As Americans prepare to select their political leaders, closer attention needs to be paid to another impending decision that also could have far-reaching, long-term consequences.
Early next week, the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces is scheduled to vote on whether to allow women in combat. Though the vote will not be binding, both President Bush and Democratic challenger Bill Clinton have promised to seriously consider implementing the commission's recommendations.At this point, the commission seems to be on the verge of trying to execute a delicate balancing act. Eight of its 15 members are said to be against putting women in ground combat units. But the panel is expected to recommend that women be permitted to fly warplanes and perhaps serve aboard combat ships.
Whatever is finally decided by the panel and the White House, it can't be expected to end the controversy over this issue. That should be clear from the conflicting and often emotional testimony the commission received while conducting eight months of hearings.
For every fervent plea to allow women in combat, there have been angry denunciations from those vehemently opposed to putting women on the front lines, aboard warships or in the cockpits of warplanes.
On one point, most witnesses agreed: Women are, indeed, weaker than men. But the witnesses deeply disagreed over how much that matters to the outcome of battle and, consequently, to national security.
A decision this important should be made strictly on the basis of facts, not on the basis of emotions or social and political agendas.
One fact is that as warfare has become increasingly mechanized, the line between those who fight and those who don't has become increasingly blurred. During the Persian Gulf War, American women flew transport helicopters alongside attack choppers over Iraq, drove fuel trucks over the sand berms into Kuwait and performed admirably. But without formal combat assignments, the advocates argue, women's promotion up the ranks will be hampered.
Another and more compelling fact comes from a survey conducted by the presidential panel, which questioned members of the armed forces who served during Operation Desert Storm. Two of every three such personnel said there was sexual activity between male and female troops during the war. More than half said it hurt morale. A third said it hurt military effectiveness.
This unhappy situation suggests that the presidential panel should be given a new assignment. Instead of deciding whether or not women should go into combat, the commission should look for a middle ground. Can't we find ways to use and reward the skill and intellect of women in the military without requiring them to bomb and bayonet?