Now that Canada has sent combat troops including women to war in Afghanistan, it is time to revisit our policy of posting women into close combat units. The purpose of our armed forces is to fight and win the nation’s wars, not to serve as a laboratory for social “progress.” Yet we have sent 60 women into harm’s way with the initial 750-strong 3 PPCLI Battle Group, ostensibly affirming gender equality.

Factually, the majority of men are physically stronger than the majority of women and the risk of sexual attraction can undermine the cohesion and discipline necessary for success on the battlefield. Although a case may exist for sending women off to war aboard our warships, there are stressful battlefield parallels when women fill some 50 of the 235 billets aboard HMCS Vancouver in the Arabian Sea.

The Canadian Forces had launched a study of the military consequences of women in combat roles. However, it was abruptly halted in 1990. Then, the Human Rights tribunal with only shallow evidence decreed that women would be fully and equally integrated into the armed forces. A specific quota of 25 per cent females in the combat trades was directed, without empirical data for or against. The reason is now quite clear. The real agenda was career opportunity over military effectiveness and the feminist drive to break through the glass ceiling to general officer rank.

Aside from a succession of peace operations since 1990, the Afghanistan war is the first operational commitment of Canadian women deliberately exposing them to enemy fire and extreme risk of death and capture. It would seem prudent now to properly examine this entire policy before an open Parliamentary committee.

Notably our principal allies do bar women from serving in direct combat. The US Army (and Marines) bar women from direct combat units (armour, infantry, artillery) or units operating with them. The British bar women from serving with the Royal Marine Commando, submarines, mine clearance diving, Household Cavalry, Royal Armoured Corps, Infantry and RAF Regiment. The Israeli Army has barred women from combat roles since 1950.

There are five troubling questions that must be answered by any future inquiry into the use of women in combat by the Canadian Forces.

Question 1: Are women physically suited to the rigours of ground combat?

The evidence suggests they are not. British Professor Van Creveld, whose recent book: Men, Women and War - Do Women Belong in the Front Line? found that women lacked the physical strength needed for fighting at close quarters. Their relative weakness could, in some cases, put them and their comrades in unjustifiable danger, which he described as potentially “criminal.”

A study of recruits at the U.S. West Point Military Academy showed that after eight weeks of training men could develop 37 per cent more power in the lower body than women and do 48 per cent more work at the leg press. The US Army has calculated that the average female recruit has 59 per cent of the upper body strength of her average male counterpart and 72 per cent in the lower body.

Women are also more vulnerable to injury than men. The British Army’s controversial policy of putting women through the same rigorous training regime and tests as men has doubled the number of injuries among female recruits. The “gender free” policy, introduced in 1998 after concerns about the poor fitness levels of women soldiers, is placing female recruits at “excess risk.” These women are now eight times more likely to be discharged with back pain, tendon injuries and stress fractures than their male counterparts.

In Canada, recruit fitness training has been progressively softened allowing female recruits to complete their training to meet gender quotas, disregarding unit battle fitness.

Question 2: How will bearing and raising children affect a woman’s readiness to deploy on short notice, as is frequently required of military units?

Lower unit readiness caused by the absence of child-rearing women inevitably will get worse as the military continues to attract more women to its ranks. When discovered, pregnant sailors aboard Canadian ships are flown home thus leaving sudden gaps in operational readiness. The U.S. Navy follows a similar policy. Their statistics show that women were unavailable for overseas deployment during the Gulf War nearly four times more often than men.

Last Oct. at Halifax, there was a 20 per cent ineffective rate as the Task Force prepared to sail for the Arabian Sea. Medically, 5 to 8 per cent is normal. The reason cited for the excess was “social factor” meaning pregnancy, maternity and/or paternity leave. Extrapolated for all the CF, there could be nearly 10,000 persons unfit to fight.

Question 3: What are the potential consequences of women and men fighting alongside one another?

Combat is a team activity that brings people closer together than any other profession. A small number of women may possess the physical and mental toughness to perform some combat duties; but teamwork matters more than individual capabilities in combat, and this teamwork generally is undermined by the presence of women. Mixing men and women in military units invites sexual attraction and special relationships, and these relationships - or even the perception that they exist - destroy the morale and cohesion that any fighting force must have to win wars.

Question 4: How do women serving in the armed forces feel about being assigned to combat units?

An American study found that expanding combat “opportunities” for women places the aspirations of feminist activists ahead of the wishes of most military women, who have expressed consistently strong personal resistance to being assigned to combat. Anecdotal evidence suggests a similar attitude by Canadian service women.

Question 5: What has been the experience of nations with mixed men and women in combat units?

History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle. For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed in battle.

To conclude, gender equality in the Canadian Forces is an oft hailed charter right of women but in reality it is irrelevant on the battlefield. In war, the only warriors on the battlefield are the quick and the dead. The miasma of political correctness being pushed by our government gurus will not change that equation. While the military attempts to provide servicemen and women with rewarding careers, it must not do so at the expense of its readiness for war. 

LCol Berezowski is the editor of the RUSI Newsletter.

top

 previous article

next article