"Women in Ground Combat Units: Where’s the Data?" Topic

"Earlier this year, I spoke with a roomful of field grade officers about the debate and controversy over women in combat. The officers knew my position. What was next to impossible for me to discern, however, was where most of them are when it comes to this topic — which is the challenge with trying to have an open debate about it. The topic is just too politically charged for opponents to feel they can speak openly or honestly.

Officers who balk at the idea of women serving in ground infantry units or on Special Forces Operational Detachments Alpha (ODAs) won't publicly say so, let alone publicly explain why. They worry about retaliation that could hurt their careers. In contrast, those who have no reservations — usually because they won't be the ones who have to deal with the fallout from integration at the small unit level — slough off the challenge as just another minor problem or "ankle biter."…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

While I completely agree on the need for comprehensive data collection, there's some seriously muddled thinking in that essay:

"In many social scientists' view, people's personal experiences amount to nothing more than anecdata, which is their dismissive term for first-person accounts.

But should thinking you have captured reality simply because you quantify some aspects of what you see really be permitted to trump verifiable history? Do we really want to pretend that because the Table of Organization & Equipment (TO&E) says every ODA is structured the same, with two medics, two weapons sergeants, two engineers, etc. that each team will end up with the same inter-personal chemistry, or that the chemistry on any one team will be reproducible on others? While units may have identical structures, the military has never been able to control for inter-personal dynamics."

Wait, what? Anecdotes are better than detailed survey data because TO&Es don't reflect inter-personal chemistry? That's not even a good analogy.

There are two very, very obvious problems with her proposal. First, collection bias. If you ask people to report anecdotes, the vast majority come from people who are angry. The "Well, it was OK, nothing special happened at all" crowd hardly ever responds. Suppose that 5% of your population responds, and 90% of those responses are negative. Does that mean that 95% of the other 90% of your population also had very negative experiences? Or does it mean that everyone who had a negative experience reported it, so that only 4.5% of your total population had a negative experience? Second, non-comparability. When you collect anecdotes, you hardly ever get enough information to be able to categorize the anecdotes and to analyze the data to see how variables interact. Then there are the endless fights over coding the anecdotes …

Keep in mind that no end of truly stupid public policy decisions have been made on the basis on anecdotes, almost always with horrible consequences. The "crack baby epidemic," for example. (I'm not in favor of smoking crack while pregnant, but it turns out that almost all of the reasons for making penalties for crack so harsh were anecdotal and wrong.) Bankruptcy reform and student loan defaults. Crab legs and cruise ships. McDonald's coffee and tort reform. You can always find one egregious story to sabotage a position, and it's much easier to generate outrage with one horror story than it is to generate support with a raft of accounts of boring routine.

As a wargamer, I love anecdotes. They lend flavor and verve, and sometimes they're the only data available because the inherent chaos of combat makes it impossible to collect certain kinds of data. But it's all too easy for an anecdote to lead you completely astray, as the British discovered to their sorrow with the 6-pdr kill of a Tiger in North Africa …

Officers who balk at the idea of women serving in ground infantry units or on Special Forces Operational Detachments Alpha (ODAs) won't publicly say so, let alone publicly explain why. They worry about retaliation that could hurt their careers. In contrast, those who have no reservations — usually because they won't be the ones who have to deal with the fallout from integration at the small unit level — slough off the challenge as just another minor problem or "ankle biter."…"

Well based on my passed military experiences in my distant youth '79-'91. I don't think it is a good idea. Funny, I alway look back on what went on during Vietnam and the anti-draft movement, etc. … Females were not drafted. And few males wanted to get drafted and even fewer wanted to be in combat arms like Infantry or Armor. Pretty good reason why. You could get killed or maimed, etc. … Ground combat generally has not changed much since then. Save for the fact it's even a bit easier to get KIA'd, WIA'd, etc. Good news is medical proceduces have improved so you have a better chance of surviving a tramatic amputation, etc. … And even better mechanical limb replacement, etc. … But, why for the sake of being PC, etc. would you even consider females in combat arms. Yes, today females see combat, but not like they would if in an Infantry or Tank unit. Not to mention, has anybody noticed the wash out rate at RANGER, SF, SEAL, etc. training ? Most males can't past those courses/training. And when I see a young female vet missing an arm or a leg. I find that very troubling. Much more so that a male amputee, which in itself is tragic. Why make war even more horrible than it is ? And based on our current enemies' beliefs, you don't want to be captured regardless of your sex. But I'd think with Daesh, etc., the last thing you want to be is a female infidel in radicalized, fanatical islamic jihadi, terrorists hands.

The best source of data might be the Red Army, circa 1940 – 1945.

Maybe one day we see these…? (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

The WWII Partisans had one of the highest percentages of female combat troops in any war. Immediately after WWII the JNA became non-coed aside from a few high profile female officers.

It wasn't until the 70s after a flareup in relations with the Soviets that Jugoslavia began allowing women to serve in support units.

During the Vietnam war women were predominately employed in support and labor units by the NVA and VC. This in spite of the facts that Vietnamese history celebrates several women warriors and that Communist ideology promotes sexual equality.