I see that Christine Cheng, lecturer of this parish, was on BBC Woman’s Hour this morning, discussing whether or not women should be allowed to serve in frontline combat roles. On Twitter, Richard Kemp, a retired Army Colonel, thinks they should not, on purely physical grounds – you don’t, he argues, see women in the English rugby team or the Men’s Boat Race. In a desperate struggle at close quarters, physical superiority will win out, and men, on average, are stronger than women. Fit, strong and aggressive male infanteers are likely to be fitter, stronger and more aggressive than women.
I disagree with that premise for judging women infantry soldiers. Why?
- liberal society demands equality of opportunity, not outcome. Women deserve the right to attempt to qualify for the infantry, and only then to serve in it. A very small number of women will display the abilities required. Standards should not be lowered from those expected of men.
- at the same time, however, a review of those standards might be in order. Technical and intellectual acumen are important in modern combat, and will become increasingly so as new robotic technologies proliferate. These include technologies that will diminish the weight burden on infantry soldiers, and increase their ability to direct their fire more accurately from distance.
- losing a tactical action because women can not prevail in a hand to hand encounter is extremely unlikely to be decisive because
1. western infantry forces rarely engage in such close quarters combat, benefiting from increasingly timely, discriminate and lethal firepower from distance. Combined arms are not on offer to the England rugby team.
2. such action is almost inevitably tactical, not strategic. If we, as a nation, are solely reliant on a determined bayonet charge to win a battle, or even a campaign, we have likely lost it already. The same is not true of the Boat Race crew, for whom the tactical event is all. The Falklands Conflict offers an ostensibly compelling counter-example, but was conducted in a different era, with different standards of technology and different attitudes towards women.
3. Most of those doing the grappling will remain men and (per my point above) will, if they are women, have already proved themselves at least physically equal.
As a separate argument against women, it is sometimes argued that women threaten the cohesion of fighting forces. Similar arguments were once offered about black soldiers and gays. A liberal society loses far more from not applying its values consistently than it risks from having women infanteers. Armies reflect their societies and it is inevitable that they are becoming more liberal, across a range of issues, including this one.
Allowing women to serve in the infantry is unlikely to dramatically change the make-up of the British Army. The physical demands of being in the infantry remain important. Stamina and strength, and the capacity to fight tenaciously and with aggression are vital. I am sure women can meet those standards, but the numbers wishing to do so be low.
[The picture above shows women of the IDF's Caracal combat infantry battalion]
No comments:
Post a Comment