Retired U.S. Marine Corps Colonel Charles E. Rice wrote this article. The full title of the article is Women in the Infantry: Understanding the issues of Physical Strength, Economics, and Small Unit Cohesion. In the article the author discusses these topics as they relate to the current debate of full inclusion of women into the U.S. Military infantry. The article starts by describing a change in the laws regarding women in combat signed January 24th 2013 by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Panetta rescinded the then current order that prohibited women from holding a military occupational specialty in the combat arms field. This article states the author’s opinion that there is no justification for this change and backs up that opinion in
…show more content…
Colonel Rice states these statements are flawed and asks the readers to look past the current conflict to the bigger picture and long term ramifications. However, the author is careful not to discredit the women who have faithfully and courageously risked their lives and fought honorably during the current conflicts. The author implores the public to look past the current counterinsurgency wars to a full conflict against a nation state where conscription could be necessary. He states that current optimal demographic based on physical requirements is not only the best way to eliminate unqualified draftees, it is also the most economical. The author goes on to cite studies that have been done on the differences of men and women’s physical performance under a full combat load. One study found that men wearing cumbersome personal protection equipment performed better in the tests than women who performed the same test without the added gear. In his article the author brings up the economics of training women for infantry service, the much higher failure rate of women to men makes the costs …show more content…
Although looking at the issue from an economic standpoint might come across as base, I think he brings a very good argument to the table. I also found the studies that he cited as compelling and accurate in regard to what I saw while in the military. As a female veteran I appreciated that the author did not discount the contributions of women in the military. His arguments are sound and well supported. He gives full credit to the women who have served in various operations that put them in harms way and said that they filled a vital gap. However, he does say that there is a difference in the roles that women have been filling and full ground combat operations. I found the authors tone to be respectful and his points thought provoking. Although supporters of full integration may tear the arguments apart I feel they would have a hard time fully discrediting any of them
Colonel Rice states these statements are flawed and asks the readers to look past the current conflict to the bigger picture and long term ramifications. However, the author is careful not to discredit the women who have faithfully and courageously risked their lives and fought honorably during the current conflicts. The author implores the public to look past the current counterinsurgency wars to a full conflict against a nation state where conscription could be necessary. He states that current optimal demographic based on physical requirements is not only the best way to eliminate unqualified draftees, it is also the most economical. The author goes on to cite studies that have been done on the differences of men and women’s physical performance under a full combat load. One study found that men wearing cumbersome personal protection equipment performed better in the tests than women who performed the same test without the added gear. In his article the author brings up the economics of training women for infantry service, the much higher failure rate of women to men makes the costs …show more content…
Although looking at the issue from an economic standpoint might come across as base, I think he brings a very good argument to the table. I also found the studies that he cited as compelling and accurate in regard to what I saw while in the military. As a female veteran I appreciated that the author did not discount the contributions of women in the military. His arguments are sound and well supported. He gives full credit to the women who have served in various operations that put them in harms way and said that they filled a vital gap. However, he does say that there is a difference in the roles that women have been filling and full ground combat operations. I found the authors tone to be respectful and his points thought provoking. Although supporters of full integration may tear the arguments apart I feel they would have a hard time fully discrediting any of them