The Patriot Post® · Redefining the 'War on Women'

Defense Secretary Ash Carter has announced that women will soon be permitted to take any position in the U.S. military, including combat roles. Until now, more than 200,000 jobs were limited to men. “This means that as long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before,” Carter said. “They’ll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat.”

The change applies to all service branches. Carter concluded, “There will be no exceptions.”

The New York Times’ opening line got it right, terming the announcement a “historic transformation of the American military.” Unfortunately, much like the Obama administration’s transformation of the health care system, the change is unlikely to be for the better.

The arguments presented in defense of the announcement are telling. Virtually all of the points had to do with how the decision will make the military more “fair” and will empower and provide new opportunities for women to reach their potential. Yet as the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces warned when it published its final report in 1992, “Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”

We’ll see if women feel empowered if the U.S. government institutes another draft.

There was little mention of how the decision will help the military accomplish its primary task — fighting and winning wars — most likely because there is no evidence to suggest it will. In fact, the most objective study conducted (by the Marine Corps) was ignored precisely because it didn’t fit the administration’s preferred narrative or outcome. Cutting off discussion about the Marine Corps findings, Carter emphasized, “We are a joint force and I have made a decision that will apply to the whole force.” One-size-fits-all political correctness.

Former Marine Tom Neven wrote, “Another problem with the new policy is the poisonous effect it is already having on troop morale. Young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines are not stupid. They hear their superiors mouthing words about maintaining standards and seeking input from all concerned, but then see the preordained results. Surveys were ignored and test results rejected. Notwithstanding assurances to the contrary, they see standards being changed.”

While the concept of the lowest common denominator may be useful in some settings, national defense isn’t one of them. Being fair may give some on the Left a warm fuzzy, but it will only embolden those who wish to do us harm and increase the likelihood of that warm feeling being followed by the hot flash of explosions and incoming rifle fire.

Unfortunately, even a new commander in chief and defense secretary are unlikely to reverse the new policy. Toothpaste doesn’t go back in the tube.

Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strongly opposed the policy change and declined to appear with Carter for the press conference, but he put it bluntly: “Moving forward, my focus is to lead the full integration of women in a manner that maintains our joint warfighting capability, ensures the health and welfare of our people, and optimizes how we leverage talent across the Joint Force.”

The focus now must be on holding the Pentagon to Carter’s promise that “there must be no quotas or perception thereof,” as well as other leaders’ assurances that standards won’t be lowered. To the latter point, however, it’s only a matter of time before standards are lowered. In the words of former Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey, “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the [defense secretary], ‘Why is it that high?’”

Uniformed leaders will undoubtedly carry out their orders, but they should also rigorously document, analyze and present the impact those orders have on combat formation cohesion and effectiveness.