Why It's a Good Move for the Military to Only Use Men for Combat Roles
By Bobby Darvish, Iranian-American Ex-Muslim, Former Vegan, Former Democrat, Former Socialist, Former CAIR-Columbus Executive Director, Former Muslim Forum of Utah President, Christian Conservative LDS
The notion of men as the primary protectors in combat roles has historically been more than just a tradition; it reflects biological, psychological, and strategic realities that contribute to the military's overall strength and operational success. As someone who has journeyed through various ideologies—having once embraced progressive viewpoints and causes, only to later recognize their flaws—I now see the prudence in the military's move to limit combat roles to men. Based on biological differences, moral considerations, and practical military goals, there are strong reasons to support this policy.
1. Biological and Physical Differences
Biologically, men and women differ in ways that directly impact combat performance. On average, men possess greater muscle mass, bone density, and cardiovascular capacity. This difference in physical strength is crucial in high-intensity situations like combat, where soldiers carry heavy loads, sprint with gear, and engage in hand-to-hand combat. According to a 2015 study by the U.S. Marine Corps, integrated gender units performed significantly worse than all-male units in physical tasks related to combat, such as load-bearing and casualty evacuationifferences aren’t just anecdotal; they are grounded in hard science, with men on average being physically more suited to withstand and succeed in the demands of combat roles.
While some argue that exceptional women can meet these standards, creating an exception-based policy weakens the military's foundational mission: to train and deploy the most capable combat units. Attempting to mold policies around exceptions risks diluting combat effectiveness by diverting resources toward adjustments and accommodations that ultimately don’t benefit the unit.
2. Psychological Resilience in Combat
Military combat also demands psychological resilience, particularly in situations where life and death are on the line. Men and women generally react differently under stress due to variations in brain chemistry and hormonal responses. Research has shown that male brains release less oxytocin in stressful situations, while female bodies often produce more cortisol under stress . This cce a soldier’s response to life-threatening scenarios, affecting decision-making, especially in situations where clear-headedness and aggressive response are crucial for survival.
Combat environments also necessitate a level of camaraderie and cohesion that, according to military psychological studies, often works more smoothly in single-gender units. The introduction of mixed-gender teams has sometimes led to issues of unit cohesion, which is paramount in high-stress combat scenarios where soldiers must trust each other implicitly and act as a single, cohesive force. Mixed-gender teams can suffer from distractions and interpersonal dynamics that can undermine this vital trust, negatively affecting the unit's performance and, consequently, the mission.
3. Moral and Ethical Considerations
Allowing only men in combat roles can also be viewed as a moral stance. War is brutal; it strips away the comforts of civilization and demands that soldiers confront death and violence regularly. While it is true that women have served valiantly in different capacities throughout history, it is also a natural instinct for societies to protect women and, by extension, future generations. Women bear the unique biological ability to give birth, which means their role in sustaining societies is fundamentally different. Protecting women from the harshest realities of war aligns with the moral framework that values and safeguards future life, a principle resonant with many religious and cultural traditions, including my own as a conservative Christian LDS.
Moreover, the idea of women in combat roles introduces additional ethical issues. Many combat situations result in enemy capture, and the potential for female soldiers to be subjected to abuse and exploitation adds an additional moral complexity to this matter. Recognizing these risks, limiting women’s presence in direct combat roles might be the most compassionate approach.
4. Operational Efficiency and National Security
At its core, the military’s mission is to ensure national security, and its policies must reflect that priority. Including women in combat roles creates logistical and administrative challenges that can hinder operational efficiency. For example, units with both men and women require adjustments to infrastructure, including separate accommodations and facilities, which adds to logistical complexity. Additionally, ensuring that mixed-gender units avoid instances of harassment or misconduct requires resources, energy, and policies that could otherwise be devoted to improving combat training and readiness.
While some point to other countries with women in combat roles as models, these examples do not always align with America’s military objectives and do not necessarily translate to effectiveness. Some countries with women in combat roles are primarily in defensive rather than offensive operations, or their national security concerns differ vastly from the U.S. Instead, America’s model, which focuses on elite combat readiness and rapid deployment, benefits from clear, straightforward policies that prioritize mission success over social experimentation.
Conclusion
The idea that men should be the sole combatants in military operations is not rooted in antiquated gender norms or an effort to undermine women’s contributions. Rather, it’s a pragmatic, evidence-based decision that aligns with the military’s goal of protecting national security through strength, resilience, and cohesion. By recognizing and respecting the unique qualities that men and women bring to the table, this policy preserves the integrity of combat roles and supports the overarching mission of the military. This is not about denying equality; it’s about understanding and accepting the inherent differences that make our society both complementary and strong.
Citations
- Marine Corps Gender Integration Study, U.S. Marine Corps, 2015.
- Taylor, S.E., Klein, L.C., Lewis, B.P., Gruenewald, T.L., Gurung, R.A., & Updegraff, J.A. (2000). Biobehavioral responses to stress in females: Tend-and-befriend, not fight-or-flight. Psychological Review, 107(3), 411-429.
No comments:
Post a Comment