Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
David F. Burrelli
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
May 9, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42075
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Summary
Over the last few years, women have become more involved in combat operations. Since
September, 2001 (to February 28, 2013), 299,548 female service members have been deployed
for contingency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. In approximately 12 years of combat
operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 800 women have been wounded and over 130 have died.
According to the Department of Defense (DOD), as of February 29, 2013, 16,407 female
members were currently deployed in contingency operation. Women have been recognized for
their heroism, two earning Silver Star medals.
The expansion of roles for women in the armed forces has evolved over decades. Women are not
precluded from serving in any military unit by law today. DOD policy restricting women from
serving in ground combat units was most recently modified in 1994 and 2013. Under the 1994
policy, women could not be assigned to units, below the brigade level, whose primary mission is
to engage in direct combat on the ground. Primarily, this meant that women were barred from
infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, and special operations units of battalion size or
smaller. On January 24, 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta rescinded the rule that
restricted women from serving in combat units.
Various commissions and others have reviewed the issue of women in the military, in general, and
women in combat units, at times at the direction of Congress. For example, the FY2009 Duncan
Hunter National Defense Authorization Act contained language establishing the Military
Leadership Diversity Commission. Among its duties, the Commission was to conduct a study and
report on the “establishment and maintenance of fair promotion and command opportunities for
ethnic- and gender-specific members of the Armed Forces at the O-5 (Lieutenant Colonel for
Army, Marine Corps and Air Force, and Commander for Navy and Coast Guard) grade level and
above.” Among its recommendations, the Commission stated that DOD should take deliberate
steps to open additional career fields and units involved in direct ground combat to women.
The Ike Skelton National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 2011 directed DOD to conduct a review to
“ensure that female members have equitable opportunities to compete and excel in the Armed
Forces.” [Emphasis added.]
With the repeal of the ban on women serving in combat units, some have questioned whether or if
current standards should be kept in place, reviewed, modified, etc. Many women’s right
supporters contend that the former exclusionary policy, or standards that, de facto, act in an
exclusionary manner, prevents women from gaining leadership positions and view expanding the
roles of women as a matter of civil rights. Critics view such changes as potentially damaging to
military readinessKristy N. Kamarck
Analyst in Military Manpower
July 14, 2015
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42075
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Summary
Over the past two decades of conflict, women have served with valor and continue to serve on
combat aircraft, naval vessels, and in support of ground combat operations. The expansion of
roles for women in the armed forces has evolved since the early days of the military when women
were restricted by law and policy from serving in certain occupations and units. Women are not
precluded by law from serving in any military unit or occupational specialty. However, a 1994
Department of Defense (DOD) policy prevented women from being assigned to units below
brigade level where the unit’s primary mission was to engage directly in ground combat. This
policy barred women from serving in infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, and special
operations units of battalion size or smaller. On January 24, 2013, then-Secretary of Defense
Leon Panetta rescinded the rule that restricted women from serving in combat units and directed
the services to review their occupational standards and assignment policies for implementation no
later than January 1, 2016.
This recent policy change followed extensive reviews by various commissions and others on
issues regarding women in the military and policies for their assignment and career progression.
For example, the Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 (P.L.
110-417) established the Military Leadership Diversity Commission whose mandate was to
conduct a study and report on the “establishment and maintenance of fair promotion and
command opportunities for ethnic- and gender-specific members of the Armed Forces.” Among
its recommendations, the commission stated that DOD should take deliberate steps to open
additional career fields and units involved in direct ground combat to women. The commission’s
recommendations prompted Congress to direct DOD, in the Ike Skelton National Defense Act for
Fiscal Year 2011 (P.L. 111-383), to conduct a review to “ensure that female members have
equitable opportunities to compete and excel in the Armed Forces.”
With the cancellation of the policy banning women from serving in combat units, some have
questioned whether current occupational standards for entry into these units should be kept in
place or modified. Proponents of change maintain that the existing standards are artificially high,
and act as a de facto exclusionary barrier to the entry of women into combat occupations.
Defenders of the current standards view any reductions to the existing standards as potentially
damaging to military readiness.
Congress has established requirements, definitions, and criteria for the development and
application of “gender-neutral” occupational standards, and has oversight of all DOD decisions in
this matter. Congress may also consider additional issues including equal opportunity, equal
responsibility (such as selective service registration), readiness and cohesion, effectiveness, and
the overall manpower needs of the military.
Congressional Research Service
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Contents
Issue ................................................................................................................................................. 1
Background ...................................................................................................................................... 1
Commission Recommendations in 20112
World War II and the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act .............................................. 3
The All-Volunteer Force and Social Change ................................................. 6
Recommendation 9 .................................................................................................................... 7
Recommendation 18 ................................................................... 3
The “Risk Rule” for Assignment of Women ............................................................................. 5
Repeal of the “Risk Rule” and a New Direct Ground Combat Definition and
Assignment Rule .................................................................................................................... 7
Women in Combat Zones: Iraq and Afghanistan ....................................................................... 8
Women on Submarines ........................................................................... 7
Recommendation 20................................... 9
Military Leadership Diversity Commission ............................................................................ 10
DOD Review of Combat Exclusion Policies ................................................................ 8
DOD Review........... 12
The Repeal of the Direct Combat Exclusion Rule and Recent Developments .............................. 13
Key Issues for Congress ............................................................................................................. 8... 14
“Gender-Neutral” Standards” .................................................................................................... 15
Definitions and Requirements ........................................................................................... 15
Review and Validation...... 9
Submarines ....................................................................................................... 16
Implementation Concerns ................................................................................................. 18
Options for Congress......................................................................................................... 19
Selective Service ........................................................... 12
Selective Service ....................................................................................... 19
Options for Congress........................................................................ 12
Should Women be Barred from Combat Positions? ................................. 20
Other Concerns Regarding Women in Combat ....................................................................... 20
Outlook for Congress ........................................................................ 13
Contacts
Author Contact Information...................................... 21
Tables
Table 1. Female Casualties in the Global War on Terror ................................................................. 1
Table 2. Females as a Percentage of Active Duty Personnel ......................................................... 14
Acknowledgments 13
Table A-1. Timeline of Key Legislative and Policy Actions for Integration of Women in
the Armed Services ..................................................................................................................... 22
Appendixes
Appendix. Key Legislative and Policy Actions ........................................................... 14.................. 22
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 23
Congressional Research Service
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Issue
Laws prohibiting women from serving in air and naval combat units were repealed in the early
1990s.
However, until recently, it has been Department of Defense (DOD) policy to restrict
women from
certain combat-related units and military occupations, especially ground combat units. In recent years, efforts
have been underway to remove these restrictions. Others have questioned the need to modify or
remove these restrictions and the purposes for doing so. On January 24, 2013, the ground combat
restrictions for women were rescinded by DOD. Nevertheless, Congress has authority to make
changes in these matters.1
Congress may consider additional issues including equal opportunity, equal responsibility (such
as draft registration), readiness and cohesion, manpower needs of the military, and training
standards.
Background
The history of women serving with or in the U.S. military varies by service.2 (E.g., women were
assigned as lighthouse keepers as early as the 1830s.) In 1908, Congress enacted language which
led to the creation of the Navy Nurse Corps.3 In 1918, the Secretary of the Navy allowed women
to sign up for clerical duties in the Marine Corps. In 1918, the Secretary of the Navy allowed
women to enroll for clerical duty.4 In 1942 Congress opened the Naval Reserve to women.5 In
1942, the Coast Guard created the women reserves know as SPARs. On May 14, 1942, the
Women’s Army Auxiliary Corps was created “for noncombatant service with the Army of the
United States for the purpose of making available to the national defense when needed the
knowledge, skill, and special training of the women of this Nation.”6 Over one year later, the
Women’s Army Corps (WAC) was made a part of the regular Army on a temporary basis.7 The
Marine Corps Women’s Reserve was established in 1943.
In 1948, Congress made women a permanent part of the military services.8 The Women’s Armed
Services Integration Act of 1948 limited the proportion of women in the military to 2% of the
enlisted force and 10% of officers. This limit was repealed in 1967.9
1
Congress has the authority “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” U.S.
Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clause 14.
2
Parts of this report are based on an earlier CRS Issue Brief, Women in the Armed Forces by David F. Burrelli,
November 14, 1998.
3
P.L. 115; 35 Stat. 146; May 13, 1908.
4
See: http://www.womenmarines.org/wm_history.aspx
5
P.L. 689; 56 Stat. 730; July 30, 1942.
6
Public Law 554, 56 Stat. 278, May 14, 1942.
7
“That there is hereby established in the Army of the United States, for the period of the present war and for six
months thereafter or for such shorter period as the Congress by concurrent resolution or the President by proclamation
shall prescribe, a component to be known as the ‘Women’s Army Corps’.” Public Law 110; 57 Stat. 371; July 1, 1943.
8
Public Law 625; 62 Stat. 356; June 12, 1948: “Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948.”
9
P.L. 90-130; 81 Stat. 374; November 8, 1967.
Congressional Research Service
1
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
In the years that followed the passage of the Women’s Integration Act of 1948, women made up a
relatively small proportion of the armed forces—less than 1% until 1973. By 1997, women
accounted for 13.6% of the active duty endstrength, increasing to 14.5% by September, 2011.
Two major factors led to the expansion of the role of women in the armed forces. First, after the
end of the draft and the beginning of the All-Volunteer Force in December 1973, the military
services had difficulty in recruiting and retaining enough qualified males, thereby turning
attention to recruiting women.10 Second, the movement for equal rights for women, particularly in
the 1960s and 1970s, led to demands for equal opportunity in all fields, including national
defense, and a gradual removal of the restrictions against them.
In 1974, the age requirement for women enlisting without parental consent was made the same as
for men.11 In the next year, legislation was enacted that allowed women to be admitted to the
three service academies.12
In 1977, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to submit to Congress a definition of the
term “combat” and recommendations for expanding job classifications for female members of the
armed forces.13
In 1978, women were permitted to be assigned permanent duty on noncombatant Navy ships, and
up to six months of temporary duty on other ships.14
The Senate Armed Services Committee commented on women in combat in its report concerning
the reinstitution of registration for the Selective Service in 1979. Citing military and other reasons
for differential treatment of men and women by Selective Service, the Committee stated:
The committee feels strongly that it is not in the best interest of our national defense to
register women for the Military Selective Service Act, which would provide needed military
personnel upon mobilization or in the event of a peacetime draft for the armed forces.15
Confusion over the role of women in combat became evident during Operation Urgent Fury. On
October 25, 1983, U.S. service personnel were sent to the island nation of Grenada to rescue
Americans. Four U.S. military police women arrived shortly after the invasion and were promptly
sent back to Fort Bragg, N.C.16 At Fort Bragg, Major General Trobaugh had removed all the
females from the invasion Task Force. Following an intervention by Lieutenant General
Mackmull, women were reattached to the unit and finally deployed to Barbados on November 2,
10
Janowitz, Morris, and Charles C. Moskos, Five Years of the All-Volunteer Force: 1973-1978, Armed Forces and
Society, V, February 1979: 171-218.
11
P.L. 93-290; 88 Stat. 173; May 24, 1974. Prior to enacting this law, males who were not less than 17 years of age
could enlist, females must have been at least 18 years of age.
12
P.L. 94-106; 89 Stat. 537; October 7, 1975. Women had already been admitted to the Coast Guard and Merchant
Marine Academies by administrative action.
13
P.L. 95-97; 91 Stat. 327; July 30, 1977.
14
P.L. 95-485; 92 Stat. 1623; October 20, 1978.
15
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Requiring Reinstitution of Registration For Certain Persons
Under the Military Selective Service Act, and For Other Reasons, Rept. 96-226, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., June 19, 1979.
16
See: http://www.history.army.mil/html/museums/showcase/women/awm_text.html
Congressional Research Service
2
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
1983, to serve with the lead element of the Task Force while the rest of the Task Force deployed
to Grenada the same day.17
In February 1988, the Department of Defense adopted a “risk rule” that excluded women from
noncombat units or missions if the risks of exposure to direct combat, hostile fire, or capture were
equal to or greater than the risks in the combat units they support. This rather subjective criteria
permitted women to be assigned to noncombat units or positions if the risk was less than
comparable to the combat units with which they were associated. In 1988, the General
Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office, GAO) noted that a primary
barrier to the expansion of the number of women in the services was that women were not
allowed in most combat jobs, and were also barred from many combat-related jobs.18 The GAO
reported that approximately one-half of the active duty military positions were opened to
women.19
Following Operation Desert Storm, where women played a more prominent role than in previous
conflicts, and after the political fallout concerning sexual harassment and assault at the Navy’s
1991 Tailhook convention in Las Vegas,20 efforts to expand the assignment of women were
renewed. Legislation enacted in 1991 called for the repeal of the statutory limitations on the
assignment of women in the armed forces to combat aircraft and naval vessels, and, the
establishment of a commission on the assignment of women in the armed forces.21 On November
15, 1992, the commission issued its report.22 Among its many recommendations were the
following (verbatim):
•
DOD should establish a policy to ensure that no person who is best qualified is denied
access on the basis of gender to an assignment that is open to both men and women. As
far as it is compatible with the above policy, the Secretary of Defense should retain
discretion to set goals that encourage the recruitment and optimize the utilization of
women in the Services, allowing for the requirements of each Service.
•
Military readiness should be the driving concern regarding assignment policies; there are
circumstances under which women might be assigned to combat positions.
•
The sense of the commission is that women should be excluded from direct land combat
units and positions. Furthermore the commission recommends that the existing service
policies concerning direct land combat exclusion be codified. Service Secretaries shall
recommend to the Congress which units and positions should fall under the land combat
exclusions.
17
Raines, Edgar F., Jr., The Rucksack War: U.S. Army Operational Logistics in Grenada, 1983, Center of Military
History: Washington, D.C., 2010: 494.
18
Combat jobs include those that directly confront and engage the enemy, such as infantry; combat-related jobs include
those that support combat units in the field, such as those in support positions with combat engineers, as well as
infantry and tank support units, including units that transport fuel, ordinance and ammunition, for example.
19
U.S. General Accounting Office, Women in the Military More Military Jobs Can be Opened Under Current Statutes,
GAO/NSIAD-88-222, September 1988: 3. See also: U.S. General Accounting Office, Women in the Military Impact of
Proposed Legislation to Open More Combat Support Position and Unites to Women, GAO/NSIAD-88-197BR, July
1988.
20
Boyer, Peter J., Admiral Boorda’s War, The New Yorker, September 16, 1996: 68.
21
P.L. 102-190; 105 Stat. 1365; December 5, 1991.
22
Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President, November 15,
1992.
Congressional Research Service
3
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
•
In view of the evidence gathered by this commission with regard to the potential
consequences of assigning women to combat positions, current DOD and Service policies
with regard to Army, Air Force and Navy aircraft on combat missions should be retained
and codified by means of the reenactment of Section 8549 of Title 10, U.S. Code which
was repealed by P.L. 102-190, Section 531 for the Air Force, and reenactment of the
provisions of 10 U.S.C. Section 6015 prohibiting women from assignment to duty on
aircraft engaged in combat missions, which was repealed by P.L. 102-190 for the Navy,
and codification of Army policy.
•
Repeal existing laws and modify Service policies for servicewomen to serve on
combatant vessels except submarines and amphibious vessels.
•
Retain the DOD risk rule [as explained above] as currently implemented. Navy policies
which implement the risk rule should be modified to reflect the changes made [in the
above recommendation].
In addition, the commission recommended retaining the current policies prohibiting the
assignment of women in special operations forces.
On January 13, 1994, Secretary Aspin lifted the 1988 risk rule.23
On April 28, 1993, then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin released a memorandum directing the
Services to open more positions to women and establishing an implementation committee to
review and make recommendations on such implementation issues.
Several months later, Congress enacted language that:
•
repealed the prohibition on women serving on combatant vessels and aircraft;
•
required the Secretary of Defense to ensure occupational performance standards
were gender-neutral; and
•
required the Secretary of Defense to notify the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees 90 days before any policy changes were to be made concerning the
assignment of women to ground combat roles, and, required the Secretary of
Defense to notify these committees 30 days prior to the opening of any
“combatant unit, class of combatant vessel, or type of combat platform” to
women.24
Effective October 1, 1994, Secretary Aspin approved a new assignment rule:
A. Rule. Service members are eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they are
qualified, except that women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade25
level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground, as defined below.
B. Definition. Direct ground combat is engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or
crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct
physical contact with the hostile force’s personnel. Direct ground combat takes place well
23
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Secretary of Defense, Memorandum: Direct Ground Combat Definition
and Assignment Rule, January 13, 1994.
24
P.L. 103-160; 107 Stat. 1659 et seq.; November 30, 1993, see also Legislative History.
25
A brigade or its equivalent is a unit of approximately 3,000-5,000 persons.
Congressional Research Service
4
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
forward on the battlefield while locating and closing with the enemy to defeat them by fire,
maneuver, or shock effect.
Secretary Aspin further specified that these assignment policies and regulations may include the
following restrictions on the assignment of women:
•
where the Service Secretary attests that the cost of appropriate berthing and privacy
arrangements are prohibitive;
•
where units and positions doctrinally required to physically collocate and remain with
direct combat units that are closed to women;
•
where units are engaged in long range reconnaissance operations and Special Operations
Forces missions; and
•
where job related physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast majority of
women Service members.
Supporters of these changes noted that they would open more opportunities for women in the
services. Critics saw these changes as putting women at greater risk since they removed the
‘substantial risk’ of being captured from the definition of ground combat.
Subsequently, situations evolved that highlighted the roles performed by women in the military
relative to the policy prohibiting them from combat units. First, Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
began on March 20, 2003. This was the first large-scale mobilization of U.S. troops since
Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in the early 1990s. The nonlinear battlefields of Iraq
blurred the distinctions between forward and rear operating areas—as the story of the PFC Jessica
Lynch ambush showed.26
Second, for rotation, training, readiness and other reasons, the Army moved to a “Modular
Redesign.”27 Under this concept, Brigade Combat Teams (BCT) serve as the basic large tactical
combat unit of the Army. These BCT are supported by Multi-Functional Support Brigades which
could be collocated with the BCTs. These support brigades included noncombat personnel, many
of whom were women. Such collocation appeared to some to be at odds with the 1994 policies on
the assignment of women.
Third, because of the nonlinear and irregular nature of the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, the
definition of ‘direct ground combat’ in the 1994 policy became less useful: what did ‘well
forward’ mean on a nonlinear battlefield and how useful was the ‘primary mission’ criteria when
noncombat units regularly engage in direct combat to carry out their mission? In this
environment, the Army and Marine Corps utilized women to search Iraqi females for weapons,
and to patrol with foot soldiers, usually in door-to-door-type operations.28 Also, women have been
26
Center for Military Readiness, Policy Analysis, Women in Land Combat, report no. 16, April 2003. The debate was
reinvigorated following the reports, accurate or otherwise, of the capture of PFC Jessica Lynch and the death of PFC
Lori Ann Piestewa following an ambush after their unit took a wrong turn in Iraq; the efforts to use such reports to
advance a particular policy or agenda; and, the debate over media coverage of the incident ensued. See: Schmidt,
Susan, and Vernon Loeb, ‘She was Fighting to the Death’, Details Emerging of W. Va. Soldier’s Capture and Rescue,
Washington Post, April 3, 2002: A1, Scarborough, Rowan, Crash Caused Lynch’s ‘Horrific Injuries,’ Washington
Times, July 9, 2003: 1, O’Bierne, Kate, An Army of Jessicas, National Review, May 19, 2003, Ritea, Steve, Jessica
Lynch’s Story: A Little Too Perfect?, American Journalism Review, http://www.ajr.org/article.asp?id=3091
27
CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
28
“’Lioness’ is an up-close look at the evolving role of women in the U.S. Military – not just in traditional roles as
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
5
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
involved in convoy escort missions that came under fire,29 as well as have served in female
engagement teams which help units deal with female locals while operating in Afghan villages.30
Concerns over the collocation and forward deployment of support units resulted in language
being included in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006. Under this law, if the Secretary of Defense proposes to make any change to the 1994
ground combat exclusion policy, or open or close military career fields that had been in effect
since May 18, 2005, the Secretary must first notify Congress and then wait 30 days (while
Congress is in session) before implementing any such change.31 In addition, the Secretary of
Defense was directed to submit a report concerning the Secretary’s review of the current and
future implementation of the policy regarding the assignment of women with particular attention
to the Army’s unit modularization efforts and associated assignment policies.
In a 2007 report, the RAND Corporation noted that while the Army was complying with the DOD
assignment policy, it may not have been complying with the separate Army assignment policy.32
Further, the report stated “[w]e find considerable evidence that support units are collocated with
direct combat units if the definition of collocation is based purely on proximity. However, if the
definition of collocation is based on interdependency and proximity, the evidence is
inconclusive.”33 The report noted that hundreds of female Army members had received a Combat
Action Badge suggesting that regardless of what the report concludes, the Army recognizes that
females have been in combat.34
Commission Recommendations in 2011
The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 200935 contained
language establishing the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. Among its duties, the
Commission was to conduct a study and file a report regarding diversity issues in the Armed
Forces with attention to the “establishment and maintenance of fair promotion and command
opportunities for ethnic- and gender-specific members of the Armed Forces at the O-536 grade
level and above.”
(...continued)
nurses and support personnel but as weapon-toting frontline troops.” Perry, Tony, Women on Iraq’s Front Lines, Los
Angeles Times, November 13, 2008. See also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUo1yoU9lxs
29
See: http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16391
30
See: http://www.military.com/news/article/spec-ops-needs-a-few-good-women.html
31
P.L. 109-163; 119 Stat. 3251; January 6, 2006. As described in this law, “such a change may then be implemented
only after the end of a period of 30 days of continuous session of Congress (excluding any day on which either House
of Congress is not in session) following the date on which the report is received.”
32
The Army policy defines direct combat to include the closing with the enemy in order to “destroy or capture the
enemy, or while repelling the enemy’s assault by fire, close combat, or counterattack.” [Emphasis added.] Headquarter,
U.S. Department of the Army, 1992, p. 5.
33
Harrell, Margaret C., et al., Assessing the Assignment Policy for Army Women, RAND, National Defense Research
Institute, 2007: xvii.
34
The Combat Action Badge recognizes soldiers who have engaged the enemy, or were engaged by the enemy during
combat operation. See: http://www.army.mil/symbols/CombatBadges/action.html
35
P.L. 110-417; 122 Stat. 4476; October 14, 2008; see §596.
36
Lieutenant Colonel for Army, Marine Corps and Air Force, and Commander for Navy and Coast Guard.
Congressional Research Service
6
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
During hearings held in 2010, Defense Department officials stated that they were looking at the
assignment issue regarding women as part of their three-year cyclic review and expected to make
their recommendations to their leadership within a few months.37
In March, 2011, the Commission released its report, “From Representation To Inclusion:
Diversity Leadership and the 21st-Century Military.”38 Three of its recommendations are
particularly relevant to the issue of women and combat:
Recommendation 9
DOD and the Services should eliminate the “combat exclusion policies” (discussed later in
this report) for women, including the removal of barriers and inconsistencies, to create a
level playing field for all qualified servicemembers. The Commission recommends a timephased approach:
•
Women in career fields/specialties currently open to them should be immediately able to
be assigned to any unit that requires that career field/specialty, consistent with current
operational environment.
•
DOD and the Services should take deliberate steps in a phased approach to open
additional career fields and units involved in “direct ground combat” to qualified women.
•
DOD and the Services should report to Congress the process and timeline for removing
barriers that inhibit women from achieving senior leadership positions.
Recommendation 18
As part of the accountability reviews, the Services, in conjunction with the Chief Diversity
Officer (established in Recommendation 15), should conduct annual “barrier analyses” to
review demographic diversity patterns across the military life cycle, starting with
accessions.…
b. The annual analyses should include
•
accession demographics
•
retention, command selection, and promotion rates by race/ethnicity and gender
•
analysis of assignment patterns by race/ethnicity and gender
•
analysis of attitudinal survey data by race/ethnicity and gender
•
identification of persistent, group-specific deviations from overall averages and plans
to investigate underlying causes
•
summaries of progress made on previous actions.
37
U.S. Congress, House, Armed Services Committee, Military Personnel Subcommittee, Military Personnel Legislative
Priorities, Hearing, 111th Cong., 2nd Sess., Report No. 111-139, March 17, 2010: 19.
38
Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 1851 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA, 22202. Although the Final
Report was issued on-line on March 7, 2011, the routing letter from the Chairman to the President and Congress was
dated March 15, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
7
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Recommendation 20
… Congress should revise Title 10, Section 113, to require the Secretary of Defense to report
annually an assessment of the available pool of qualified racial/ethnic minority and female
candidates for the 3- and 4-star flag/general officer positions.
•
The Secretary of Defense must ensure that all qualified candidates (including
racial/ethnic minorities and women) have been considered for nomination of every 3- and
4-star position. If there were no qualified racial/ethnic minority and/or female candidates,
then a statement of explanation should be made in the package submitted to the Senate
for the confirmation hearings.39
This last point is relevant in that it has been argued that denying women access to combat
position reduces their opportunity to attain the high ranks in the military.
DOD Review
Sec. 535 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Act for Fiscal Year 201140 stated:
(a) REVIEW REQUIRED—The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries
of the military departments, shall conduct a review of laws, policies, and regulations,
including the collocation policy,41 that may restrict the service of female members of the
Armed Forces to determine whether changes in such laws, policies, and regulations are
needed to ensure that female members have equitable opportunities to compete and excel in
the Armed Forces.
(b) SUBMISSION OF RESULTS—Not later than April 15, 2011, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing the results of the
review.
This language clearly establishes the concern for equal opportunities for women as the focus of
the review. This language makes no mention of the effects on military readiness such changes
may produce.
In February 2012, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)
released its report.42 In the conclusion, it stated:
The Department intends to:
1. Eliminate the co-location exclusion from the 1994 policy;
39
Military Leadership Diversity Commission, Final Report, pp. 127, 129 and 130.
P.L. 111-383; 214 Stat. 4217; January 7, 2011.
41
“At present, DOD’s Direct Combat assignment Rule (DGCAR) policy states that women can be assigned to all
positions for which they are qualified, except within units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage
in direct combat on the ground. The Army co-location assignment restriction further states that women can serve in any
officer or enlisted specialty or position, except in those specialties, positions or units (battalion size or smaller) which
are assigned a routine mission to engage in direct combat, or which collocated routinely with units assigned a direct
combat mission.” http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/wita/
42
U.S. Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (P&R), Report to Congress on the Reviews of
Laws, Policies and Regulations Restricting the Service of Female Members in the U.S. Armed Forces, February, 2012.
40
Congressional Research Service
8
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
2. As an exception to policy, allow Military Department Secretaries to assign women in open
occupational specialties to select units and positions at the battalion level (for Army, Navy,
and Marine Corps) whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground;
3. Based on the exception to the policy, assess the suitability and relevance of the direct
ground combat unit assignment prohibition to inform policy decisions; and
4. Pursue the development of gender-neutral physical standards for occupational specialties
closed due to physical requirements.
The proposal would allow commanders to co-locate support unit with women assigned (i.e., in
open occupational specialties) with ground combat units noting that the “[r]emoval of the colocation operating restriction responds to the current operational environment.” However, if
assigning women in this manner becomes part of the force structure, the report did not explain
what would happen in a different operational environment, such as large-scale, multiple linear
battlefields, as seen in World War II. Further, it could be claimed that although the Services have
flexibility, it can be argued that moving ahead in this manner may make the changes a fait
accompli with little flexibility resulting and no intention of returning to the previous restrictions.
In the current operational environment the policy has been successful according to DOD, which
also shows that DOD has been in tacit violation of its own policies regarding co-location for some
time.43
The response to the proposed changes was somewhat muted.44 Because these changes were
relatively modest, some expressed disappointment that they did not go far enough.45
The report noted that these changes would fall disproportionately on the Army and Marine Corps.
Issues arising for the Navy, for the most part, are centered around berthing accommodations,
particularly on submarines.
According to Defense Department data, as of February 28, 2013, a total of 143,014 service
members are deployed (of which 16,407 were female, or 11.4%).
“Gender-Neutral Standards”
On January 24, 2013, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that the Department of
Defense (DOD) was rescinding the Direct Combat Exclusion Rule on women serving in
previously restricted occupations (i.e., combat). In making this announcement, it was stated:
The Department of Defense is determined to successfully integrate women into the
remaining restricted occupational fields within our military, while adhering to the following
guiding principle developed by the Joint Chiefs of Staff: ... Validating occupational
43
“’We all laughed at it,’ said one female Army Colonel, referring to the Feb. 9 change…. They are just letting us do
what we’ve been doing for years. It hasn’t really changed anything,’ said the Colonel, who asked not to be identified.”
Tilghman, Andrew, New Women-In-Combat Policy Opens Few New Doors, Army Times, February 27, 2012: 12.
44
Bumiller, Elisabeth Pentagon Allows Women Closer to Combat, but Not Close Enough for Some, The New York
Times, February 9, 2012.
45
The report also stated that the Department gave notice of the changes commencing the congressional review timeline
required in Title 10 United States Code, sec. 652, which means these changes became policy since Congress did not act
on them.
Congressional Research Service
9
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
performance standards, both physical and mental, for all military occupational specialties
(MOS), specifically those that remain closed to women. Eligibility for training and
development within designated occupational fields should consist of qualitative and
quantifiable standards reflecting the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary for each
occupation. For occupational specialties open to women, the occupational performance
standards must be gender-neutral as required by P.L. 103-160, Section 542 (sic) (1993).
[Emphasis added.]
In reference to P.L. 103-160, Section 543 states:
SEC. 543. GENDER-NEUTRAL OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
(a) GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT- In the case of any military occupational
career field that is open to both male and female members of the Armed Forces, the
Secretary of Defense-(1) shall ensure that qualification of members of the Armed Forces for, and continuance
of members of the Armed Forces in, that occupational career field is evaluated on the
basis of common, relevant performance standards, without differential standards of
evaluation on the basis of gender;
(2) may not use any gender quota, goal, or ceiling except as specifically authorized by
law; and
(3) may not change an occupational performance standard for the purpose of increasing
or decreasing the number of women in that occupational career field.
(b) REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENTS-
RELATING
TO
USE
OF
SPECIFIC
PHYSICAL
(1) For any military occupational specialty for which the Secretary of Defense
determines that specific physical requirements for muscular strength and endurance and
cardiovascular capacity are essential to the performance of duties, the Secretary shall
prescribe specific physical requirements for members in that specialty and shall ensure
(in the case of an occupational specialty that is open to both male and female members
of the Armed Forces) that those requirements are applied on a gender-neutral basis.
(2) Whenever the Secretary establishes or revises a physical requirement for an
occupational specialty, a member serving in that occupational specialty when the new
requirement becomes effective, who is otherwise considered to be a satisfactory
performer, shall be provided a reasonable period, as determined under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, to meet the standard established by the new requirement.
During that period, the new physical requirement may not be used to disqualify the
member from continued service in that specialty.
(c) NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF CHANGES- Whenever the Secretary of Defense proposes
to implement changes to the occupational standards for a military occupational field that are
expected to result in an increase, or in a decrease, of at least 10 percent in the number of
female members of the Armed Forces who enter, or are assigned to, that occupational field,
the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report providing notice of the change
and the justification and rationale for the change. Such changes may then be implemented
only after the end of the 60-day period beginning on the date on which such report is
submitted.
Congressional Research Service
10
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
The use of the term “gender-neutral,” particularly with regard to physical standards, seemingly
makes such standards a non-issue in terms of assignments to occupational specialties currently
closed to women. However, the use of the term “gender-neutral physical standards” raises
questions depending on how it is defined. A plain reading of the term suggests that men and
women would be required to meet the same physical standards in order to be similarly assigned.
However, in the past, the Services have used this and similar terms to suggest that men and
women must exert the same amount of energy in a particular task, regardless of the work that is
actually accomplished by either.
For example, the Air Force Fitness Test Scoring for males under 30 years of age requires males to
run 1.5 miles in a maximum time of 13:36 (min.:secs.): the female maximum time is 16:22. A
female who runs at this slower rate would actually receive a higher score than a male who runs
nearly three minutes faster. The minimum number of push-ups for males and females in the same
age group is 33 and 18, respectively. In the case of push-ups, males and females who achieve the
minimum passing number of push-ups receive the same score.
As written, this language can be the subject of differing interpretations. Since no standards exist
for women in the then-closed occupations, would women be required to meet the current existing
standards, would separate standards be created, or would the existing standards be re-evaluated?
What is lacking is a clear definition of “gender-neutral” vis-a-vis the goals to be attained. Recent
quotes from senior military leaders seem to suggest different things.
... Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Jonathan W. Greenert said it will be up to special
operations commands to determine how they will transition the standards to females.46
“We’re not going to just throw open the doors and say ‘OK, go at it,’ said Marine Lt. Gen.
Robert Milstead, deputy commandant for manpower and reserve affairs. ‘We’re doing this
responsibly’ ... ‘I think we are going to be challenged every step of the way,’ Milstead said.
‘There will be people who question: Why do you have that standard?’”47
“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 secretary, why is it that high?
Does it really have to be that high?’ Translation: If women can’t meet the standards, we’ll
just ‘gender-norm’ them.”48
Although it can be argued that there are women who can meet and exceed many male physical
standards, the experiences with the Canadian military and recent Marine Corp Infantry Officers
Course (IOC), suggest that large numbers of women will not succeed if held to these same higher
standards. In addition, forcing women to continuously meet higher standards has been found to
increase their injury and attrition rates.49 A few foreign nations allow women to serve in combat
units but “[r]ules and enforcement for military servicewomen vary in different countries.”50
46
Watson, Julie, Marine Leader: Skepticism In Infantry About Women, Yahoo.com, January 31, 2013.
Michaels, Jim, Debate Over Women In Combat Shifts To Physical Strength, USA Today, February 4, 2013.
48
Quoting Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in, Parker, Kathleen, Failing Our Troops,
Washington Post, February 3, 2013: 15.
49
Scarborough, Rowan, Army may train women for rigor of front lines, Studies predict injury, attrition, Washington
Times, July 30, 2012.
50
Fisher, Max, Map: Which countries allow women in front-line combat roles?, The Washington Post, January 25,
2013.
47
Congressional Research Service
11
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
In the Canadian experience in which women were recruited for the 16-week infantry training
course which was identical to the men’s course. The outcome was described as the “high cost of
recruiting women that yielded poor results.”51
The Marine Corps opened its IOC to women, planning to admit up to 100 women in a one-year
experiment. Toward the end of 2012, two female Marines signed up and begun training; neither
completed the 13-week program.52 In the IOC class that began in March, 2013, two more women
participated and dropped from the program early in the training.53
Submarines
Toward the end of the Clinton Administration, efforts were made to assign women to
submarines.54 However, language was contained in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2001 that seemingly halted these efforts. Essentially, this
language prohibited the Navy from assigning women to submarines from May 10, 2000 forward
until the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress written notice of such a proposed change and
following a period of 30 days of “continuous session of Congress (excluding any day on which
either the House of Congress is not in session)….”55
Then-Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, notified Congress on February 23, 2010, of a decision
by the Navy to allow women to serve on nuclear submarines in the next year.56 In 2011, the Navy
was in the process of assigning women to submarines.57 By mid-2012, 25 women had been
assigned to submarines and had gone on patrols.58
Selective Service
Many of those who emphasize equal rights, responsibilities and women’s abilities,59 say women
in the armed forces cannot advance to the top without combat experience. Some carry the
51
“Of the 60 women recruited for the Canadian Infantry since last year, only one has successfully completed the 16week training program and is serving in the infantry, according to Cmdr. Judith Harper….”, Moore, Molly, Canada
Puts Women on Front Line:, Los Angeles Times, November 23, 1989. More recently, Israel expanded combat roles for
women with mixed results. Gil Ronen, “General Who Supported Women in Combat Says: ‘No More!”’ Israel National
News, July 23, 2011.
52
deGrandpre, Andrew, USMC drops second female from infantry course, The Marine Corps Times, October 15, 2012:
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/10/marine-corps-womem-infantry-officers-course-101512/
53
Dao, James Women (and Men) Face Bid Hurtles in Training for Marine Infantry Units, The New York Times, March
29, 2013.
54
Pentagon panel says women should serve on Subs, CNN U.S., May 26, 2000.
55
P.L. 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-136; October 30, 2000.
56
Pentagon OKs lifting the ban on women in submarines, Reuters, February 23, 2010.
57
Melia, Michael, Navy Prepares Submarines for 1st Female Officers, Norfolk Virginian-Pilot, July 25, 2011. See: P.L.
106-398; 114 Stat. 1654A-136; October 30, 2000. See also:
http://www.navy.mil/search/print.asp?story_id=70940&VIRIN=&imagetype=1&page=0
58
Associate Press, Women say they’re fitting in on submarines, Kitsap Sun, June 18, 2012.
59
Bacon, Lance M., Odierno: “We Need Their Talent,” Army Times, October 24, 2011. Odierno: “”This is about
managing talent. We have incredibly talented females who should be in those positions. We have work to do within the
[Department of Defense] to get them to recognize and change.”
Congressional Research Service
12
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
argument further to say women cannot be equal in society as long as they are barred from full
participation in all levels of the national security system. In their view, modern weapons have
equalized the potential for women in combat, since wars are less likely to be fought on a hand-tohand basis, and have made it impossible to protect women from the destructiveness of combat; in
any event, properly trained women would be able to fight successfully and exempting them from
combat is not fair to men. Some note that equal access to combat would also require equal
responsibilities of registering for and being subject to the draft.60 In the Supreme Court decision
in Rostker v. Goldberg, in the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote:
[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress' decision to exempt
women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since
women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a
draft, and therefore decided not to register them.61
It has been suggested that this issue can be made moot by terminating Selective Service
registration. It is possible for Rostker v. Goldberg to be overturned. Likewise, Congress has the
authority to change draft registration laws (that currently pertain only to males) to include
women.62
Should Women be Barred from Combat Positions?
Supporters of opening more areas to women note that they are already serving, fighting, and in
some cases, dying in combat.63 Critics contend that it is the military that was ignoring its own
policy and thereby creating a fait accompli that put women and the military mission at risk.64
Opponents also argue that when relationships result in pregnancies, it is the women rather than
the men who get pregnant, and pregnancy can lead to personnel rotation issues and personnel
shortages.65
Those opposed to women in combat note that the progress of women is not the most important
issue at hand. They contend that national security has been and would further be weakened
because of the presence of women in combat units. These critics note disruptions to cohesion and
high rates of attrition for females in labor intensive specialties due to lower average upper body
strength and higher rates of stress fractures. Those opposed note that close combat situations have
and continue to exist, especially in Afghanistan, and that there is a distinction between ‘returning
fire’ and ‘offensive close combat.’
60
A Draft for Women?, New York Post, June 19, 2011.
Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981).
62
Title 50 Appendix, US Code, sec. 453.
63
Baldor, Lolita C., Associated Press, Yahoo.com, Death Highlights Women’s Role in Special Ops Teams, Yahoo.com,
October 25, 2011.
64
Maurer, Kevin, The Army Is Recruiting Elite Women Soldiers, The Washington Post Magazine, October 30, 2011.
“While Congress still bans women from serving in combat units, the [female] soldiers selected from this group will
serve alongside the Army’s most elite units on the battlefield.” This article incorrectly stated that Congress bans women
from serving in combat units.
65
Four U.S. Senators have asked Army Secretary John McHugh to rescind a policy that makes pregnancy a punishable
offense for some soldiers serving in Iraq, saying it “defies comprehension.” Source: Senators Lead Calls for Revoking
Pregnancy Policy, by Michael Gisick, Stars and Stripes, December 23, 2009.
61
Congressional Research Service
13
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Since women themselves are divided on the issue,66 one option is to permit women who meet the
service standards (physical, training, etc.) to be assigned to combat positions, but that they should
not be forced into combat.67 Critics contend that it would be unfair to permit women a choice that
is not available to men, and that to make the choice available to both men and women would
make it difficult for the services to function, especially in the event of war or national emergency.
Any changes proposed by the Services will likely be subjected to congressional scrutiny.
Congress may accept any proposed changes or seek to subject such changes to certain
modifications. Among the additional issues Congress may consider are equal opportunity, equal
responsibility (such as draft registration), readiness and cohesion, manpower needs of the
military, and training standards.
Author Contact Information
David F. Burrelli
Specialist in Military Manpower Policy
dburrelli@crs.loc.gov, 7-8033
Acknowledgments
This report was updated with the assistance of Mary Jane Bolle.
66
Both men (53%) and women (53%) favor an expanded role for women in the military. See
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/15/opinion/polls/main5244312.shtml. See also Dan Lamothe, “Marines Split
on Women Joining Combat Units,” Marine Corps Times, April 19, 2011.
67
http://dailycaller.com/2013/02/07/poll-most-women-believe-they-should-not-be-forced-into-combat/
Congressional Research Service
14
units. Despite the official policies barring women from ground combat positions, many female
servicemembers have served in combat environments for much of the recent history of the U.S.
military. In the past two decades of conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan, the lines between combat
and noncombat roles have become increasingly blurred and as a result DOD’s exclusion policies
have been called into question. As of April 2015, 161 women have lost their lives and 1,015 had
been wounded in action as part of Global War on Terror (GWOT) operations (See Table 1).1 In
addition, in modern combat operations, over 9,000 women have received Army Combat Action
Badges for “actively engaging or being engaged by the enemy,” and two have received Silver
Stars for “gallantry in action against an enemy of the United States.”2
Table 1. Female Casualties in the Global War on Terror
April 2015
Female Deaths
Operation
Army
Navy
Marine Corps
Air Force
Total
OEF
36
5
2
8
51
OIF
89
10
8
3
110
OND
0
0
0
0
0
Total
125
15
10
11
161
Army
Navy
Marine Corps
Air Force
Total
OEF
314
5
29
28
376
OIF
547
6
41
33
627
OND
11
0
0
1
12
872
11
70
62
1015
Females Wounded in Action
Wounded in
Action
Total
Source: Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) Defense Casualty Analysis System
Notes: OEF (Operation Enduring Freedom), OIF (Operation Iraqi Freedom), OND (Operation New Dawn)
1
Defense Manpower Data Center, Defense Casualty Analysis System. GWOT includes Operation Enduring Freedom,
Operation Iraqi Freedom, and Operation New Dawn.
2
Bensahel, Nora, David Barno, and Katherine Kidder, et al., Battlefields and Boardrooms; Women's Leadership in the
Military and the Private Sector, Center for New American Security, January 2015, p. 9. The Silver Star Medal is the
third-highest military decoration for valor to be awarded to members of the uniformed services.
Congressional Research Service
1
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
On January 24, 2013, the Secretary of Defense rescinded all ground combat restrictions for
women and directed the military departments to implement the new policy no later than January
1, 2016.3 For DOD, implementation may require adjustments to recruiting, assignment, physical
standards, and other personnel policies. As directed by the Secretary of Defense, the military
departments have been conducting a series of reviews and studies to assess what changes or
exceptions may need prior to the implementation deadline.4
Those in favor of keeping restrictions cite physiological differences between men and women that
could potentially affect military readiness and unit effectiveness. Some also argue that social and
cultural barriers exist to the successful integration of women into combat occupations and allmale units.
Those who advocate for opening all military occupations to women emphasize equal rights and
arguing it is more difficult for servicemembers to advance to top-ranking positions in the armed
services without combat experience. In their view, modern weapons have equalized the potential
for women in combat since wars are less likely to be fought on a hand-to-hand basis. In this
regard, properly trained women would be able to perform successfully in combat and exempting
them from serving in combat is unfair to men.
The military departments are required by law (10 U.S.C. §652) to notify Congress of changes that
would alter occupational standards or open any new military career designators to women.
Congress then has a 30-day (continuous in-session) review period upon receiving notification of
the changes before DOD can implement them. Congress has authority to make changes in these
matters and may consider additional issues including equal opportunity, equal responsibility (such
as selective service registration), readiness and cohesion, and the overall manpower needs of the
military.5
Background
While DOD policy has only recently opened combat roles to female servicemembers, women
have been recognized for military service in combat since the American Revolutionary War. In
1776, Margaret Cochran Corbin became the first woman to receive a military pension from
Congress for an injury sustained while helping to defend Fort Washington against British troops.6
However, for most of the history of the United States military, women’s roles were primarily
clerical in nature or in support of military medical services. Women did not serve formally in the
military until Congress established the Army Nurse Corps as a permanent organization within the
3
Department of Defense, Defense Department Rescinds Direct Combat Exclusion Rule; Services to Expand Integration
of Women into Previously Restricted Occupations and Units, Press Release, January 24, 2013.
4
The military departments were required to submit “Women in the Services Review (WISR) Implementation Plans” to
the Secretary of Defense to outline their plans for opening closed occupations and positions to women by the 2016
deadline. The WISR implementation plans for the Army, Navy, Marine Corps, Air Force and U.S. Special Operations
Command (USSOCOM) can be found at http://www.defense.gov/releases/release.aspx?releaseid=16102.
5
Congress has the authority “To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.” U.S.
Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, clause 14.
6
James, Edward T., Janet Wilson James, and Paul S. Boyer, et al., Notable American Women 1607-1950: A
Biographical Dictionary, vol. 2, pp. 385-86.
Congressional Research Service
2
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Medical Department under the Army Reorganization Act of 1901.7 In 1908 Congress enacted
language which led to the creation of the Navy Nurse Corps.8
World War II and the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act
In the earlier part of the twentieth century, the idea of enlisting women into the services was met
with broad opposition from military commanders, Congress, and the public. However, the
upsurge in manpower needs of World War II compelled Congress to open more service roles to
women. In 1942, Congress opened the Naval Reserve to women9 and also created the Women’s
Army Auxiliary Corps for the purpose of:
[...] noncombatant service with the Army of the United States for the purpose of making
available to the national defense when needed the knowledge, skill, and special training of
the women of this Nation.10
In 1943, Congress established the Marine Corps Women’s Reserve and made the Women’s Army
Corps (WAC) a part of the regular Army on a temporary basis.11 By the end of the war nearly
400,000 women had served in armed services as members of the Army and Navy Nurse Corps,
Women’s Army Corps (WAC), Navy (WAVES), Coast Guard (SPARs) and Marine Corps
Women’s Reserves or with partner organizations like the American Red Cross, the United
Services Organization (USO), and the Civil Air Patrol.12 Approximately 543 military women died
in the line of duty during World War II and 84 others were held as prisoners of war (POWs).13
Following World War II, Congress made women a permanent part of the military through the
Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948.14 This legislation included two exclusionary
statutes prohibiting assignment of female members to duty in aircraft engaged in combat and to
vessels engaged in, or likely to be engaged in combat missions.15 The legislation also limited the
proportion of women in the military to 2% of the enlisted force and 10% of officers.
The All-Volunteer Force and Social Change
In the 1960s and 1970s, two major factors led to the expansion of the role of women in the armed
forces. First, after the end of the draft and the beginning of the All-Volunteer Force in December
7
31 Stat. 753; February 2, 1901.
P.L. 115; 35 Stat. 146; May 13, 1908.
9
P.L. 689; 56 Stat. 730; July 30, 1942.
10
P.L. 554, 56 Stat. 278, May 14, 1942.
11
“That there is hereby established in the Army of the United States, for the period of the present war and for six
months thereafter or for such shorter period as the Congress by concurrent resolution or the President by proclamation
shall prescribe, a component to be known as the ‘Women’s Army Corps’.” P.L. 110; 57 Stat. 371; July 1, 1943.
12
Women in the Military Service for America Memorial Foundation, Inc., see http://www.womensmemorial.org/H&C/
History/wwii.html.
13
ibid., 67 Army nurses and 11 Navy nurses were captured in the Philippines and held by the Japanese for nearly three
years. Five Navy nurses were captured on the island of Guam were held as POWs for four months. One Army flight
nurse was aboard an aircraft that was shot down behind enemy lines in Germany in 1944and was held as a POW for
four months.
14
P.L. 625; 62 Stat. 356; June 12, 1948: “Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948.”
15
This legislation did not bar women from ground combat roles.
8
Congressional Research Service
3
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
1973, the military services had difficulty in recruiting and retaining enough qualified males,
thereby turning attention to recruiting women.16 Second, the movement for equal rights for
women led to demands for equal opportunity in all occupational fields, including national
defense.
The limit on the percentage of women in the military was eventually repealed in 1967 and the
number of women serving continued to grow through the next three decades.17 While the number
of women in the military increased, various pieces of legislation in the 1970s also broadened the
opportunities for female servicemembers. In 1974, the age requirement for women enlisting
without parental consent was made the same as for men.18 In the next year, legislation was
enacted that allowed women to be admitted to the three service academies, and the first women
were admitted in the summer of 1976.19 In 1977, Congress directed the Secretary of Defense to
submit to Congress a definition of the term “combat” and recommendations for expanding job
classifications for female members of the armed forces.20 By 1978, women were permitted to be
assigned permanent duty on noncombatant Navy ships, and up to six months of temporary duty
on other ships.21
As women became more integrated into the services, the question was raised as to whether
women should be required to register for the Selective Service. In 1979, when considering the
reinstitution of Selective Service registration, the Senate Armed Services Committee cited legal
and policy restrictions on women in combat as one of the reasons for differential treatment of
men and women by Selective Service. In addition, the Committee stated:
The committee feels strongly that it is not in the best interest of our national defense to
register women for the Military Selective Service Act, which would provide needed military
personnel upon mobilization or in the event of a peacetime draft for the armed forces.22
As the percentage of women in service increased and they became more integrated into units
serving in combat zones, there was a general lack of clarity on what role women could play in
support of combat units and combat operations. One early example of this was during Operation
Urgent Fury on October 25, 1983 when U.S. service personnel were sent for an evacuation of
noncombatant American citizens on the island nation of Grenada. Four U.S. military police
women arrived in Grenada shortly after the invasion and were promptly sent back to Fort Bragg,
N.C.23 At Fort Bragg, Major General Edward Trobaugh, then-commander of the 82nd Airborne
16
Janowitz, Morris, and Charles C. Moskos, Five Years of the All-Volunteer Force: 1973-1978, Armed Forces and
Society, V, February 1979: 171-218.
17
P.L. 90-130; 81 Stat. 374; November 8, 1967.
18
P.L. 93-290; 88 Stat. 173; May 24, 1974. Prior to enacting this law, males who were not less than 17 years of age
could enlist, while females were required to be at least 18 years of age.
19
P.L. 94-106; 89 Stat. 537; October 7, 1975. Women had already been admitted to the Coast Guard and Merchant
Marine Academies by administrative action. Women had also participated in the Air Force Reserve Officer Training
Course (ROTC) as a source of commissioning between 1954 through 1958, but it was not until 1969 that women were
again allowed into the Air Force Program, and in 1972 the Army and Navy opened ROTC as a commissioning source
for women.
20
P.L. 95-97; 91 Stat. 327; July 30, 1977.
21
P.L. 95-485; 92 Stat. 1623; October 20, 1978.
22
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Armed Services, Requiring Reinstitution of Registration for Certain Persons
under the Military Selective Service Act, and For Other Reasons, Rept. 96-226, 96th Cong., 1st Sess., June 19, 1979.
23
U.S. Army Women’s Museum, available at http://www.history.army.mil/html/museums/showcase/women/
awm_text.html.
Congressional Research Service
4
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Division had removed all the females from the invasion Task Force. Following an intervention by
Lieutenant General Jack Mackmull, then-commander of XVIII Airborne Corps, women were
reattached to the unit and finally deployed to Barbados on November 2, 1983, to serve with the
lead element of the Task Force while the rest of the Task Force deployed to Grenada the same
day.24
The “Risk Rule” for Assignment of Women
In January 1988, the Department of Defense Task Force on Women in the Military noted that the
varying definitions of a “combat mission” had led to inconsistencies between the services in the
assignment of women.25 In response to the task force findings, the services adopted a “risk rule”
that excluded women from noncombat units or missions if the risks of exposure to direct combat,
hostile fire, or capture were equal to or greater than the risks in the combat units they support. In
this regard, the policy prohibited the colocation of women with combat units. For example, a
female medic could be assigned to a noncombat support unit; however, if that unit was called on
to provided support to a combat unit, the risk to the medical support unit would have to be less
than the risk to the combat unit for the female servicemember to be assigned.
Also in 1988, the General Accounting Office (now the Government Accountability Office, GAO)
noted a primary barrier to the expansion of the number of women in the services was that women
were not allowed in most combat jobs, and were also barred from many combat-related jobs.26
The GAO reported approximately 15% of active duty positions were closed to women. Of the
closed positions 41% were closed due to the risk rule’s collocation policy and 46% were
classified as direct ground combat positions.27 The GAO’s report also noted that the primary
rationale for excluding women from direct ground combat occupations included, lack of public
and congressional support, lack of support by servicewomen, and lack of need given that there
were an adequate number of men available to fill those positions.
During Operations Desert Shield/Desert Storm in Iraq and Kuwait, women played a more
prominent role than in previous conflicts. Approximately 16 women were killed during the
conflict and two women were taken prisoner, becoming the first female POWs since World War
II.28 Then-Major Rhonda Cornum, an Army flight surgeon, was captured when her helicopter was
shot down during a search and rescue mission. During her captivity, she was sexually assaulted,
24
Raines, Edgar F., Jr., The Rucksack War: U.S. Army Operational Logistics in Grenada, 1983, Center of Military
History: Washington, D.C., 2010: 494.
25
Department of Defense, Report of the Task Force on Women in the Military, January 1988, p.10.
26
Combat jobs include those that directly confront and engage the enemy, such as infantry; combat-related jobs include
those that support combat units in the field, such as those in support positions with combat engineers, as well as
infantry and tank support units, including units that transport fuel, ordinance and ammunition.
27
The remaining positions were closed due to prohibitive living arrangements (12%) and special operations
assignments (2%). The GAO’s study did not look at how this affected women’s advancement or promotion
opportunities. U.S. General Accounting Office, Information on DOD’s Assignment Policy and Direct Ground Combat
Definition, GAO/NSIAD-99-7, October 1988: 4. See also U.S. General Accounting Office, Women in the Military
Impact of Proposed Legislation to Open More Combat Support Position and Units to Women, GAO/NSIAD-88197BR, July 1988.
28
Women in the Military Service for America Memorial Foundation, Inc., see http://www.womensmemorial.org/H&C/
History/wwii.html.
Congressional Research Service
5
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
which again raised public concern about the roles of women in combat and the risks that they
faced.29
Following Operation Desert Storm, efforts to expand the assignment of women were renewed by
civil rights and women’s advocacy groups. Legislation enacted in 1991 called for the repeal of the
statutory limitations on the assignment of women in the armed forces to combat aircraft and naval
vessels and the establishment of a Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the
Armed Forces.30 On November 15, 1992, the commission issued its report. Some key
recommendations were the following:
•
DOD should establish a policy to ensure that no person who is best qualified is
denied access on the basis of gender to an assignment that is open to both men
and women. As far as it is compatible with the above policy, the Secretary of
Defense should retain discretion to set goals that encourage the recruitment and
optimize the utilization of women in the Services, allowing for the requirements
of each Service.
•
Military readiness should be the driving concern regarding assignment policies;
there are circumstances under which women might be assigned to combat
positions.
•
Women should be excluded from direct land combat units and positions.
Furthermore the commission recommends that the existing service policies
concerning direct land combat exclusion be codified. Service Secretaries shall
recommend to the Congress which units and positions should fall under the land
combat exclusions.
•
Current DOD and Service policies with regard to Army, Air Force and Navy
aircraft on combat missions should be retained and codified by means of the
reenactment of Section 8549 of Title 10, U.S. Code which was repealed by P.L.
102-190, Section 531 for the Air Force, and reenactment of the provisions of 10
U.S.C. Section 6015 prohibiting women from assignment to duty on aircraft
engaged in combat missions, which was repealed by P.L. 102-190 for the Navy,
and codification of Army policy.
•
Existing laws and Service policies prohibiting servicewomen from service on
combatant vessels should be repealed or modified, except for those applying to
submarines and amphibious vessels.
•
DOD should retain the risk rule [as explained above] as currently implemented.
Navy policies which implement the risk rule should be modified to reflect the
changes made [in the above recommendation]. 31
In addition, the commission recommended retaining the current policies prohibiting the
assignment of women in special operations forces.32
29
Sciolino, Elaine, "Female P.O.W. Is Abused, Kindling Debate," New York Times, June 29, 1992.
P.L. 102-190; 105 Stat. 1365; December 5, 1991.
31
Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President, November 15,
1992.
32
For more information on special operations forces, please see CRS Report RS21048, U.S. Special Operations Forces
(SOF): Background and Issues for Congress, by Andrew Feickert.
30
Congressional Research Service
6
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Repeal of the “Risk Rule” and a New Direct Ground Combat
Definition and Assignment Rule
On April 28, 1993, then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin released a memorandum directing the
services to open more positions to women and establishing an implementation committee to
review and make recommendations on such implementation issues.
Several months later, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1994 (P.L. 103160, Congress enacted language that:
•
repealed the prohibition on women serving on combatant vessels and aircraft,
•
required the Secretary of Defense to ensure occupational performance standards
were gender-neutral, and
•
required the Secretary of Defense to notify the House and Senate Armed Services
Committees 90 days before any policy changes were to be made concerning the
assignment of women to ground combat roles, and, required the Secretary of
Defense to notify these committees 30 days prior to the opening of any
“combatant unit, class of combatant vessel, or type of combat platform” to
women.33
In 1994, Secretary Aspin officially rescinded the “risk rule” and approved a new Direct Ground
Combat and Assignment Rule, sometimes called the Direct Combat Exclusion Rule:
A. Rule. Service members are eligible to be assigned to all positions for which they are
qualified, except that women shall be excluded from assignment to units below the brigade34
level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground, as defined below.
B. Definition. Direct ground combat is engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or
crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct
physical contact with the hostile force’s personnel. Direct ground combat takes place well
forward on the battlefield while locating and closing with the enemy to defeat them by fire,
maneuver, or shock effect.35
Secretary Aspin further specified that these assignment policies and regulations may include
restrictions on the assignment of women:
•
where the Service Secretary attests that the cost of appropriate berthing and
privacy arrangements are prohibitive;
•
where units and positions doctrinally required to physically collocate and remain
with direct combat units that are closed to women;
•
where units are engaged in long range reconnaissance operations and Special
Operations Forces missions; and
33
P.L. 103-160; 107 Stat. 1659 et seq.; November 30, 1993.
A brigade or its equivalent is a unit of approximately 3,000-5,000 persons.
35
Department of Defense, Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, January 13, 1994.
34
Congressional Research Service
7
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
•
where job related physical requirements would necessarily exclude the vast
majority of women Service members.36
Supporters of these changes noted that they would open more opportunities for women in the
services. Critics saw these changes as putting women at greater risk since they removed the
“substantial risk” of being captured from the definition of ground combat.
Women in Combat Zones: Iraq and Afghanistan
In the first decade of the 21st century, several situations evolved that highlighted the disparity
between the policy prohibiting women from assignment to direct ground combat units and the
roles actually performed by women. Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) in 2001 and Operation
Iraqi Freedom (OIF) in 2003 were the first large-scale mobilizations of U.S. troops since
Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm in the early 1990s. The nonlinear battlefields of Iraq and
Afghanistan blurred the distinctions between forward and rear operating areas, often placing
support units in the proximity of active engagements. The public debate over the assignment of
women was reinvigorated when three Army women were captured by enemy forces in Iraq and
sustained injuries following the ambush of their unit.37 The women were assigned to Army’s 507th
Maintenance Company which provided logistic support to ground units, and thus not a unit whose
primary mission was to engage in direct combat on the ground.
Also, in 2005 the Army started moving towards a “Modular Redesign” for rotation, training, and
readiness reasons.38 Under this concept, the Brigade Combat Teams (BCTs) served as the basic
large tactical combat unit of the Army. These BCTs were supported by Multi-Functional Support
Brigades. These support brigades were often collocated with the BCTs included noncombat
personnel, many of whom were women. Such collocation appeared to some to be at odds with the
1994 policies on the assignment of women.
Because of the nonlinear and irregular nature of the battle in Iraq and Afghanistan, the definition
of “direct ground combat” in the 1994 policy became less useful: what did “well forward” mean
on a nonlinear battlefield, and how useful was the “primary mission” criteria when noncombat
units regularly engage in direct combat to carry out their mission? In this environment, the Army
and Marine Corps utilized women to search Iraqi females for weapons, and to patrol with foot
soldiers, usually in door-to-door-type operations.39 Also, women were increasingly involved in
convoy escort missions that came under fire40 and were embedded with special operations forces
(SOF) in Cultural Support Teams that helped units deal with local Afghani females while
operating in Afghan villages.41 In 2005, Sergeant Leigh Ann Hester, an Army soldier, became the
36
Department of Defense, Direct Ground Combat Definition and Assignment Rule, January 13, 1994.
Specialist Lori Piestewa became the first woman to be killed in the 2003 invasion of Iraq from injuries sustained in
the attack. However, much of the attention focused on PFC Jessica Lynch after various conflicting accounts of her
actions were published and reports suggested that certain injuries she sustained were the result of sexual assault while
in captivity. Some pointed to this as an argument against women in combat roles. See U.S. Congress, House Committee
on Oversight and Government Reform, Misleading Information From the Battlefield: The Tillman and Lynch Episodes,
First Report, 110th Cong., 2nd sess., September 16, 2008, H.Rept. 110-858 (Washington: GPO, 2008).
38
For more information see CRS Report RL32476, U.S. Army’s Modular Redesign: Issues for Congress, by Andrew
Feickert
39
Perry,Tony, “Women on Iraq’s Front Lines,” Los Angeles Times, November 13, 2008.
40
Wood, Sara, "Woman Soldier Receives Silver Star for Valor in Iraq," DOD News, June 16, 2005.
41
Cronk, Terry M., "Cultural Support Team Women Serve with Distinction," DOD News, April 30, 2015.
37
Congressional Research Service
8
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
first female soldier to be awarded the Silver Star since World War II and the first to be cited for
close combat action.42
Concerns over the collocation and forward deployment of support units resulted in language
being included in the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
2006. Under this law, if the Secretary of Defense proposed to make any change to the 1994
ground combat exclusion policy, or open or close military career fields that had been in effect
since May 18, 2005, the Secretary must first notify Congress and then wait 30 days (while
Congress is in session) before implementing any such change.43 In addition, the Secretary of
Defense was directed to submit a report concerning the Secretary’s review of the current and
future implementation of the policy regarding the assignment of women with particular attention
to the Army’s unit modularization efforts and associated assignment policies.
In a 2007 report, the RAND Corporation noted while the Army was complying with the DOD
assignment policy, it may not have been complying with the separate Army assignment policy.44
Further, the report stated;
[w]e find considerable evidence that support units are collocated with direct combat units if
the definition of collocation is based purely on proximity. However, if the definition of
collocation is based on interdependency and proximity, the evidence is inconclusive.45
The report noted that hundreds of female Army members had received a Combat Action Badge,
suggesting that the Army has recognized the combat service of women regardless of whether the
women had been assigned in compliance with policy.46 While the RAND report stopped short of
recommending that more assignments be open to women, the authors did recommend that
assignment policies for women be redrafted to “conform—and clarify how it conforms—to the
nature of warfare today and in the future.”47
Women on Submarines
While women have been allowed by law to serve on surface combatants in the Navy since the
early 1990s, women have been barred by policy from assignments on submarines until just
recently. The early arguments for not assigning women to submarine duty in were not related to
the dangers of combat, but instead related to privacy and habitability issues in cramped spaces
and cost concerns for retrofitting submarines to accommodate both men and women.48 As early as
42
Fainaru, Steve, "Silver Stars Affirm One Unit's Mettle," Washington Post, June 26, 2005.
P.L. 109-163; 119 Stat. 3251; January 6, 2006. As described in this law, “such a change may then be implemented
only after the end of a period of 30 days of continuous session of Congress (excluding any day on which either House
of Congress is not in session) following the date on which the report is received.”
44
The Army policy defines direct combat to include the closing with the enemy in order to “destroy or capture the
enemy, or while repelling the enemy’s assault by fire, close combat, or counterattack.” [Emphasis added.] Headquarter,
U.S. Department of the Army, 1992, p. 5.
45
Harrell, Margaret C., et al., Assessing the Assignment Policy for Army Women, RAND, National Defense Research
Institute, 2007: xvii.
46
The Combat Action Badge recognizes soldiers who have engaged the enemy, or were engaged by the enemy during
combat operation. See: http://www.army.mil/symbols/CombatBadges/action.html
47
Harrell, Margaret C., et al., Assessing the Assignment Policy for Army Women, RAND, National Defense Research
Institute, 2007: xxi.
48
Lorber, Janie, "Quiet Resistance to Women on Subs," New York Times, May 12, 2010.
43
Congressional Research Service
9
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
2000, based on recommendations by the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services
(DACOWITS), efforts were made by the Pentagon to open up assignments for women on
submarines.49 However, these recommendations met with some opposition from senior Navy
officials and members of Congress who cited cost concerns for berthing modifications, privacy
concerns, the possibility of sexual misconduct affecting unit cohesion and effectiveness.50
As a result, language was contained in the Floyd D. Spence National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-398) that seemingly halted the Pentagon’s efforts. Essentially, this
language prohibited the Navy from assigning women to submarines from May 10, 2000 forward
until the Secretary of Defense submits to Congress written notice of such a proposed change and
following a period of 30 days of “continuous session of Congress (excluding any day on which
either the House of Congress is not in session)….”51
It was not until February 23, 2010, that Secretary of Defense Robert Gates notified Congress of a
decision by the Navy to allow women to serve on nuclear submarines.52 In 2011, the Navy began
assigning female officers to submarines, and by 2015 the Navy began accepting applications for
assignment of enlisted women to submarines.53
Military Leadership Diversity Commission
The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 200954 contained
language establishing the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. Among its duties, the
Commission was to conduct a study and file a report regarding diversity issues in the Armed
Forces with attention to the “establishment and maintenance of fair promotion and command
opportunities for ethnic- and gender-specific members of the Armed Forces at the O-555 grade
level and above.” In March, 2011, the Commission released its report, From Representation to
Inclusion: Diversity Leadership and the 21st-Century Military.56 Three of its recommendations
were particularly relevant to the issue of women and combat.
Recommendation 9:
DOD and the Services should eliminate the “combat exclusion policies” (discussed later in
this report) for women, including the removal of barriers and inconsistencies, to create a
level playing field for all qualified servicemembers. The Commission recommends a timephased approach:
49
“Pentagon Panel Says Women Should Serve on Subs, CNN U.S., May 26, 2000.
"Lawmaker moves to bar women from subs," Washington Times, May 5, 2000.
51
P.L. 106-398; 114 Stat. 1654 A-136; October 30, 2000.
52
“Pentagon OKs Lifting the Ban on Women in Submarines,” Reuters, February 23, 2010.
53
U.S. Navy Personnel Command. See http://www.public.navy.mil/bupersnpc/enlisted/community/submarine/pages/enlistedwomeninsubmarines.aspx
54
P.L. 110-417; 122 Stat. 4476; October 14, 2008; see §596.
55
Lieutenant Colonel for Army, Marine Corps and Air Force, and Commander for Navy and Coast Guard.
56
Military Leadership Diversity Commission, 1851 South Bell Street, Arlington, VA, 22202. Although the Final
Report was issued on-line on March 7, 2011, the routing letter from the Chairman to the President and Congress was
dated March 15, 2011.
50
Congressional Research Service
10
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
•
Women in career fields/specialties currently open to them should be immediately
able to be assigned to any unit that requires that career field/specialty, consistent
with current operational environment.
•
DOD and the Services should take deliberate steps in a phased approach to open
additional career fields and units involved in “direct ground combat” to qualified
women.
•
DOD and the Services should report to Congress the process and timeline for
removing barriers that inhibit women from achieving senior leadership positions.
Recommendation 18:
As part of the accountability reviews, the Services, in conjunction with the Chief Diversity
Officer (established in Recommendation 15), should conduct annual “barrier analyses” to
review demographic diversity patterns across the military life cycle, starting with
accessions.…
The annual analyses should include:
•
accession demographics;
•
retention, command selection, and promotion rates by race/ethnicity and gender;
•
analysis of assignment patterns by race/ethnicity and gender;
•
analysis of attitudinal survey data by race/ethnicity and gender;
•
identification of persistent, group-specific deviations from overall averages and
plans to investigate underlying causes; and
•
summaries of progress made on previous actions.
Recommendation 20:
… Congress should revise Title 10, Section 113, to require the Secretary of Defense to report
annually an assessment of the available pool of qualified racial/ethnic minority and female
candidates for the 3- and 4-star flag/general officer positions.
The Secretary of Defense must ensure that all qualified candidates (including racial/ethnic
minorities and women) have been considered for nomination of every 3- and 4-star position.
If there were no qualified racial/ethnic minority and/or female candidates, then a statement of
explanation should be made in the package submitted to the Senate for the confirmation
hearings.57
This last recommendation flows from the commission’s finding that the combat exclusion policy
limits women’s opportunities to attain the highest ranks in the military. Retired Air Force General
Lester L. Lyles who chaired the commission stated, “We know that [the exclusion] hinders
women from promotion. [...] they’re not getting credit for being in combat arms, [and] that’s
important for their considerations for the most senior flag ranks.”58
57
58
Military Leadership Diversity Commission, Final Report, pp. 127, 129 and 130.
Daniel, Lisa, "Panel says Rescind Policy on Women in Combat," American Forces Press Service, March 8, 2011.
Congressional Research Service
11
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
DOD Review of Combat Exclusion Policies
The concern for equal opportunities for women in military leadership motivated a further review
of the DOD’s combat exclusion policies. Section 535 of the Ike Skelton National Defense Act for
Fiscal Year 201159 mandated this review, stating
(a) REVIEW REQUIRED—The Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretaries
of the military departments, shall conduct a review of laws, policies, and regulations,
including the collocation policy,60 that may restrict the service of female members of the
Armed Forces to determine whether changes in such laws, policies, and regulations are
needed to ensure that female members have equitable opportunities to compete and excel in
the Armed Forces.
(b) SUBMISSION OF RESULTS—Not later than April 15, 2011, the Secretary of Defense
shall submit to the congressional defense committees a report containing the results of the
review.
In February 2012, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)
released its report. Some of the findings were that there was no indication that females had “less
than equitable opportunities to compete and excel under current assignment policy,” and there
were “serious practical barriers” to the full elimination of gender assignment policies. The report
also acknowledged that, given the nature the modern battlespace, the collocation policy had
become irrelevant.61 In the conclusion, it stated:
The Department intends to:
1. Eliminate the collocation exclusion from the 1994 policy;
2. As an exception to policy, allow Military Department Secretaries to assign women in open
occupational specialties to select units and positions at the battalion level (for Army, Navy,
and Marine Corps) whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground;
3. Based on the exception to the policy, assess the suitability and relevance of the direct
ground combat unit assignment prohibition to inform policy decisions; and
4. Pursue the development of gender-neutral physical standards for occupational specialties
closed due to physical requirements.62
59
P.L. 111-383; 214 Stat. 4217; January 7, 2011.
“At present, DOD’s Direct Combat assignment Rule (DGCAR) policy states that women can be assigned to all
positions for which they are qualified, except within units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage
in direct combat on the ground. The Army collocation assignment restriction further states that women can serve in any
officer or enlisted specialty or position, except in those specialties, positions or units (battalion size or smaller) which
are assigned a routine mission to engage in direct combat, or which collocated routinely with units assigned a direct
combat mission.” http://www.armyg1.army.mil/hr/wita/
61
Department of Defense, Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (P&R), Report to Congress on the Reviews of
Laws, Policies and Regulations Restricting the Service of Female Members in the U.S. Armed Forces, February, 2012,
p. 4.
62
Department of Defense, Report to Congress on the Reviews of Laws, Policies and Regulations Restricting the Service
of Female Members in the U.S. Armed Forces, February 2012, p. 4.
60
Congressional Research Service
12
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
This statement served as the DOD’s official notification to Congress of the removal of the
collocation restriction and the intent to implement exceptions to the Direct Combat Exclusion
Rule.63 The revised policy allowed commanders to collocate support units with women assigned
(i.e., in open occupational specialties) with ground combat units. The report suggested that these
changes might have the benefit of expanding career opportunities for women, while increasing
flexibility for field commanders to meet combat support mission requirements, and potentially
reducing the operational tempo for men assigned to collocated support units by increasing the
number of personnel available for assignment.
The Repeal of the Direct Combat Exclusion Rule
and Recent Developments
By 2013, the military departments had opened 14,325 positions to women under the new
exceptions to the exclusion rule.64 Currently women account for 16.8% of the active duty officer
corps and 15.0% of the enlisted corps across all DOD.65 The percentage of women varies across
services (see Table 2). The Marine Corps and Army have a lower percentage of women in the
service than the Navy and Air Force, but also have a higher number of combat arms positions that
have historically been closed to women. For example, in 2013 the Army reported that
approximately 237,000 positions were closed to women, with over 105,000 positions in artillery,
infantry and armor occupations. The Air Force, on the other hand reported less than 5,000 closed
positions.66
Table 2. Females as a Percentage of Active Duty Personnel
May 2015
Army
Navy
Marine Corp
Air Force
Total
Female Officers
16.7%
17.2%
6.8%
20.1%
16.8%
Female Enlisted
13.4%
18.1%
7.8%
18.8%
15.0%
Total by Service
14.1%
17.9%
7.7%
19.0%
15.3%
Source: Defense Manpower Data Center
On January 24, 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced DOD was rescinding
the Direct Combat Exclusion Rule on women serving in previously restricted occupations (i.e.,
combat). This policy change opened two categories of positions, previously closed combat arms
occupational specialties and non-combat specialties assigned to combat units (e.g. a medic
serving in an infantry company). The implementation of this policy change was to be guided by
the following principles:67
63
The report also stated that DOD gave notice of the changes commencing the congressional review timeline required
in 10 U.S.C.§652, which means these changes became policy since Congress did not act on them.
64
Department of Defense, Memo from the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense on Women
in the Service Implementation Plan, January 9, 2013.
65
Defense Manpower Data Center as of January 2015.
66
Roulo, Claudette, "Defense Department Expands Women's Combat Role," DOD News, January 2013.
67
Department of Defense, Memo from the Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the Secretary of Defense on Women
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
13
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Ensure the success of our nation’s warfighting forces by preserving unit readiness, cohesion,
and morale.
Ensure all service men and women are given the opportunity to succeed and are set up for
success with viable career paths.
Retain the trust and confidence of the American people to defend this nation by promoting
policies that maintain the best quality and most qualified people.
Validate occupational performance standards, both physical and mental, for all military
occupational specialties (MOS), specifically those that remain closed to women. Eligibility
for training and development within designated occupational fields should consist of
qualitative and quantifiable standards reflecting the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary
for each occupation. For occupational specialties open to women, the occupational
performance standards must be gender-neutral as required by P.L. 103-160, Section 542 (sic)
(1993).
Ensure that a sufficient cadre of midgrade/senior women enlisted and officers are assigned to
commands at the point of introduction to ensure success in the long run. This may require an
adjustment to recruiting efforts, assignment processes, and personnel policies. Assimilation
of women into heretofore “closed units” will be informed by continual in-stride assessments
and pilot efforts.
The Secretary of Defense directed the military departments to develop implementation plans for
the review of service-level policies and standards and to expeditiously move forward in the
integration of women into previously closed positions.
As per the Secretary’s instruction, any recommendations to keep an occupational specialty closed
to women will require approval by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS) and the
Secretary of Defense. The opening of these positions will likely have the largest impact on the
Army, Marine Corps, and the Special Operations community where infantry, armor, artillery and
other specialized combat positions were previously closed to women under the Direct Combat
Exclusion Rule. The military departments are expected to complete their reviews and to notify
Congress of their plans for integrating women into combat roles by January 1, 2016.
Key Issues for Congress
Any changes proposed by the DOD will likely be subjected to congressional scrutiny. Congress
may accept any proposed changes or seek to subject such changes to certain modifications. Two
key legislative issues that may arise are the validation and implementation of gender-neutral
occupational standards, and laws requiring registration for Selective Service. Among the
additional issues Congress may consider are equal opportunity, unit readiness and cohesion, and
force structure and manpower needs.
(...continued)
in the Service Implementation Plan, January 9, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
14
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
“Gender-Neutral” Standards
One of the issues for Congress to consider with the opening of combat roles to women is how the
definition of gender-neutral standards will be applied and how the standards will be validated.
The military departments, in their respective women in the service implementation plans, have
indicated that they will conduct research and reviews to validate the physical standards for all
occupations (opened and closed). Congress has the authority to review the proposed changes,
provide oversight for implementation, and to amend the definition of gender-neutral occupational
performance standards as needed.
Definitions and Requirements
In the National Defense Authorization Act for FY1994 (P.L. 103-160 §543, as amended by P.L.
113-66 §523), Congress established requirements for gender-neutral occupational performance
standards:
(1) GENDER-NEUTRAL OCCUPATIONAL STANDARD. The term “gender-neutral
occupational standard”, with respect to a military career designator, means that all members
of the Armed Forces serving in or assigned to the military career designator must meet the
same performance outcome-based standards for the successful accomplishment of the
necessary and required specific tasks associated with the qualifications and duties performed
while serving in or assigned to the military career designator.
SEC. 543. GENDER-NEUTRAL OCCUPATIONAL PERFORMANCE STANDARDS.
(a) GENDER NEUTRALITY REQUIREMENT. In the case of any military career
designator that is open to both male and female members of the Armed Forces, the Secretary
of Defense
(1) shall ensure that qualification of members of the Armed Forces for, and continuance
of members of the Armed Forces in, that occupational career field is evaluated on the
basis of an occupational standard, without differential standards of evaluation on the
basis of gender;
(2) may not use any gender quota, goal, or ceiling except as specifically authorized by
law; and
(3) may not change an occupational performance standard for the purpose of increasing
or decreasing the number of women in that occupational career field.
(b) REQUIREMENTS
REQUIREMENTS.
RELATING
TO
USE
OF
SPECIFIC
PHYSICAL
(1) For any military career designator for which the Secretary of Defense determines
that specific physical requirements for muscular strength and endurance and
cardiovascular capacity are essential to the performance of duties, the Secretary shall
prescribe specific physical requirements as part of the gender-neutral occupational
standard for members in that career designator and shall ensure (in the case of a career
designator that is open to both male and female members of the Armed Forces) that
those requirements are applied on a gender-neutral basis.
Congressional Research Service
15
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
(2) Whenever the Secretary establishes or revises a physical requirement for a military
career designator, a member serving in that military career designator when the new
requirement becomes effective, who is otherwise considered to be a satisfactory
performer, shall be provided a reasonable period, as determined under regulations
prescribed by the Secretary, to meet the standard established by the new requirement.
During that period, the new physical requirement may not be used to disqualify the
member from continued service in that military career designator.
Review and Validation
All of the military departments establish testable minimum physical fitness standards for their
personnel regardless of the military occupational specialty or career designator.68 These physical
fitness tests are administered upon entry and annually thereafter and are intended to encourage a
minimum standard of physical fitness and health across the military forces. The standards and
scoring table vary by both age and gender to account for physiological differences. For example,
a 22-year old male is required to run 2 miles in a maximum time of 17:30 in order to pass the
Army Physical Fitness Test (PFT). The maximum time for a 22-year-old female is 20:36. In both
instances, the individuals who achieve a passing time on the run receive the same score. The
scoring tables differ under the principle that a women who is able to run 2 miles in 17:30 is, on
average, more physically fit (in terms of muscular strength and endurance, and cardiovascular
capacity) than a man of the same age who is able to complete the run in the same time.
While all servicemembers must maintain basic physical fitness standards, the military
departments also establish additional standards for entry into certain occupational fields based on
the capabilities needed to complete tasks associated with that occupation. (See sample Marine
Corps infantry squad assessment tasks in the below box.) Whereas basic physical standards
described above are used as a mechanism to measure the servicemember’s fitness, occupational
standards are used to measure the ability to meet job requirements. A basic interpretation of
Section 543(1)(b) regarding physical requirements suggests there will only be a common
outcome-based standard for each occupational career field and that men and women would be
required to meet the same physical standards in order to be similarly assigned. It follows, for
example, that if the occupation requires the servicemember to run 2 miles in 17:30 minutes, both
men and women must meet that standard regardless of relative fitness levels.
Some have expressed concerns that the physical occupational standards and testing for certain
career fields do not accurately reflect the actual job requirements and may be unnecessarily high,
creating artificial barriers to women’s entry into some career fields. In the Carl Levin and Howard
P. “Buck” McKeon National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2015 (P.L. 113-291§524),
Congress gave further direction to the Secretaries of the military departments regarding the
development and validation of gender-neutral occupational standards, requiring that the standards
(1) accurately predict performance of actual, regular, and recurring duties of a military
occupation; and
(2) are applied equitably to measure individual capabilities.69
68
69
Some occupational specialties require servicemembers to meet additional physical standards.
P.L. 113-291; 128 Stat. 1919; September 19, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
16
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
The first validation criteria would require evidence that the tested standard is predictive of the
actual task required to serve in that occupational field. For example, one occupational
requirement might be the ability to rappel down a rope from a helicopter in a certain amount of
time. For practical reasons (i.e., cost, risk of injury, resource availability) it may not be in the best
interest of the services to test servicemembers in a live environment. However, the number of
pull-ups a servicemember can achieve may be predictive of their performance in rappelling.
Under the criteria above, the services would be required to demonstrate both the rappelling from a
helicopter is a regular requirement for the occupational specialty, and that the pull-up standard is
an accurate measure of a servicemember’s ability to achieve that task regardless of gender.
Sample Marine Corps Infantry Squad Assessment Tasks
Day 1:
•
Hike one kilometer uphill with 28-pound assault pack and personal weapon.
•
Scramble over 8-foot shipping container with weapons.
•
Set weapons to Condition One and conduct a live-fire movement to contact with pop-up targets at 100, 200,
and 300 meters.
•
Regroup and repel a “counterattack” with pop-up targets.
•
Conduct “casualty evacuation” moving a 214-pound dummy 50 meters and back in teams of two or four.
•
Allow engineers to move forward and fire two breaching shots with Bangalore torpedoes.
Day 2:
•
Hike seven kilometers with weapons and 59-pound packs.
•
Dig fighting holes for two hours in two-man teams, alternating on and off every 15 minutes.
Source: U.S. Marine Corps as reported in Seck, Hope H., “Pushing the Boundaries; All-female Marine Grunt
Teams get Creative During Experiment,” Marine Corps Times, May 11, 2015.
Note: The tasks above are part of the women in combat assessments that the Marine Corps is conducting the
the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force (GCEITF). For each specialty there are different tasks and
male and female volunteers are randomly assigned to squad positions that operate on a two-day assessment
cycle with one day off.
While the focus for validating these requirements is on the military career occupations previously
closed to women, the services are also evaluating whether standards should differ for other
occupational specialties. Comments from General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chief
of Staff suggested that in validating requirements, they will be taking into account these issues70
[...]as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict, not just COIN,
counterinsurgency, we really need to have standards that apply across all of those.
Importantly, though, 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 secretary,
why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?
The Services are in the process of reviewing and validating performance standards and expect to
have initial results by September of 2015. In addition to other review efforts, the Marine Corps
and the Army have been conducting assessments of women’s performance in their elite infantry
70
Winn, Pete, "Gen. Dempsey: If Women Can't Meet Military Standard, Pentagon Will Ask 'Does it Really Have to Be
That High."," cnsnews.com, January 25, 2013.
Congressional Research Service
17
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
training schools. In 2012, the U.S. Marine Corps temporarily opened its Infantry Officer Course
(IOC) and its enlisted Infantry Training Battalion (ITB) to female volunteers. As of May 2015,
the end of the Marine Corps experiment, 29 female officers had attempted the course but none
had graduated.71 The pass rate for women in the enlisted Marine Corps Infantry Training
Battalion (ITB), which is regarded as a less strenuous course than the IOC, had been 35% over
the same time period compared with a 98% pass rate for males entering the course.72
Likewise, the Army in 2015 opened its Ranger School to women for the first time for a one-time
integrated assessment of female performance in the school. Of the 113 women who tried to
qualify for the school, only 20 qualified, and 19 started the course.73 As of May 2015, eight of the
nineteen women had made it through the first assessment (Ranger Assessment Phase or “RAP
week”) but did not pass the Darby Phase74 to qualify for the next step of training. Three of the
eight women were invited to restart the Ranger School from day one in June 2015 and as of July
2015 the three women has passed the Darby Phase and were entering the 20-day Mountain
Phase.75
Implementation Concerns
Whether the standards are changed or stay the same as a result of the DOD’s review, many have
concerns about the implementation. Although there are women who can meet and exceed the
existing physical standards for males, forcing women to continuously meet higher standards has
been found in some cases to increase their injury and attrition rates.76 In the Canadian experience
in which women were recruited for a 16-week infantry training course that was identical to the
men’s course, the outcome was described as the “high cost of recruiting women that yielded poor
results.”77 Additionally, a recent study of women in close ground combat from the United
Kingdom Ministry of Defense (MoD) found that in initial military training, women have twice as
much risk of musculoskeletal injury as men, and 15% to 20% higher rates of non-battle injuries in
recent operations.78 However; this MoD report also acknowledged that women who would be
capable of passing the close ground combat training might be more physically fit and less prone
to injury than a cohort of women entering initial basic training.
Some are concerned that any change in standards would affect readiness and unit cohesion. Some
argue that changing the current physical standards to account for male-female physiological
differences would reduce unit effectiveness and ability to meet certain battlefield challenges.
Others believe that even if the validation process shows that current standards for certain
71
Seck, Hope H., “Last IOC in Marine Infantry Experiment Drops Female Officers,” Marine Corps Times, April 8,
2015.
72
Data provided to CRS by the United States Marine Corps in March 2015.
73
Mulrine, Anna, "Breaking Military's Ultimate Glass Ceiling? Women start Ranger Training.," The Christian Science
Monitor, April 30, 2015.
74
The Darby Phase is 15 days of intensive squad training and operations in a field environment that includes an
advanced obstacle course, airborne training, and a series of student-let and cadre-led patrols.
75
Tan, Michelle, “Female Ranger Students Pass Darby Phase on 3rd Try,” Army Times, July 10, 2015.
76
Scarborough, Rowan, “Army may Train Women for Rigor of Front Lines, Studies Predict Injury, Attrition,”
Washington Times, July 30, 2012.
77
Moore, Molly, Canada Puts Women on Front Line, Los Angeles Times, November 23, 1989.
78
United Kingdom Ministry of Defense, Women in ground close combat (GCC) review paper, December 1, 2014, p.
B1, https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/women-in-ground-close-combat-gcc-review-paper.
Congressional Research Service
18
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
occupational series are inappropriate or unnecessarily high, any changes at this particular time
would be perceived as a lowering of standards solely for the purpose of including women. Some
are concerned that unit morale or cohesion might be affected if the integration of women under
new standards creates the perception that the woman has not “earned” her place or that she is
potentially replacing a more capable male soldier.79
Options for Congress
Women’s advocacy groups and other military and veterans’ groups are likely to closely monitor
DOD’s review process and announcement for occupational standards. By law (P.L. 103-160
§543), DOD must notify Congress of changes to occupational standards that affect women’s entry
into previously closed military career designators prior to implementing the standards:
(c) NOTICE TO CONGRESS OF CHANGES- Whenever the Secretary of Defense proposes
to implement changes to the gender-neutral occupational standards for a military career
designator that are expected to result in an increase, or in a decrease, of at least 10 percent in
the number of female members of the Armed Forces who enter, or are assigned to, that
military career designator, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report
providing notice of the change and the justification and rationale for the change. Such
changes may then be implemented only after the end of the 60-day period beginning on the
date on which such report is submitted.80
Congress may then postpone implementation, request further studies, reviews or justification, or
allow the changes go into effect.
Selective Service
Many of those who emphasize equal rights say it is more difficult for servicemembers to advance
to top-ranking positions in the armed services without combat experience. The inability of women
to serve in combat roles is thus seen as a barrier to equal opportunity for promotion and selection
for leadership roles.81 Some carry the argument further to say women cannot be equal in society
as long as they are barred from full participation in all levels of the national security system. In
their view, modern weapons have equalized the potential for women in combat since wars are less
likely to be fought on a hand-to-hand basis. In this regard, properly trained women would be able
to perform successfully in combat and exempting them from serving in combat is unfair to men.
This leads some to argue that equal access to combat jobs also obliges women to take equal
responsibility for registering for selective service and being subject to the draft.82 Women are
divided on this issue with some saying they should be allowed in combat but many saying they
79
In studies of mixed gender units, some servicemembers attributed unit cohesion issues to differential standards
between men and women. See for example Harrell, Margaret C. and Laura L. Miller, New Opportunities for Military
Women; Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale, Santa Monica, CA, January 1997, p. 78.
80
Given that there are currently zero women in some career designators, an increase of one woman would be an
increase of over 10%.
81
Bacon, Lance M., “We Need Their Talent,” Army Times, October 24, 2011. Odierno: “This is about managing talent.
We have incredibly talented females who should be in those positions. We have work to do within the [Department of
Defense] to get them to recognize and change.”
82
Mulrine, Anna, "With U.S. Women Soon Eligible for Combat, the Draft Could be Next," The Christian Science
Monitor, October 28, 2014.
Congressional Research Service
19
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
should not be forced into combat.83 Critics contend it would be unfair to permit women a choice
that is not available to men and to make the choice available to both men and women would make
it difficult for the services to function, especially in the event of war or national emergency.
Given this argument, Congress may need to consider not only whether women who want to serve
in combat roles are allowed to, but if women should be required to serve in combat roles.
Options for Congress
The question of whether women should be required to register for Selective Service under current
law was previously decided by the Supreme Court in the 1981 majority decision in Rostker v.
Goldberg. In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote:
[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress’ decision to
exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of
combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would
not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.84
Congress has a number of options in addressing this issue. Congress has the authority to change
draft registration laws (that currently pertain only to males) to include women.85 It has also been
suggested that this issue can be made moot by terminating Selective Service registration. Another
option for Congress might be to keep the draft registration laws unchanged, only requiring males
to register. However; if Congress keeps the status quo, it is also possible Rostker v. Goldberg
could be overturned in a future court ruling.
Other Concerns Regarding Women in Combat
Supporters of opening more occupational specialties and units to women note that women are
already serving, fighting, and dying in combat. Others argue that opening more roles to women
will result in a bigger pool of eligible recruits to compete for occupational assignments and could
result in higher performing units. Some contend that unless all military roles are opened to
women, women will not have equal career leadership opportunities.
Those opposed to changing restrictions on women in combat roles argue that a lack of combat
experience does not adversely affect career advancement and promotions for women. They argue
further that the progress of women is not the most important issue at hand, and contend that
military readiness and national security has been and would further be weakened due to the
presence of women in combat units.86 Those opposed note that close combat situations have and
continue to exist and, on average, an all-male unit would be higher-performing in those types of
engagements due to physical differences.
83
Lafond, Nicole, "Poll: Most Women Believe They Should Not Be Forced Into Combat," The Daily Caller, February
7, 2013.
84
Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U.S. 57 (1981).
85
50 U.S.C.§453.
86
See for example Center for Military Readiness, “Problematic Proposals in National Defense Authorization Act for
2015 (NDAA),” at http://www.cmrlink.org/content/women-in-combat/37616/
problematic_proposals_in_national_defense_authorization_act_for_2015_ndaa.
Congressional Research Service
20
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Both those in favor and opposed to women in combat acknowledge that there are likely social,
cultural, and administrative barriers that would need to be overcome in order to implement full
integration of women into combat units. Some of these administrative barriers (such as
barrack/berthing assignments and separate toilet/shower facilities) have been overcome in the
past as women were integrated into other occupational specialties and units.
In past gender integration efforts, the services have sought to assign senior female officers and
non-commissioned to units prior to the assignment of more junior enlisted and attempted to avoid
assigning only one women to a unit.87 Developing appropriate assignment policies may be more
challenging as the number of women qualifying for combat roles may initially be very small as a
percentage of the total force. For example, in the Marine Corps, where women account for only
7.7% of the total force, an infantry squad might consist of only one or two women out of twelve
Marines, while other squads might have no women at all assigned.88
In terms of cultural adaptation, individuals who are accustomed to being in all-male units may
offer some resistance to change. Some are also concerned that in small unit settings male-female
relationships might develop that could affect unit cohesion and morale and result in reduced unit
performance. Others note that women have been integrated into units for extended deployment
periods with close-quarter environments for much of the recent history of the military. They also
point to other factors, beyond gender homogeneity, that contribute to positive unit cohesion such
as shared experiences, leadership, and command climate. Some also note that some of the same
arguments about social cohesion were historically used by those opposed to the integration of
other minority groups in the military (e.g. racial minorities and homosexuals) and that there is
little or no evidence that unit effectiveness was reduced as a result of that integration.
Outlook for Congress
The military departments, as part of their women in combat implementation plans, are studying
some of these social cohesion and morale concerns to understand the possible impact of change
and to develop potential mitigation strategies. All DOD reviews and studies are expected to be
completed by September 2016. The military departments are expected to present their results and
findings to the Secretary of Defense for approval authority and the Secretary is required to notify
Congress of DOD’s plans for integrating women into combat roles no later than January 1, 2016.
87
See for example the Navy’s policy on assignment of women to surface vessels (OPNAVINST 1300.17B, May 27,
2001) which requires a minimum of two female officers to be assigned (when no female enlisted are assigned) and a
minimum of one female officer and one female Chief Petty Officer to be assigned to all gender integrated ships.
88
Seck, Hope Hodge, "All-Female Marine Grunt Team Gets Innovative During Combat Tests," Marine Corps Times,
May 2015.
Congressional Research Service
21
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Appendix. Key Legislative and Policy Actions
Table A-1. Timeline of Key Legislative and Policy Actions for Integration of Women in
the Armed Services
1901-2014
Year
Key Legislative and Policy Actions
Law
1901
Army Nurse Corps is established under the Army Reorganization Act of
1901.
31 Stat. 753; February 2,
1901
1908
Navy Nurse Corps is established.
P.L. 115; 35 Stat. 146;
May 13, 1908
1942
Naval Reserve is opened to Women and the Women’s Army Auxiliary
Corps is created.
P.L. 689; 56 Stat. 730; July
30, 1942; P.L. 554, 56
Stat. 278, May 14, 1942
1943
Marine Corps Women’s Reserve is established and the Women’s Army
Corps is established as part of the regular Army on a temporary basis.
P.L. 110; 57 Stat. 371; July
1, 1943
1948
Women’s Armed Services Integration Act of 1948 makes women a
permanent part of the military, but prohibits their assignment to combatant
aircraft and naval vessels and limits the proportion of women in the military
to 2% of enlisted and 10% of officers.
P.L. 625; 62 Stat. 356;
June 12, 1948
1967
Limits on the percent of women in the military are repealed.
P.L. 90-130; 81 Stat. 374;
November 8, 1967
1974
Minimum age requirement for women enlisting without parental consent is
reduced from 18 to 17 to be consistent with age of consent for men.
P.L. 93-290; 88 Stat. 173;
May 24, 1974
1975
Women are allowed to be admitted to service academies.
P.L. 94-106; 89 Stat. 537;
October 7, 1975
1978
Women are permitted to be assigned permanent duty on noncombatant
Navy ships and up to six months of temporary duty on other ships.
P.L. 95-485; 92 Stat. 1623;
October 20, 1978
1988
DOD implements “risk rule” which excludes women form noncombat units
or missions if the risk of exposure to direct combat, hostile fire, or capture
were equal to or greater than the risks in the combat units they support.
NA
1991
The Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed
Forces is established.
P.L. 102-190; 105 Stat.
1365; December 5, 1991
1993
Congress establishes requirements for gender-neutral occupational
standards and repeals prohibition of women serving on combatant aircraft
and vessels.
P.L. 103-160; 107 Stat.
1659 et seq.; November
30, 1993
1994
The “risk rule” is rescinded and DOD issues the Direct Ground Combat
and Assignment Rule which limits women from being assigned to units
below brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on
the ground.
NA
2000
Congress mandates 30-day (in-session) notice of any change that would
open assignment of women to Navy submarines.
P.L. 106-398; 114 Stat.
1654A-136; October 30,
2000
2006
Congress mandates 30-day (in-session) notification for any change to the
1994 ground combat exclusion policy, or the opening or closing of military
career fields to women.
P.L. 109-163; 119 Stat.
3251; January 6, 2006
Congressional Research Service
22
Women in Combat: Issues for Congress
Year
Key Legislative and Policy Actions
Law
2008
The Military Leadership Diversity Commission is established with mandate
to review promotion and command opportunities in the Armed Services by
ethnicity and gender.
P.L. 110-417; 122 Stat.
4476; October 14, 2008
2010
DOD notifies Congress of intent to allow women to serve on submarines.
NA
2011
Congress mandates review of the Direct Ground Combat and Assignment
Rule.
P.L. 111-383; 214 Stat.
4217; January 7, 2011
2012
DOD eliminates the colocation restriction from the Direct Ground
Combat and Assignment Rule.
NA
2013
DOD repeals the Direct Ground Combat and Assignment Rule, removing
barriers to the assignment of women to combat units and occupations and
directs implementation by January 1, 2016.
NA
2014
Congress issues validation criteria for the development of gender-neutral
occupational standards.
P.L. 113-291; 128 Stat.
1919; September 19,
2014
Source: Compiled by CRS from multiple sources.
Author Contact Information
Kristy N. Kamarck
Analyst in Military Manpower
kkamarck@crs.loc.gov, 7-7783
Congressional Research Service
23