Secretary Panetta made the official announcement: 230,000 military combat roles will be open to women.  I think this is a tremendous stride.  Since combat operations are necessary for real high-ranking advancement in the military, this will open the door for women to have more meaningful military careers and a voice at a most important table.  Like every other hall of power, I think things will be better – more solid, perhaps – with women’s perspectives and leadership.

I don’t think this is going to make war softer or less aggressive.  Sure, my best, idealistic self would love to say that we will see an end to war, it is simply not the case.  We will always find reasons to fight, are driven to conflict.  This is human nature, not a trick of gender.

It has been interesting to watch my male friends grapple with this question.  Some certainly embrace the idea for many of the reasons I find it to be a step forward.  Opportunity for women in the military to advance their careers, achieve parity in rank & pay, all in the service of our country.  For the men I know who don’t like the idea – staunch conservatives and wild liberals alike come down to the same arguments.  “What society sends girls to fight and die in war?”  “Women are precious vessels, givers of life.”  “Women are physiologically different than men and simply can’t do the same tasks.”  “How pregnant/post partum does a woman have to be before she is pulled from/put back on the line?”  “I just don’t like it.”

No one is suggesting that we change the physical requirements for entering into combat duty.  With 230,000 combat roles, not all will require the same physical rigor and again, while men as a whole may be stronger, able to carry 250lbs of a fellow soldier as well as their own gear and weapon, not all men can do this, and some women can.  This is a matter for a test of the individual, not for a broad restriction of women in general.  Combat roles include engineers, intel, sharpshooters,  and yes, special assault forces.  Not all these roles will be open, and all will require the same testing and importantly, training.  For a solid first person account of this as well as an outline of the ways in which women are already serving in combat situations, Slate has a great piece by Kayla Williams.

I think of the other arguments as sentimental.  Not necessarily in a bad way, just sentimental.  It helps that these concerns have been advanced by friends, rather than say – Rush Limbaugh.  The sentiment contains both a sense that women are delicate flowers and need to be protected, and the notion that we as a society are or should be too “civilized” to put women in harm’s way.  I confess that I find the “delicate flower” component oddly sweet.  Particularly when it is advanced by those who I know have chosen to live their lives with strong, vibrant women who they fear as much as they worship.  From these men it seems rooted in a sense of gentlemanliness, of chivalrous order.

It’s the other side of the sentimental argument that I really have trouble with and that highlights both how war and conflict have changed, and a kind of hypocrisy about how we comport ourselves as a society both at home and abroad.  US women in the military are already dying in combat, even if they are not in “official” combat roles.  And women who are in conflict zones all over the world are in constant danger whether risking rape while getting water on a daily basis, or being caught in the crossfire in an urban invasion, women and children – innocents – die every day all around the world.

But women are also caught in the crossfire here at home.  Violence is still an epidemic in many of our urban centers.  Young men and women, mothers, fathers, children, have to bury their loved ones on a daily basis. There is no hand-wringing about the delicate nature of women in this country who fight every day to keep their children and grandchildren safe.  It is the men AND women who are our first responders who bear the burden of our safety at home.  Women have served in police and fire departments for decades now with pride and valor.  We have answered the call of service to keep our communities safe and achieved much.  Is there really any reason to believe that we will do less in military combat roles?