ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1997, Roanoke Times
DATE: Monday, February 17, 1997 TAG: 9702170071
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-5 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ROBERT L. MAGINNIS
A FEB. 3 Senate hearing gives hope to those who know that, while mixing the sexes in military training might be good politics, it's bad for military readiness, and will provide the seed-bed for more sexual harassment. It's time for Congress to revisit the politically charged issue of women in the military.
``We ought to question whether or not we may be pushing in a direction that is simply not productive,'' said Sen. Charles Robb, D-Va., before the Senate hearing examining sexual harassment in the Army.
Robb and most Americans dislike what is happening, but the problems were inevitable. The armed forces are being used to advance equal opportunity for women while ignoring the realities of training for war and the powerful influence of sex.
There are three aspects of these sex-related issues that need immediate attention. 1) There is real abuse, which must be punished. 2) There are cases when women use sex as a weapon against male soldiers; this undermines mutual trust. 3) The deleterious effect of sex mixing on training standards in high-stress military units has reduced combat readiness.
The military must never tolerate sexual misconduct. If the Army's top enlisted soldiers and drill sergeants at Aberdeen Proving Grounds are guilty of misconduct as alleged, they must be punished. Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, properly described the problem as ``abuse of power and sexual misconduct,'' and it must be eliminated.
Snowe is right, but she misses the underlying problem. Few military leaders condone misconduct. Those who do shame the profession. But Congress must decide whether the current flurry of allegations are symptoms of a more fundamental issue - a misguided policy concerning women in the military.
Mixing the sexes in the military started in 1975 with the mandated admission of women to service academies. Rep. Sam Stratton argued, ``The sole issue is a simple matter of equality.''
Under pressure, the academies transitioned from preparing men for leadership in combat to promoting ``simple equality.'' This approach spread to all the services with little opposition and was the first shot in the effort to gender-norm the military.
Since 1975, Congress has been virtually silent on the issue. It refused to hear recommendations of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, repealed the statutory restrictions on female assignments, and watched as the Clinton administration opened one-quarter million combat slots to women.
During the 1970s, unisex basic training spread throughout the service. The Army tested gender-integrated basic training and deemed it a failure.
Capt. Rick Neumann, commanding an integrated unit in the late 1970s, concluded that women could not physically keep up with men. He also discovered many sexual liaisons, some involving drill sergeants whose sexual relationships with trainees resulted in favoritism and a breakdown in unit morale.
Retired Army Col. Bill Hyde commanded a unisex basic-training battalion in 1979 at Fort Jackson. He found that female trainees made the drill sergeant's job almost impossible. Some women made uncorroborated accusations of sexual harassment, and the drill sergeants were often presumed guilty until proved otherwise.
Army integrated basic training stopped in 1981, but resumed in 1994 with reduced emphasis on tough physical requirements and increased emphasis on cognitive skills. Today, only the Marine Corps separates the sexes during basic training.
Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind., told the Senate committee: ``You lock up this [Senate] building for six months, and even the most virtuous among us will probably face some temptations I mean, hormones are at their peak [among young soldiers]. Twenty-four-[hour]-a-day close confinement creates high stress ... [and] makes the job more difficult, not less difficult.''
``Many people believe that's [putting young women under the total control of male drill sergeants] an inherent conflict,'' said Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa.
He argues that it is like putting a match near ``gunpowder and expecting a spark not to fly.''
Gen. Dennis Reimer, the Army chief of staff, agrees. Reimer told the committee that we have to look again at mixed-gender training to determine ``what is better for the U.S. Army.'' While Reimer declared that integrated training benefited women, training for men was reported to have suffered.
The general urged Congress to separate this issue from the groundswell of sexual-harassment charges.
Rethinking integrated training is a must, but the Pentagon shouldn't stop there. The military must seriously study whether it has created an environment where a catalyst for sexual harassment and misconduct exists.
Any time healthy men and women are forced into high-stress situations for extended periods, they will have sex. The results include sexual jealousies, sex-for-favors, lowered morale and unwanted pregnancies. These are serious problems for a downsized military dependent on rapid deployability.
Marine Gunnery Sgt. Beth English reveals some sobering truths about gratuitous sex during a six-month deployment. Subordinates complained about insufficient birth-control pills to get through the deployment. She explains, ``It would be incredibly naive for anyone to believe that professionalism would win out over hormones and loneliness, especially on an extended deployment.''
Last year, the Army's Bosnian-based units sent at least 100 pregnant women home early, and everyone has heard about the Navy's ``love boats.'' Accounts of gratuitous sex and the associated consequences are part of every mixed unit's lore.
A yet-to-be-published Navy study found that most pregnancies occur among unmarried sailors, and 30 percent of women aboard ship report problems with birth control. Women complain that long and irregular work hours make the pill unreliable.
The potential for sexual relationships will continue while sexual harassment remains a two-edged sword. An Army female told the Army Times, ``Sexual harassment starts in basic training. Co-ed training does not, and cannot work.'' She is critical of her sister soldiers: ``Most females know that they can hold sexual harassment over another male soldier's head and get what they want. I have seen it so many times it makes me sick.''
An Army study group formed in the wake of the Aberdeen sex scandal will soon announce recommendations to fix the problem. Given the group's feminist leaning, we expect a status quo solution that will only add fuel to the fire by removing more combat exemptions for women, further liberalizing pregnancy rules and calling for increased mixed training.
Secretary of Defense William Cohen says that, although sexual harassment is endemic throughout our society, it cannot be accepted in military life. Few would dispute his motives. What is needed, however, is a touch of reality. The military must not be tasked to solve a problem that hasn't been solved in the general culture.
The military exists to fight the nation's battles.
Hardened warriors must not become supervisors of vulnerable teen-age women. The mission is defense and not, as Sam Stratton said, ``equal opportunity.''
The armed services are not a laboratory for social experimentation. Congress must examine the facts: There is real abuse; sex as a weapon is a two-way street; and mixing the sexes hurts readiness.
Robert L. Maginnis, who retired from the Army as a lieutenant colonel, is director of the Military Readiness Project for the Family Research Council in Washington, D.C. He last served as a Pentagon inspector general investigating sexual-harassment cases.
- Knight-Ridder/Tribune
LENGTH: Long : 134 lines ILLUSTRATION: GRAPHIC: Kevin Kreneck/LATimesby CNB