In the previous RUSI Newsletter, we concluded that gender equality in the Canadian Forces is an oft hailed charter right of women but in reality it is irrelevant on the battlefield. We noted that our British and American allies excluded women from serving in close combat units and that the British were completing a further study.

Moreover, we said that Canada’s miasma of political correctness would not change that equation. While the military attempts to provide our servicemen and women with rewarding careers, it must not do so at the expense of its readiness for war.

Since then, both the Americans and the British have pronounced further exclusions of women in close combat.

United States. The Army has removed female soldiers from ground reconnaissance units that are part of the service's future fast-deploying combat brigades. Reversing a Clinton administration policy, the Pentagon no longer will let women be assigned to Reconnaissance, Surveillance and Target Acquisition (RSTA) squadrons. These units, the first of which will become operational next year, are trained to perform some of the ground sweeps now being conducted in the mountains of Afghanistan, as well as other missions. Eight female soldiers who have been training in the first RSTA unit are being reassigned.

The reversal is to comply with a 1994 Defense Department policy that prohibits women from serving in units that perform direct ground combat roles. The Army says it has changed its mixed-sex policy on RSTA because the units, as they evolve as part of Army transformation, are taking on more direct missions.

(Comment: Canada continues to train women in our similar armoured reconnaissance squadrons, now equipped with the Coyote armoured vehicle.)

United Kingdom. The British announced last May 23 that military positions, whose job descriptions include close quarter ground combat, are still considered too demanding for women. The decision was reached after a two-year study into whether women could continue to be excluded from such roles in the 21st Century.

Women are to be excluded from close ground combat roles in the Royal Marines, Infantry Regiments in the Army, and the RAF Regiment, and tanks in the Royal Armoured Corps for reasons of operational effectiveness. Submarines and some diving posts will remain closed to women on medical grounds.

"Following an extensive and thorough examination of a comprehensive body of evidence, I have decided that it would not be in the interests of Operational Effectiveness to open these close combat roles to women," said Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon. "Under the conditions of a high intensity, close-quarter battle, group cohesion becomes of much greater significance to team performance and, in such an environment, failure can have far-reaching and grave consequences. To admit women therefore, would involve a risk without any offsetting gains in terms of combat effectiveness."

The Ministry of Defence study was primarily concerned with combat roles, which entailed face-to-face contact with enemy forces and whether female soldiers would affect the survivability potential of the armed forces. Although, the report concluded that on an individual psychological basis, women could be just as effective as their male counterparts, physically and in terms of a group dynamic, having female soldiers could compromise success rates.

The report found that only about 0.1 % of female applicants and 1 % of trained female soldiers would reach the required standards to meet the demands of these close combat roles. It further concluded that as the majority of close combat missions were carried out in small groups in extreme circumstances, having mixed-sex teams could compromise the group dynamic.

"We need to ensure that our people are afforded the maximum chance of success and the minimum risk to losing life," said Admiral Boyce, Chief of Defence Staff.

Comment: The purpose of armed forces is to fight and win the nation’s wars whether in Afghanistan or wherever. Their purpose is not to serve as a laboratory for social "progress" as interpreted through Canada’s touted Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The National Defence Staff must persuade the government that our military terms of service fall within the charter proviso of "reasonable limits." Thus the National Defence Act must take precedence in matters of war, notwithstanding the purported charter rights of women in combat. This would be useful and appropriate before the next "nice little war" befalls us.

top

 previous article

next article