The U.S. Army is changing the way it does business. Although prohibitions against women serving in combat brigades such as infantry or armor will remain in effect, recently proposed "organizational" changes could lead to the creation of mixed-sex forward support companies (FSC) that would place female soldiers on the front lines.
Opponents to the creation of mixed-sex FSC claim that they are a clear violation of Department of Defense policies regarding women in combat.
When questioned, President Bush stated as far as he is concerned, there is no change in policy. Bush clearly articulated the current policy as "no women in combat." He then qualified his remarks by adding that we must make sure we "... define combat properly."
I've got news for the president: Women are already in combat. You see, any time you are serving in the military and the declared enemy is shooting at or otherwise trying to kill you, you are in combat. The creation of mixed-sex FSC will greatly increase the number of women in combat, and women do not belong in combat.
Now before all you hardcore feminists get your boxers in a wad, let me finish. Men do not belong in combat either. The way I figure it, the advent of paper/rock/scissors games eliminated the need for armed conflict.
Unfortunately, the reality of the situation is the United States is currently engaged in a war that exposes all its soldiers -- male and female -- to potential combat. No women in combat? Tell that to Shoshana Johnson and Jessica Lynch.
Whether women have the physical capabilities or mental constitution to be useful in combat is not the issue. The issue is the effect hundreds of body bags filled with young female soldiers will have on American society. The first three or four women killed will be heralded as heroes, and they'll receive posthumous medals for daring feats of bravery such as shooting back.
The women who receive injuries that are not so severe will also be heralded as heroes, and if they are pretty enough, they can supplement their disability checks with income from talk shows and book deals.
Female soldiers who are permanently maimed and/or disfigured will not be heralded as heroes. They will be touted as victims and paraded around like circus freaks to satisfy the self-serving agendas of political interest groups.
But when the novelty wears off and we've run out of highways to name after our dead women combatants, the harsh reality will set in. As the female body count rises, America will realize it is now a country willing to sacrifice its daughters as well as its sons on an altar of ideals and greed.
I know many of you may object to what I'm saying on the grounds of equal opportunity -- that women deserve the right to fight for their country. Fighting and dying for your country isn't a right: It's a responsibility.
People who try to make this a women's rights issue are simply adding another ideal to the aforementioned altar. More than 33 percent of active-duty enlisted women are black. Many of them probably joined the U.S. Army hoping they could someday go to college. I doubt they are thankful for the white women with doctorates who campaign for their right to sacrifice their lives.
You will not see Jenna Bush or Vanessa Kerry on the front lines refueling tanks. The American women exercising their "right" to die for their country will hail predominantly from the middle and lower classes.
Personally, I would rather protect these women's right to come home to their families and take advantage of the promises that enticed them to join the Army in the first place. These women didn't sign on for combat, and they don't deserve the responsibility of dying for a country that otherwise has little use for them.
Christopher Davis is an anthropology senior who served in the Gulf War. The enemy never shot at him, but send your shots to christopher.t.davis@asu.edu.
