Donald C. Bowman: Women in Rangers still a bad idea

Carry this kind of wishful thinking to its logical conclusion and someone will say, "It isn't fair to keep me out of flight training just because my eyes are 20/80. I wear glasses that correct that, and you are depriving me of a chance to advance in the Air Force, because fighter jocks have a better chance at promotion than maintenance officers do."

The advocates of this have political power and a voice to reach the nation. Their arguments are well presented as to the women's desire and courage. But they do not go on to say these women do not want to give up separate barracks, separate latrines, separate PT tests, separate evaluation standards, and the whole special deal apparatus, so we can be "fair."

Even allowing women to serve as far forward as brigade, let alone in Infantry battalion headquarters, is a serious error, in my judgment. During Tet in 1968, our brigade headquarters was extremely vulnerable to ground attack. Had the NVA realized how unprotected we were, we could have been overrun. One infantry company, at the end of two weeks of brutal close combat, was reduced from six officers and 150 men to two officers and 58 men. They lived in shallow grave-like holes in wet, soggy earth. They fought, ate, slept and relieved themselves where they lay.

The Army is being reorganized as if Iraq and Afghanistan are typical wars. They are not. History is full of wars fought in the field and very few that are centered on cities and route security plus an elusive, lightly armed enemy in the field.

Whatever the overall character of a conflict, for the infantryman it all comes down to the formulation so eloquently spelled out by Bill Mauldin's cartoon G I of World War II: "We make them run, and then we catch them and try to make them run again."

If our thinking is so limited by this current type of war, we will fare badly against a stronger, more agile and aggressive enemy.

If what we have to say might not be welcome, that is too bad. If the egos of these women are so fragile that they cannot be openly contradicted in honest debate, then they are not psychologically suited to a profession where a potent enemy is trying constantly to kill them in new and more brutal ways.

It has nothing to do with equality. It has to do with the defense of the nation and structuring the force to bring as high a percentage home alive as possible. What must other soldiers give up to give some ambitious woman a shot at Stars, when all Snuffy Smith, rifleman, wants to do is protect the man on either side of him and share that protection equally?

Politicians and sociologists haven't got a clue as to what infantry combat is like. There is a mountain of evidence against integrating women in the infantry and a clear vision of the undue casualties we will take if this is forced on us.

A brief news item on national television a short time ago provides what we need to know. A young female medical officer was competing to win the expert medical badge. A part of the test was a long speed march with a standard load. Near the finish line she collapsed, unable to go on. The male graders all around her shouted encouragement. "You can make it." "It isn't far." None could touch her, as doing so would disqualify her effort. Ultimately, she rose and staggered across the finish line.

Now turn peacetime off and add the snap of enemy small arms fire, well directed against this young officer. Would the males shout encouragement, as she became the target of several enemy riflemen? We all know that someone would move to help her and drag her to safety. Doing so would risk his own life. And who then would carry the load she can no longer carry? Noble, but incredibly wasteful. We do not have so many such men that we can afford to add odds against them.

Police and fire fighters operate in an entirely different environment. The have a fixed personal and professional base. While mortal dangers certainly exist, as is so dramatically emphasized by recent wanton killings of patrol officers, such things are exceedingly rare and the vast majority of police and fire duties put the officers in contact with peaceful people. Happily, as was shown in Waco, excellent training and preparation give our law enforcement people a significant edge over the so-called tough guys of the crime world. May that ever be so.

The armed forces are not society as a whole and do not act as a democracy. They are not formed to give individuals status, income or job satisfaction. They are formed to punish the enemies of our country by hurting people and breaking things. They are based upon some of the most primitive of all cultures which have evolved and been refined by some ten thousand years of evolution, testing and development.

In all that cascade of millennia there is hardly an example of a people who purposefully made use of females in ground combat. If it works to the advantage of an infantry force, surely, that was enough time for the practice to develop and show a presence.

Not 5 percent of women can carry the loads that men must carry, and they lack the upper body strength to engage in close combat with fists, knives, bayonets and teeth. War is about fighting and killing in the most brutal ways imaginable. It is not a courtroom or even a sports field; it is surely not a legislative chamber filled with coolly debating wise men and women. The stakes are human lives; the lives of those who are loved by families and friends; lives dedicated to the ultimate sacrifice for the nation, lives filled with accomplishment; and ultimately, it is for the life of the nation.

Donald C. Bowman, a certified public accountant in Columbus, is a retired U.S. Army Infantry lieutenant colonel, a decorated combat veteran of the Vietnam War and a 2011 inductee in the National Ranger Hall of Fame.

This story was originally published August 22, 2015 at 12:00 AM with the headline "Donald C. Bowman: Women in Rangers still a bad idea ."