Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window



Related issue outlines:
2001: Should women have front-line combat roles in the ADF?

Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
women
combat

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
2009/17: Should women be allowed in front-line direct combat positions in the Australian armed forces?<BR>

2009/17: Should women be allowed in front-line direct combat positions in the Australian armed forces?

What they said...
' A priority of the government is to improve the recruitment and retention of women in the ADF.
My own view is that all categories should be open to women'
Defence Personnel Minister, Greg Combet

'My concern is that really only Israel and a handful of countries whose very existence is threatened have gone down this path - the rest of the Western world hasn't'
Liberal backbencher and former infantry officer, Stuart Robert

The issue at a glance
On September 9, 2009, Defence Personnel Minister, Greg Combet, stated that all sections of the Australia's small but advanced military should be open to women, including special forces units currently fighting Taliban insurgents in Afghanistan.
The proposal has meet with the broad support of the Defence forces, subject to the development of testing protocols which would ensure that only suitable men and women were selected.
Some members of the Opposition were hostile to this proposal, though the Opposition as a whole adopted a more neutral stance, arguing that the matter should ultimately be determined within the Defence forces and with regard to the quality and reliability of the screening tests that were developed.
The Opposition leader, Malcolm Turnbull, stated the issue was a matter for defence force leaders.
'The primary objective has to be the safety and the effectiveness of our armed forces. I'm sure we will have an informed discussion, but it should be led by those with real knowledge, real front line experience in the field.'

Background
As at 30 June 2005, women comprised 13.2 percent of the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Women are currently not employed in combat duties in the ADF. The ADF has an exemption to the Sex Discrimination Act 1984 regarding the employment of women in combat duties.

Reviews and Restrictions
The employment of women in the ADF was the subject of an extensive review in 1992 and again in 1998. As a result of the 1992 review, employment options for women in the ADF have been expanded. The only restricted employment areas are those linked directly to combat operations.
The reviews examined:
the current ADF exclusions of women from combat duties and the limitations placed on the employment of women by equipment and/or methods of operations; attitudes to the employment of women in combat in Defence and in the community; and overseas experiences in the employment of women in combat.
Women are currently able to serve in all positions except for the following employment categories or corps:

Navy - Clearance Divers,
Army - Armour, Artillery, Infantry, Combat Engineer, and
Air Force - Ground Defence Officers and Airfield Defence Guards.

A restriction has been imposed on women within some employment areas for occupational health and safety reasons, where use of embryo-toxic substances could endanger their health, for example surface finishers and electroplaters within the Air Force.

Women are currently excluded from 'direct combat duties'. Direct combat duties are defined in a Defence Instruction on the employment of women in the ADF as 'duties requiring a person to commit, or participate directly in the commission of an act or violence against an armed adversary; and duties exposing a person to a high probability of direct physical contact with an armed adversary. ... Operational capability cannot be compromised as it is the core business of the ADF, and it will continue to involve all qualified Australians in the defence of the nation.'

Physical Employment Standards
In 2001, an ADF report to Federal Cabinet recommended that women be admitted to combat roles, if their fitness and medical standards were the equivalent of male employees. The move has surfaced now as part of a plan to increase the number of women holding senior positions in the defence force.
In November 2001, the Chiefs of Staff Committee directed that ergonomic studies proceed to enable physical employment standards to be developed for all combat arms.
The key objective was to analyse the ergonomic, human performance, and physical capacity requirements of the combat arms in order to develop appropriate trade selection and maintenance standards. The analysis was also intended to help to evaluate task risk factors.

Overseas Comparisons
New Zealand and Germany have opened combat positions to women.
In the United Kingdom, the Secretary for Defence has stated that combat positions should be opened to women and has placed the burden of proof for not opening the positions on the Services.
Canada has opened combat positions to women but has been unable to meet its targets.
The former Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, ordered his department to generate ideas to boost female recruitment, saying he was determined to facilitate cultural change in the defence force.
Other proposals to attract young women to army or navy careers include assigning a female mentor to each new recruit and implementing flexible working arrangements.
Mr Fitzgibbon sad, 'I've asked the chief of the defence force to come forward with proposals which might elevate women within the ADF.'

Internet information
The Australian Government's Department of Defence has a section of its Internet site that details the position of Women in the ADF. This site can be accessed at http://www.defence.gov.au/fr/RR/women.htm

On December 22, 2000, a briefing paper was produced for the Australian Parliament titled, 'Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Group - Women in the armed forces: the role of women in the Australian Defence Force' The report contains much useful information, including a definition of 'direct combat'. The full text of this report can be found at http://www.aph.gov.au/library/intguide/fad/women_armed.htm

In June 2001, The National Observer published an editorial arguing that placing women in direct combat positions could weaken the Australian Defence Force. The editorial is titled, 'Women in Front Line Combat - a Defence Issue Or a Discrimination Issue?' The full text of this editorial can be found at http://www.nationalobserver.net/2001_winter_ed1.htm

On march 13, 2008, The Brisbane Times published an opinion piece by John Birmingham titled, 'Women on the front line'. The piece argues in favour of women being given direct combat positions. The full text of the opinion piece can be found at http://blogs.brisbanetimes.com.au/bluntinstrument/archives/2008/03/women_on_the_fr.html

On September 10, 2009, The Daily Telegraph published an editorial titled, 'Gender war on the front line' The editorial essentially argues in favour of women being able to take up direct combat positions. The full text of this editorial can be found at http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/gender-war-on-the-front-line/story-e6frezz0-1225771246135

On September 10, 2009, The Daily Telegraph published an opinion piece by Ian McPhedran arguing that very few women would be found physically suitable for direct combat and even fewer would want to be involved.
The full text of this opinion piece can be found at http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/frontline-women-equal-but-different/story-e6frezz0-1225771199189

On September 12, 2009, The Tasmanian Mercury published an editorial arguing that, subject to suitability testing, women should be able to occupy direct combat positions on the front line. The full text of this editorial can be found at http://www.themercury.com.au/article/2009/09/12/33155_editorial.html

Arguments in favour of allowing women into all positions in the ADF
1. Women are already serving in combat positions in the ADF
It has been claimed that allowing suitable women into all positions in the armed forces would only require a small change as they can access the vast majority of roles and positions already.
Defence Personnel Minister Greg Combet has noted that 92 per cent of jobs within the ADF are already available to women and several have served in deployments in Afghanistan, Iraq and East Timor. Women now make up around 13 per cent of ADF personnel.
Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James has claimed that women are already on the frontline.
Mr James has stated, 'If it is a job that requires you to kill enemy male soldiers day in, day out, every day, women are forbidden from doing it. If it is a job that requires you to kill enemy soldiers occasionally, women can do it.'
It has also been stated that the distinction between full scale combat positions and the work women are currently performing is often a very minor one. The Tasmanian Mercury, in an editorial published on September 12, 2009, stated, 'In the war in Afghanistan, where front lines as such rarely exist, effectively women are there already. Those in combat support roles, such as medics, have to go on patrol in possibly hostile areas, dressed in flak jackets and carrying weapons, along with the rest of the troops.'
It has been claimed that in most areas of combat, the enemy doesn't distinguish between male and female soldiers. A1st brigade commander Brigadier Mick Krause has stated, 'There are no fronts and flanks. Every soldier in any area of operations is likely to be targeted.'
Trying to restrict women to defensive positions to avoid the risk of combat is ineffective in protecting women from the dangers of war. As of February 12, 2007, seventy-five U.S. military women had been killed in action in Iraq and Afghanistan, and two had been captured as Prisoners of War. As of December 2, 2006, more than 430 women had been wounded in battle. The United States military is now training all troops in basic combat skills, since recent war experiences indicate that anyone can find himself or herself in close combat, regardless of whether they are specifically assigned to 'combat' or 'combat support' units.

2. In other countries, women have served in front line combat positions in the past and are doing so now
It has been claimed that women have successfully fought for their countries in front line combat positions in the past. One country frequently cited in this context is the Soviet Union during World War II. 800,000 women served in the Soviet military during World War II, of which nearly 70% saw front line action.
In 1950 during the Korean War, the Women's Army Corp was created. In 1951, the People's Republic of China began recruiting female military pilots. Bdtween 1953 and 1959 Cuban women fought in the Cuban Revolution lead by Celia Sanchez Mandulay, among them Hayd‚e Santamaria. Between 1958 and 1960, the Tibetan Buddhist nun Ani Pachen leds her clan in armed rebellion against the Chinese. In 1971, Taramon Bibi fought Pakistan during the Bangladesh Liberation War. In 1979, Nora Astorga acted a guerilla fighter in the Nicaraguan Revolution. Between 1986 and 1987, Alice Auma led a rebellion against the Ugandan government forces. On January 1, 1994, Comandante Ramona, an officer of Zapatista Army of National Liberation, took control of San Crist¢bal de las Casas, a Mexican city.
It has also been noted that an increasing number of Western democracies are allowing women into full active combat positions. Countries that allow this include New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Norway, Israel, Sweden and Switzerland. Other nations allow female soldiers to serve in certain Combat Arms positions, such as the United Kingdom, which allows women to serve in Artillery roles, while still excluding them from units with a dedicated Infantry role.

3. Women will only be assigned front-line combat positions if they have passed tests showing they are physically able to do so
The Defence Science and Personnel Minister, Greg Combet, has stated that the Defence Science and Technology Organisation and Wollongong University in NSW is currently developing a set of 'physical employment standards' and evaluating the inventory of jobs in all defence arms.
Mr Combet has further stated, 'What it will enable is the evaluation on the basis of an objective set of physical criteria, people's capacity to undertake particular occupational roles and positions.'
The new tests may open up the opportunity for women to participate in all defence force roles, including frontline combat.
The new tests will involve a series of complex tests simulating combat situations. The chief Defence scientist Robert Clark has stated, 'Women were capable of passing the tests.
It's a potential replacement for what's going on at the moment. That is a basic fitness assessment which is how fast you can do a 2.4km run and how many push-ups and sit-ups you can do which is based on age and various factors.
The new test doesn't take age or gender into account at all, you're able to do the job or not in this particular employment protocol.'
The new tests will involve four tests measuring strength, aerobic capacity, endurance, power and speed and include carrying weights and body armour over distances. Any woman who can pass these tests will be considered fit to perform in those positions, including front-line combat positions for which the tests indicate fitness.
Professor Clark has stated, 'We are looking at how to objectively have physical standards that accurately measure a person's ability to perform a variety of jobs that make up a modern Australian Defence Force.'
It has been argued that while many men possess the physical strength and stamina to be in 'ground combat' positions, many other men do not. Men should not be deemed qualified for physical demands of combat positions on the basis of their gender and women who possess the requisite physical strength and stamina should not be excluded from combat assignments on the basis of their gender.
Instead, eligibility should turn on whether the recruit - male or female - meets the physical qualifications for the job. Again, physical qualification is currently based on whether the recruit can complete the initial training for the assigned specialty.
A gender-neutral policy would allow the most capable force to be assembled. All potential recruits would be screened as individuals, rather than by eliminating one group of potential recruits solely on the basis of a stereotype or generalisation. Military effectiveness, and not gender, would be the sole criteria for assignment policies.

4. Women combatants may have personal qualities which would be useful in contemporary warfare
It has been claimed that where warfare involves winning and retaining the support of civilian populations, women may have qualities such as a greater capacity for empathy which could be an advantage.
An editorial published on September 12, 2009, in the Tasmanian Mercury stated, 'Besides, women could bring different perspectives and talents to the job. Most combat troops are not engaged in set-piece battles between conventional armies any more. Much of their work involves dealing with insurgents who live among civilian populations.
Soldiers have to handle the delicate business of winning the hearts and minds of local people. Having women in this situation could be very helpful, especially if the troops are dealing with civilian women.'
All personnel wearing in the armed forces must have some basic level of physical strength to ensure they can defend themselves in battle. However, it has been claimed, a capable combat soldier must possess more than just physical strength. Skill, motivation, and a fighting spirit are also crucial for the military personnel, and all of these characteristics are gender-blind.
Recently United States Army and Marine leadership have been emphasizing additional crucial traits like judgment, discipline, restraint, and intellect.
Former Marine Corps Commandant General Charles Krulak has written about the 'strategic corporal' who has to be ready to fight a three-block war. On any given day, in any contingency, that corporal may be dealing with hostile acts on one block, intervening to prevent conflict on another block, and providing humanitarian assistance on the third block.

5. Allowing women into front-line combat positions would improve recruitment
It has been claimed that allowing women into combat positions would improve the recruitment of women into the armed forces.
The Defence Science and Personnel Minister, Greg Combet, has stated, 'A priority of the government is to improve the recruitment and retention of women in the ADF.
My own view is that all categories should be open to women. The only exceptions should be where the physical demands cannot be met according to criteria that are determined on the basis of scientific analysis, rather than assumptions about gender.'
Mr Combet has also indicated that the adoption of new employment standards would also help guide recruits to occupations for which they were most physically suited and could also potentially facilitate access to occupations traditionally closed to particular groups on the basis of 'task physical readiness'.

Arguments against allowing women into all positions in the ADF
1. Women are physiologically unsuited to front line combat positions
It has been claimed that women are on average less physically strong then men and have less stamina. The United States Center for Military Readiness has stated that 'Female soldiers ... are, on average, shorter and smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance'. These facts, it is argued, should preclude women from front line active combat.
Further, health issues associated with menstruation and reproductive health are argued as one of the main reasons why the vast majority of submarine services do not accept women, although mixed-gender accommodation in a small space is also an issue.
It has been suggested that apart from the issue of physical strength, front line combat would place women at greater risk than it would men. Ian McPhedran, in an opinion piece published in The Daily Telegraph on September 10, 2009, has stated, 'Given that women are exposed to a whole different set of physiological risks to men, it is unlikely that an individual woman would be able to override Defence's duty of care when her long-term health, in particular reproductive health, might be at risk - making the Commonwealth potentially liable.'
British Military author and former soldier George MacDonald Fraser has argued forcefully against women being in front line combat positions in the British armed forces on the basis of their physical unfitness.
MacDonald Fraser has stated, 'Someone is plainly intent on wrecking the British Army. The recent suggestion that women might serve as front-line infantry is only the latest attempt to undermine its morale and efficiency, and is too wicked and cowardly to be written off as mere politically-correct stupidity. Women have not the strength, endurance or brutality for the job and every experienced officer knows it. The idea of a female teenager fighting hand-to-hand with a Panzer Grenadier or a Japanese White Tiger (or a Royal Marine) is ludicrous ... A woman's presence would cost lives ...'
Federal Liberal backbencher and former army officer, Stuart Roberts, has stated, 'It is also important to understand the physical exertions required in serving in combat manoeuvre units. Considering a 155mm Howitzer shell weighs 43kg, women in artillery will have to lift and carry these rounds during sustained fire missions where the rate of fire is fundamental. Anecdotal evidence from Canada where women can serve in self propelled artillery units indicates that some women are not physically able to keep up with the men in loading the artillery pieces, causing resentment and extra work for the male team members.
Women in the Infantry will have to carry packs up to and over 50kg across distances up to 50km in difficult terrain with little sleep, only to dig a fighting pit in rocky ground at the end of the march. Acceptance into the SAS and Commandos will require not only surviving but excelling in the Special Forces selection course that up to 80% of males who attempt, fail to complete.
All of this is required even though women have 50% less upper body strength, 30% less aerobic capacity which is essential for endurance and up to 40% less muscle mass.'
Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James has stated, 'It's a simple physicality thing. On the battlefield, academic gender equity theory doesn't apply. The laws of physics and biomechanics apply.'

2. Women are not psychologically suited to front-line armed combat
It has been claimed that a majority of women would be psychologically unsuited to front-line combat. This claim has been made with particular regard to the level of aggression that would be required.
The federal Opposition's Defence spokesperson, Bob Baldwin, has claimed that the psychological aspects of battle made the frontline unsuitable for women.
Mr Baldwin has stated,''The coalition believes in the equality of opportunity for women in the defence force. The coalition, however, doesn't agree with the placement of women into forces such as the SAS, clearance divers, commandos or frontline combat engineers.'
This view is supported by an editorial published in The National Observer in June, 2001. The editorial stated, 'The psychological fitness of women for front line combat has, it appears, been exaggerated. For those who are prepared to examine the matter scientifically, and not on a prejudiced basis, it is clear that men and women have very different levels of aggression. These differences are inherent and have a hormonal basis. Men, despite their more aggressive dispositions, often have difficulty in bringing themselves to shoot or bayonet individual enemy troops. It may be expected that this reluctance would be magnified greatly in the case of a normal woman. Further, the extreme trauma and brutality of close physical combat would impose a strain that one would not expect a normal woman to bear. Indeed, it is hardly going too far to say that if a particular woman showed a desire to kill men (or women) at close quarters, one would have severe doubts about her psychological balance, in view of the general characteristics of her sex.'
The same National Observer editorial also stated, 'One of the characteristics of the human race is for men to protect their dependent women and children. It appears that this characteristic is not merely cultural; rather it is now innate, having developed over at least many hundreds of thousands of years. Is this now to be abandoned? Is it really appropriate that young women (who are, and whose children are, properly the principal objects for protection in danger) should be put deliberately into positions of great physical danger and psychological stress? What should be said of a civilisation which adopts this course?'

3. Women in front line combat positions could damage morale
The disruption of a combat unit's morale is sometimes cited as a reason for women to be banned from front-line combat situations. Some soldiers have stated that they could not trust a woman to perform her duties in a critical situation relying on physical strength and a readiness to kill.
There is an additional concern that romantic relationships between men and women on the front lines could disrupt a unit's fighting capability. In front line combat situations group loyalty is very important. It has been argued that relationships between individual men and women could undermine this group loyalty.
It has also been claimed that females in front line combat positions could distract male personnel in other ways. Male personnel may feel protective of female fighting personnel and be unwilling to allow them to take equal risks. Were such behaviour to occur it would place male personnel at unacceptable risk.
Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James has claimed there is evidence that male soldiers are overly protective of women in the battlefield, which is a distraction from the task
The Israeli Defence Force [IDF] has claimed that male military personnel may become extremely distressed if female personnel are wounded in battle. The IDF claimed to have observed a complete loss of control over soldiers who apparently experienced an uncontrollable, protective, instinctual aggression when female personnel were attacked.

4. The majority of other nations do not allow women into all positions in their armed forces
It has been claimed that most countries in the world do not use women in all positions within their armed forces. The implication is that if other countries have reservations about doing so, Australia would be unwise to act in this manner.
Liberal backbencher and former infantry officer Stuart Robert has noted, 'My concern is that really only Israel and a handful of countries whose very existence is threatened have gone down this path - the rest of the Western world hasn't.'
In an editorial published in The Australian on September10, 2009, it was stated, 'Most countries continue to debate the issue, with only a handful (including New Zealand and Canada) allowing women in most combat roles. Even in Israel, where both sexes are drafted, it was only in the mid-1990s that combat roles were opened to women, most of whom continue to serve in combat support and light combat roles.'

5. Public opinion in Australia and elsewhere does not appear to support women in all front line combat positions
It has been claimed that placing women in all front line positions in the ADF would be premature as it is in advance of popular opinion. Indeed it has been claimed that a majority of Australian voters does not support women being put in such roles.
The Opposition's Defence personnel spokesperson, Bob Baldwin, has claimed there is no public interest or demand for women to be given more combat roles.
Mr Baldwin has stated, 'Whether women should be on the frontline ... is a question that is yet to be resolved, [but] I don't think that public opinion in Australia is ready to support that at this stage, and neither is the Coalition.'
It has also been suggested that the public would be likely to react very adversely if Australian female military personnel fighting overseas were to be killed in equal or greater numbers than male personnel. Australian Defence Association executive director Neil James has stated, 'I don't think the people of Australia would like to see their daughters, sisters, wives or female friends killed in disproportionate numbers to male service personnel.'
Surveys in the United States suggest that only a bare majority approves of women in combat positions while a substantial majority favour women in non-combat positions. Women in the U.S. military currently are prohibited from joining combat units. According to a new CBS News/New York Times poll just 53 percent support women in combat roles, while an overwhelming majority of Americans (83 percent) are in favor of women serving as support for ground troops in such capacities as military police, medics and Humvee drivers.
Both men (53 percent) and women (53 percent) favor an expanded role for women in the military, but just 44 percent of women age 45 and older support it, compared to 62 percent of younger women.
It has also been claimed that a country's citizens may be much less likely to support the continuance of a war if female military personnel are being killed or captured. Ian McPhedran, writing for The Daily Telegraph, on September 10, 2009, has stated, 'Images of a woman soldier or flyer being degraded or abused would have a major negative public relations impact.
Perhaps it shouldn't, considering that a female soldier faces the same risks entering combat as do her male counterparts. Nevertheless, there is a stronger emotional response to the idea of a woman in trouble on the battlefield.'

Further implications
There appears to be something curiously misplaced about those arguments that seek to exclude women from front-line direct combat positions on the basis of seeking to protect them from the rigors of war.
As non-combatants women already suffer greatly in war. Given the extent to which warfare now involves civilian populations women are currently dying in significant numbers in such conflicts. In 2006, in Iraq, some 23,000 civilians were killed. In 2007 the figure was approximately 25,000. The total number of civilian deaths in Iraq since 2003 is approximately 100,000. It seems reasonable to assume that some half this figure were women.
Australia, however, has never been directly invaded and so has had negligible opportunity to become inured to the horror of collateral deaths in war, let alone warfare directly and deliberately inflicted on civilian populations.
Paradoxically, it may be for this reason that the Australian government and the Australian armed forces appear to support making direct combat front-line positions available to women. War, for most Australians, seems a long way off and involves fighting in another's country. This is perhaps why ADF recruitment advertisements often promote military training as a career opportunity.
If Australia does make such front-line positions available to women the opportunity is likely to be taken up by only a very small number. Currently only some 13 percent (or one in eight) of Australia's armed forces are women. Even if front-line positions are made available to women and, as a result, the number of female recruits increases, it seems it would be unlikely to rise to more than one in five.
In Canada, where front-line combat positions are available to women, the policy change has not resulted in an increase in the number of women in the Canadian armed forces. By the time a rigorous physical selection test were applied to Australian women seeking to serve in front-line combat positions, the number selected would probably be no more than one in twenty of the women applying.
It would be interesting to know if those who support making front-line positions available to women would also support their conscription. The answer is probably 'no', as many who support women on the front-line do so using the language of rights. Conscription is an obligation or an imposition, not a right. Women, it appears, should only to able to fight on the front-line if they chose to do so and then are found suitable.
Greg Combet has said it would be several years before women were eligible for military roles, as recruitment and physical employment standards necessary for selection were still being developed.
Australia has around 1,550 troops in Afghanistan, based mainly in southern Oruzgan province, and is the largest non-NATO contributor to international forces battling the Taliban. But the country's 53,000-strong military faces serious recruiting shortages with soldiers stretched from East Timor to Iraq, Afghanistan and the restive Solomon Islands. Even a small increase in personnel due to amking front-line positions available to women may help to alleviate this shortage.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
These items will be added as soon as they have been vetted.