First things first. Change the law. Train women. Assign them to all positions in the Air Force. Then implement full integration. Finally, if war erupts, employ women with their units.
Abolishing the combat exclusion of women is more than a woman's issue. It is an issue of justice, an issue of military effectiveness. On these grounds how can this action be delayed any longer? This is the challenge for the country, the military, and the Air Force.
Radford, Virginia
Notes
1. George Wilson, "Women Seek Equality In Combat," Washington Post (16 June 1975), AI: 10: U.S.C. Sect. 3209.
2. N. Goldman, "The Utilization of Women In the Military," The Annals (March 1973): "How the Military Is Putting Women into 'Men Only' Jobs," U.S. News and World Report (10 December 1973): "When Women Enter the Service Academies," U.S. News and World Report (18 August 1975): "More Jobs for Women in the Military," U.S. News and World Report (21 August 1972).
3. 10: U.S.C. Sect. 6015.
4. 10: U.S.C. Sect. 549.
5. Congressional Record, 80th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 4691-4719, 6958-71.
6. "Young, Successful, and First," Saturday Evening Post (October 1974): Lt. Cmdr. A. E. Norton to author, 31 December 1975: James N. Eastman, Jr., to author, 16 January 1976: "Navy Women," All Hands (August 1975); Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs), News Release 553-75 (20 December 1975).
7. J. Merton England, "Women Pilots with the Army Air Forces, 1941-44," Air Force Study #55, 1946; Dorothy Shaffter, What Comes of Training Women for War? (Washington, 1948); M. Treadwell, United States Army in World War II, Special Studies: The Woman's: Army Corps (Washington, 1954).
8. Israeli Defense Force, Chen (Tel Aviv, 1969): Verna Dickerson, "The Role of Women In the Defense Force of Israel," Army War College thesis, May 1974.
9. N. Goldman, "The Changing Role of Women In the Armed Forces," American Journal of Sociology (January 1973); Wesley F. Craven and James L. Cate, The Army Air Forces in World War II; vol. VII, Services Around the World (Chicago, 1958), p. 522.
10. Major General Arthur J. Poillon quoted by George Wilson in "U.S. Marines Now Looking for 'A Few Good Women,'" Roanoke Times (7 March 1976), p. 2; Congressional Quarterly (13 July 1974), p. 1820.
11. Phil Stevens, "Women at Academies," Air Force Times (26 June 1974}, 34:3.
12. Television Interview, Dallas Times Herald, 7-7: B6.
13. Congressional Quarterly (13 July 1974), p. 1820.
14. Arthur D. Vaughn, "Is It Feasible to Employ Women on Minuteman Crews?" Air University thesis, May 1975.
15. Air Facts and Feats (London, 1970): E. Meos, "Russian Women Fighter Pilots," Flight (27 December 1962), pp. 1019-20.
16. Quoted in "Distaff Pilots? Why Not, Laird Asks," Air Force Times (12 April 1972).
17. Quoted in "How the Military Is Putting Women Into 'Men Only' Jobs," U.S. News and World Report (10 December 1973). Also see J. Merton England, "Women Pilots with the Army Air Forces, 1941-44," Air Force Study #55, 1946.
Kenneth P. Werrell (USAFA; Ph.D., Duke University) is Associate Professor of History at Radford College, Virginia. He served five years in the Air Force, including 3-1/2 years as a weather reconnaissance pilot in Japan. In September, Dr. Werrell will become Visiting Professor of History at the Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.
Disclaimer
The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.
Air & Space Power Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor