Challenges related to the militarys decision to allow women in combat units. This is about an hour and 15 minutes. Welcome to everyone. My name is mack owens. , anffer full master degrees executive and professional masters as well. In addition, we have 18 certificates. We are very happy to cosponsor this event. Very important topic, we have a great speaker who has done a great deal of work in this area. It is a topical topic. Butundancy department anyway, as i say, we are cosponsoring this with the center for military and , and mark,history why did she say a couple of words and i will introduce our moderator . Great. Owens, thehank dr. President , and katie bridges and kevin dunn hear it you have done a wonderful job organizing this event, and thanks also to lindsay and daniel of the foreignpolicy initiative. We do events on history that have relevance to todays issues. We have been hosting one event per week since we were formed nine months ago, and we particularly like to bring in people who have not necessarily been heard inside the beltway. Sure is a tendency, as im you know, to recycle the same speakers, and so we were able to bring in our speaker from california. Wellknown, she has not spoken publicly in d. C. Before. This is the first event we have done on the subject, certainly one i think that is very relevant to military affairs because it is not just a cultural issue, but one of military capabilities and readiness, and people on both sides of the debate contend that their policy is better in terms of maximizing u. S. Military capabilities, and we do see a lot of history involved in this withssion, comparisons things like bringing African Americans into the military or women into other parts of the military, or changing the policy on gay and lesbians service, or the history of women in actual wars, so we very much look forward to a discussion of what we have learned, what we should learn from the past, and may be what lessons in the ones to follow. So, thank you. Thank you for having us. Ok, the introductions continue. I would like to introduce the moderator today. We go back a ways working on , not alwaysn tandem together, but for the most part we have been taking this issue very seriously for a very long time. She is the founder and president of the center for military readiness, an independent, nonpartisan Public Policy organization that focuses on military readiness and social issues, social issues within the military. On the Defense Advisory Committee on women in probably morend importantly the president ial commission on the assignment of women in the armed forces. She has provided testimony to congress to my published articles on military personnel issues in a variety of i thinkions, and probably the most important when she did was the one she did for the duke law review, which laid out the legal issues that was in response to an article by madeline morris. She went to the university of detroit and lives in michigan, so now she will introduce our speaker. Mack owens and i do go way back. The last time a story in person was at the Naval War College when you were a professor there and i was therefore a seminar. I have always said my did your writings and articles about issues involving women in the military. I want to thank dr. Moyer for sponsoring this program and the institute of World Politics for hosting us today. I have also been a longtime on issues dr. Simons involving women in the military. She has been chronicling the sweep of history right from the decades ago. Back in fact, i have a note from her in 1997. We were corresponding because of a book she wrote. The first meeting of its kind at a crucial time of change in the armed forces. This is perhaps the first opportunity that we will have to take stock and figure out where are we going with this. Is this a good idea or is it not . Professor simons earned her phd in social anthropology at harvard university. It is an honor to introduce her, because since then, she has been in the field of academia and im sure teaching many students common sense as well as everything she knows in the field of anthropology. Since 2007, she has been teaching at the Naval Postgraduate School in monterey, california, and prior to that, professor simons was an associate professor of anthropology at ucla and a visiting instructor in anthropology at duke university. In 2011, she cowrote a common sense approach to global security. She has conducted Field Research in somalia, fort bragg, and she wrote a book called networks of dissolution in 1995. Troubleis still a point. Her list of scholarly articles is six pages long, but she has been in all the major publications, new york times, washington post, boston globe, and the african news. I found it interesting that before she entered academia, she was involved in politics for a while as an assistant to the governor of arizona and an assistant speechwriter for president jimmy carter. I first became aware of her when she wrote her book, the company they keep, life inside the u. S. Army special forces. Her husband is a retired special forces officer, but that was not the only reason she wrote about this. She applied what she knew about anthropology to analyze that very special culture of special operations. In that, we have something in common because i am a civilian, but i have such enormous respect for the culture of people who serve, the rough men who defend our country. I think their interests, everything they believe, needs to be given more study and more awareness, and that is why we are here tonight. She has brought insight into the community of war years, so the funny thing is that there are some people who comment, social justice roy years, but they dont know anything about what real lawyers do. Dr. Simon does. I think the reality of civilian control of the military puts on all of us, civilian or former military, we all have a responsibility to watch what happens to the military. They are there to defend us, and we need to be there for them to defend them, and with great pleasure, here is dr. Professor simon. [applause] a go backd just ask to california now so as not to disappoint anyone after that introduction. And fpi forank iwm hosting. I think i want to thank mark. I say i think because while i have written on this topic often on for the past 20 years, publicly speaking out is always fraught, and i would say if anyone in the room knows of anyone who is a young, aspiring graduate student in psychology, there is probably no better topic to focus on than white people respond so emotionally to the issue of women in combat units. I am going to try to stay dispassionate and be provocative, because that is my pedagogical duty as i discuss what has been missing from the debate. I have to do the necessary disclaimer, im not speaking on the Naval Postgraduate School or any other entity or dod. If my views were dods views, there would be no debate, but of course meanwhile, others in ine andm like ela other invitees have encyclopedic knowledge about the beltway history of this issue, and i know others have inside knowledge of the physiological reality of trying to meet certain physical standards. Im going to defer to them during question and answer or about injuryn rates, readiness challenges, and so on. As for the questions i want to raise, they have not gone unasked, so much as they have remained unanswered. Proponents of women in combat units, those who successfully lobbied for lifting the combat have done an masterful job of putting opponents on the defensive to just the fact i can use these two words come opponents and proponents, signifies who has the political upper hand. Panetta was brilliant when he declared that all Ground Combat units would be open to women in january 2016 and less the Service Chiefs could justify which specific units should remain closed by putting the onus on the Service Chiefs and civilian secretaries to defend the status quo. He essentially sandbagged any mail and uniform who could only been sound like a chauvinist or dinosaur if he argued for Ground Combat units staying all male. Those who favored injecting women into Ground Combat units have also long engaged in clever sleight of hand i. E. Equating women serving in combat with women serving in combat units. Only misogynist dow womens capacity for courage under fire. Combat is not the issue. Combat units are. Indeed. I dont know anyone who is more anxious for qualified women to be able to work with them on certain kinds of missions than special operators come up with some might say comprise the ultimate boys club, from operators perspective, women are already a critical asset for intelligence work, reconnaissance, and certain other sensitive missions. Operators concerned, which should be our concern, is how would womens presence help them close with and destroy the enemy more effectively. It cant and wont unless you believe has some proponents do that women links sufficiently differently from man and that without them, combat units are missing womens unique approach. I will come back to this momentarily. First though, lets review why we have combat units in the first place. And why we should want them to be singlemindedly lethal and as focused as possible. Units thatr military are responsible for handling logistics, communications, intelligence, and other functions, Ground Combat units exist to take the fight to the enemy and kill or destroyed more of them and they can kill of us, no matter how long it takes. Casualties, that is what the enemy seeks to inflict. Attrition is why combat units have to be predicated on interchangeability. When someone is wounded or killed, someone else needs to be place. Take their interchangeability brings me back to the idea that because women dont think like men, they add value, but if that is the case, then women and men are not easily interchangeable, are they . Beemale casualty could only replaced by another female, which resents the gist other challenges. So which is it . Think men and women do alike and are interchangeable as long as they meet the same physical standards, in which case, why at women . Or if men and women do not respond to situations similarly and dont think alike and are imminently excuse me, dont think alike, well then what does injecting females and two small 1012 men groups due to cohesion . Haveion, that is a term i come to despair of thanks to what academics have done to it. Intomics have split it social cohesion, which is how much people like each other, and cohesion, is asked which refers to soldiers ability to do a job regardless of interpersonal differences and dislikes. , academics have argued that the only kind of cohesion that military units is task cohesion. It no longer haul, requires individuals have anything more than the mission in common, yet has anyone asked combat units or the Sergeant Major who oversees them how they would define cohesion, or whether academics might have gotten this wrong . Though even more significantly and what academics dont tackle ecksll is, what wr cohesion . The Services Commission and command on gender integration did not delve into this. Maybe that is because all sinned tint adults know what can wreck cohesion, but if you dont seek it, you dont have to find it. Men and women have been each others most consistent distraction since the beginning of time. To pretend there want be problems when young men and women are thrown together for prolonged periods in emotionally intense situations, College Campuses anyone, defies common sense. It also defies biology. There is a darwinists truism, malemail competition and female choice, history or literature, s interest in women, and womens interest in men being interested creates rivalry, jealousy, favoritism, suspicion, distrust, and friction. Why would we want to inject any of this into combat units . In thents of course say thick of combat, no one is thinking about sex or gender. Ok, that is true, but this is also a classic red herring argument. The potential for trouble lurks after or before the bullets are flying. Around soldiers when they are coming down from adrenaline highs, depressed, upset, board or frustrated they are prone to all sorts of temptations. Twoherring argument number is that men voiced the same objections about blacks and gays and got over those objections. They will get over the excepttion of women too, attraction between the sexes is different from racism or bigotry the oppositet is end of the interestdisinterest or likedislike spectrum. Number three is that numerous allies have opened Ground Combat units to women, so weshould to, but why sh should ask if they done so. One reason is to model social justice. They are quite explicit about this, which of course they can well afford to be. Why . Because who in the end will come to their rescue . Disrespect, but few allies can get anywhere without our logistical help, combataving our ground units is the only thin line between us and harm, so how will injecting women into their midst make them more lethal in combat, and why havent proponents been made to answer this . Or maybe advocates here would tell us that our Ground Combat units likely to serve purposes other than combat as well. For instance, maybe they need to beyond excelling at fighting and need to exemplify social justice or equity, but if equity is what proponents care about, then why dont they lobby for a draft and universal service . Or for those who invoke patriotism, a love of country, and womens desire to defend the United States in the same way men do, why dont they argue for allfemale units . Or for those concerned about career advancement, which does traditionally favor combat officers, why not challenge the Promotion System overall, since anyone come a male or female, who is not in a Ground Combat unit must be similarly disadvantaged and although here is where more Research Needs to be done. Are there positions that could prepare woman to compete for a shot at being able to be a wartime Combatant Commander without her having to lead an infantry squad, a platoon come or special forces team first . Could a woman do other jobs and still be able to lead an infantry battalion, brigade, or division . Gs with a say need to be climbed . Maybe there are several ways to finesse the issue of getting more women into senior attorney command positions without having to alter the makeup of ground cop units Ground Combat units. Is it perceivable that women would have what is needed without having been a grunt first . Maybe she does not have their speed, strength, and stamina, but if she proves smarter, why not . If this is one area of research, a second involves data that already exists. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent on studies, but what about systematically analyzing what is in the records . For obvious reasons to do with and political sensitivities, neither the army or marine corps will voluntarily air their dirty laundry, but how many hours have been lost to investigation and disciplinary actions relating to fraternization, sexual assault, and or allegations of these and other gender related issues when men and women have been colocated . Publicly everyone says glowing things about combat support and female engagement teams, and some officers i know are deeply grateful they were sent american women who could search and interact with afghan women. Their teams expense no problems with american women who along to either combat support teams or female engagement teams, living on their fireplaces, but some teams were torn apart. How many . Where is the data . And why isnt this considered relevant . Of course read the studies and they acknowledge between the lines that looking too closely in this direction would prove devastating. Why . Because one conclusion reached prior to the lifting of the ban is that men and women should really be trained together. You should not just thrust them together downrange. When they trained together, that and become protective of rather than predatory on one another, which is interesting, especially since once again the very real prospect of attrition is being ignored, but say one of these units that had bonded thanks to training together takes a gender casualty . Then what . Does the whole unit need to be pulled out so it can be retrained together . The question is if training together from the outset is so critical, does that mean when there is attrition . For anyone not familiar with them, and as i hope i am making clear, combat units have no civilian analog. No other entities are designed to be sent into harms way for such an definite periods of time in order to inflict harm. Wildfire firefighters might come closest in terms of having to unstable similarly 24 7 environment, but every job you might think is comparable to combat involves shiftwork. Only to go home, but get a break from one another. They can decompress and regroup apart. Not so in Ground Combat units, although then people say, what , surely theyuts are stuck together and have to get along . To which my first one word response is, attrition, attrition and interchangeability challenges once astronauts are in space . My second one word response is aggressiveness. Even if we forget all the other differences between astronauts and combat soldiers in terms of age, presumed maturity levels, and the extensive screening astronauts receive, nasa does not need testosteronefilled fighters. Ground combat units do, but what else is associated with testosterone . According to what advertisers keep imparting as with if you watch tv at all, with test also run comes a heightened interest in sex. Maybe that is marketing spend. In all seriousness, for all of the attention that has been paid to cortisol, and whether men and women handle stress similarly, what about testosterone . If they havent canvassed the literature, why havent they . Doneng from these studies preparatory to all crown combats to women and what has been avoided thus far doesnt suggest but confirms this topic has been too politicized for too long. The research is incomplete. At best, these studies done are insufficient. At worst, they have been biased. If, as seems to be the cased, we era where social science is led to trump common sense, social scientists should be more thorough, which means they need to be sent back to the drawing board on this topic. [applause] we have plenty of time for question and answer. You have made some really provocative statements. I appreciate it. A couple that come to mind. Been made thats we need women in the special Operations Forces because that would make them smarter. Women have more degrees and graduate degrees. This would increase the quality of special Operations Forces. This was stated in a recent special Operations Forces briefing. I have a printout that someone in the army sent to me. I will also show this out too. Myth, it saysgory it is a myth that women are physically incapable of handling the rigors of combat arms, even though the overwhelming Scientific Evidence gathered by the university of pittsburgh showed that eating in 65 of tests, the next gender groups could not next gender mixed gender groups. They say it is a myth that women will be a distraction. What is this photo sharing thing about . Women will destroy cohesion and bonding. Thank you for explaining that it is about survival and trust. Whoever wrote this slide apparently does not understand that. Unqualified women will be pushed into combat arms to satisfy political requirements. What are all of these quotas about . We hear about 25 . Some of the leading advocates have said we need a Critical Mass of 33 . What is going on . You have touched on it with all of the social science taking precedence over common sense. This stuff is official policy now. The military is being asked to believe it. What is your comment . Ms. Simmons Political Correctness for quite some time has run amok. The people that should be most courageous because they have multiple stars on their shoulders, over the past decade or so have been leased least courageous in terms of drilling down on this question in terms of what is that will help make, that units more lethal and more effective. Instead they are thrown on the defensive continuously. Consequence will do things like what you just showed everybody in terms of mass production sensitivity training that itself does not create both cognitive dissonance and those that understand fully what reality is, that are being told Something Different on the screen, which begins to erode trust in Senior Leadership for making them sit through briefing after briefing in sensitivity training when there are more important things people have to do. I have served two heres an activeduty. The biggest lie is that this has become an equal opportunity issue. It is a combat readiness issue. As long as women or men are pushing for a quality on the battlefield, they will find out whatisis does not care gender or race you are. Women will have to fight in combat with men. They fight high. We have had to make fight on the battlefield. Knife fight on the battlefield. The second argument is that if a woman can do it, let her. Only 30 graduated from the italian. From the battalion. How many of them lost their careers . How many are injured or disabled . I want to see the attrition rate. When i was on active duty, i have seen women injured and disabled unable to reenlist. When the cost for these women start skyrocketing. The the vad released the stats, we would see that women pay the higher price with this ideology. We are killing women. We are disabling women. That is all that i wanted to ad d. You to speak to the broader point. There is a ton of data. The data has not been released, or people have disingenuously chosen not to present that data. View of a very slanted not only what is appropriate, but there is a slanted view in terms of what the public understands. When it comes to women making it through Ranger School, or the first graduate from any number of courses. You,ld totally agree with in terms that people need to speak up far more often, than ending that data be released. Demanding that data be released. I can tell you that the women that made it through the listed infantry corps, half of them had to drop out because of severe injuries. A small number expressed interest in joining the infantry battalion. As of the last time i checked, there are only three, and one more just the other day. It is a myth to say that these women are not prepared for the gender integrated task force test. This is the pool from which we are drawing the first 3, then the fourth one came in separately. These women are highly qualified for their tests. Their morale was high. The women were known to be superior. That is why they were there. At the end of all of these tests, not one of those tests has showed any sign or evidence of superior performance on the part of a gender unit. Gendermixed unit. This is not a criticism of women in the military. It is frustrating that nobody seems to ask them what they think. The army did a major survey and asked if combat positions were open, would you take them . W. 5 of army women said, no ay. How are you going to get that 15 criticalness . You will need involuntary orders. Carter, after ignoring the device after ignoring the advice of the marine corps, if this is going to be on an involuntary basis, no one should have illusions about this. Options were open, marine women were asked, what would you do . 23 said they would leave. 22 of the men said the same thing. We are pressing on anyway. It is as if no one is paying attention whether this will strengthen those combat units. There is no evidence to show that it will. There is a loud evidence to show that it wont. I think part of the fact that there is a lot of resentment on the internet, which i think is something new. There is resentment welling up. And gives me no comfort to say that my organization predicted that if you try to teach men in these special Operation Forces that black is white and false is true, going to cause men to be resentful of women. Women will get the resentment that they do not deserve. These are anthropological questions, military questions. This may just be the beginning of research that needs to be done. A further response, i needed to look at the numbers. Two of our students crunched with numbers they could find. They were looking at what it means for women to be, i say, injected. Others would say integrated into special forces teams. Findused what they could in term of the armys physical fitness test scores. They crunched the numbers. If you make some very reasonable calculations, out of 76,000 694 women in the army at the time when they did this a couple years ago, maybe 145 of them would actually be able to meet score to trypft out for special forces. This raises questions because we have so politicized this issue, please grenade from the hill in terms of the scrutiny from the hill in terms of making sure. The community is rife with rumors about what was done to get the two female rangers through Ranger School. I have no idea whether the rumors are correct or not. It doesnt matter whether the rumors are correct. Defect that there are rumors the fact that there are rumors itself is problematic. Guys assuming that there were all sorts of assistance, all sorts of things that were done in order to ensure that at least one, but ideally two women would pass. Ity very well may have done totally on their own merits. I dont want to take anything away from them. The fact that there is suspicion that they didnt is very corrosive of trust, and it is very corrosive of confidence. D. O. D. Confidence in that dod has soldiereds best interest at heart. I have been a war correspondent in iraq. We are Walking Around post with a few in. We had with a female captain. We had a mortar barrage. I said, you realize you are not allowed to be here, dont you . She left. This is hypocrisy. She laughed. If you are a cook, you are infantry. Do you know what i am saying . Everybody has to carry a weapon. Was clarify what you mean. Direct compound units combat units are the ones that attack the ground. They attack the enemy. Some people in support units are subject to incidental combat or contingent combat. That is still not the same as the units that attack the enemy. Our subject today is the units that attack the enemy. I am sorry about being offtopic, but at the end of the day if you are being shot at, you are being shot at. I dont think anybody doubts the fact that women can be as or more courageous as men. There is ample historical evidence of that. Being courageous in a firefight is not a under fire difference of degree. Time, forfference in being out on your own where it is just 10 or 12 of you, and you are basically stuck. The mission is to beat the enemy. I have been around enough of them. I know they are capable. The hypocrisy is what . We are talking about this still. Which way is it going to go . We are not political footballling. We are serious about this. The official line was, no women in combat. I understand what you are saying they are not active outgoing units. The matter remains that if it is raining bombs, it is raining bombs. We know that everyone is in danger. That is a given. The marine report asking for exceptions says that if you generate integrated units, it would interfere with mission a compliment and lethality. Those are the keywords. The secretary of defense treated them like trash. He doesnt care about mission accomplishment, it is all about gender diversity metrics and quotas. That is the problem. I would like to respond to a point. If you are in a combat zone, chances are you are going to get shot at. That is one thing. When you are an infantry guy, platoon, something, when you come under fire, you turn and attack the enemy. Unit in a a transport convoy or Something Like that and you come into an area where you are under fire, the idea is to get out as quickly as possible. That is why i think the distinction is between being in a combat zone and compact unit combat unit. If you are a paratrooper, that is your job. I was an infantry guy, that is my job. The combat service support, combat engineers, all of these folks clearly come under fire. They are subject to being killed or wounded. That is not really what we are talking about. The issue is women in these combat units. I myself was in the marine corps. They did what they were supposed to do in saying, we are going to try to test this. We are going to have sexually integrated units. We will have all mail units a ll male units. We will compare their performance. Malef the time the all units did better. That is the difference between being in a combat unit and combat zone. That women in a combat unit is a good idea, read two books. One is a novel about my unit in vietnam. It was a novel called matterhorn. He is a good friend of mine. Read that book, and also read one million steps about a Marine Company that was deployed in the helmand province. You can see the difference between being in a combat zone and being in combat. The purpose of your unit is to destroy the enemy. s ebook i would suggest i would suggest is about what happened in afghanistan the outlaw platoon. The firefights they are engaged in blows away this myth that they are in danger. These guys had to go over and over and attack the enemy. I wonder how the author got back to write the book. Questions . Active and reserve infantry. I actually wrote a paper in demand 1980s in the mid1980s that women should be integrated as long as they meet the standards. When my infantry platoon in vietnam, 15 days between showers. All of the women in the army did not think that was a particularly good idea that i met. I had a classmate of mine in charge of units in 2004. He says the biggest problem was fraternization within the medical units. Am frustrated i that a reserve graduate took 180 days as a course. As a taxpayer, i had to pay her three times as much as what is normal for her to finish the course. Of my classmates sent emails about the Ranger School people. As if an activeduty guy was going to argue. You are just not going to have the numbers. When i did research in the 1980s for my paper, the canadians set out with 450 women. I think they had five graduates. It is craziness. What will happen with the 4 women that have been qualified, they will be owned by themselves. The men in their x will have to in barracks will have to give up. They will be sleeping sidebyside in twoperson tents. They will not have any mutual support. The real irony is when they are in a unit where they are supposed to compete with men, even if they were the top performers in the previous unit, they will be at the bottom of the ratings. Which is very frustrating. Why are we doing this . I respect those women who made it through ranger training. I am not impugning what they did. I understand that two are in the infantry, and all of that training went by the board. I wants to introduce someone in the audience that i think brought a fairly refreshing aspect to this. With an interview with president obama moderated by jake tapper on cnn. A captain was there as an individual. I will read exactly what she sent. Good afternoon, mr. President , a study of the marine corps revealed that next gender m ixed gender combat units suffered high rates of injury. One statistics showed that mixed units took on up to 159 longer to evacuate a casualty. This is where it gets real. As a wife of a marine who deploys to combat often, that time can mean the difference between my husband living or dying. Why would these tangible negative consequences disregarded, and how can the integration of women positively enhance the integrate the infantry women the infantry mission . The president did not really answer her question. She point is the concern of thi marine captain with a background in intelligence. It does not seem to matter. That is really a shame. Other questions . I wonder if you have considered there is something far more deeper and ominous than illogical social science or mysterious motivations. Some have said that this declaration of the fungibility of male and female is ontological anarchy. It is to deny the greatest purpose of man and a woman. I suggest that one acknowledge the objective reality of the creator almighty god, in whom all military people swear there of. Swear their oath. General talking to one whos interested that the issue was not a matter of military readiness. It is about, what kind of civilization would we like to build . This comes up in discussions very often. That while the question of to what we extent we are civilized if we allow women to winningly sacrifice themselves on behalf of the rest of us is not a question im going to answer here, though i think lots of people agree with you, because it certainly seems that they do. I should say also when it comes to questions of physical standards, i have always worried about this issue of physical standards, and whether they will be changed, when they will be changed. There will be exceptional females that are going to be able to do whatever it is that many males are able to do. The question that i have always grappled with is small unit integrity, and whether small unit integrity should be sacrificed in order to enable a few exceptional visuals to be Exceptional Individuals to be granted a separate set of rights. They may say it is an issue of equity. One of the equity questions that never gets asked there are lots of stakeholders. Dependence are stakeholders. My husband would kill me he is retired enlisted. Very proud of that fact. Insight. Little bit of nobody ever bothers to ask wives of combat soldiers or combat marines about how they would feel, and what it would do to them, and what it might do to their marriage in terms of concern and worry when there is a capable female on the team with their husband. Whether it is a rational or irrational fear, it is like these rumors about what happened in the Ranger School. Matter whethert the rumors are true, it is enough that they believe in them. Corrodes trust it trust and confidence. I would submit with all of the other data that needs to be collected, somebody needs to do a genuine survey of dependents. They dont just include wives. They include children. Studymy war college did a because the chief of staff of the army was concerned about ande repeated deployments, the fact that fathers and mothers were away. We are talking about lots of implications, lots of ramifications. We can ask profound questions about what it will do to retention. Toont doubt that lots of 18 22yearold males will still sign up. What happens when debt 15 year veteran that 15 year veteran suddenly has to contend with all sorts of gender related questions when it comes to the Ground Combat unit he is on, or the Ground Combat units he is commending. Hose additional concerns at ome are just one more reason for that family team to say, 20 years, we are done. What does that do to retaining all sorts of experience . What does that do to retaining people who have sensibilities about what it is that families worry about . Lots of implications. I totally dodged your question. Not exactly. You raised questions that have not been asked. On the subcommittee i served on about families, we did a Conference Call with about 50 submarine wifes. Submariners have a high divorce rate. It is a high stress environment. My father was a submariner. The wifes said they were not concerned about sexual issues as safety,e about distractions, and disasters happening on a submarine. The same as being in space it is that hostile of an environment. It is a big issue that needs to be discussed. Back . N the hi, it is good to see you. The Old Washington headhunter psychologist talked about the bond between mother and child. After desert storm, this photograph the man is holding the infant. She extends her arms, and the baby turns away from her. The bond was broken. That child will never trust anyone. The family dynamics, the people that push this not only dont care, but would like to break up families. If it is a woman wounded, she will either never get married, or if is married, she will be divorced. Look at what happens with women with breast cancer. I dont know. We have seen severely wounded women. It is a challenge to live a good life. I dont think it is fair to say that because their beauty is gone that they are still not beautiful people. You are absolutely right about thely separation and theories that child psychologists have. 1992, there were some studies starting. This topic has gone down memory hole. No one wants to talk about it. Instead they talk about gender diversity metrics and getting 15 , 25 in the navy. I want to add something about the former chairman of the joint chiefs of staff, martin dempsey, he said if the standard is too high and the women cant meet it, we will question the standard. Why would you question the standard . You have to make it more women friendly. You can take the toughest programs out. You can change the scoring systems. You can pass people through if they didnt pass. You can pretend that reality does not matter. The extent of it we have yet to see. I think the marines have held the line as well as they can. The was to complaint army was too compliant. They should have given support to the marine corps. They have been reporting on cnn about corruption in the military. One of the things they are reporting on is that you cant come out with dont ask, dont tell and say that you are a christian, muslim, or jew. That is leading to civilian public injustice. What can be done to combat what is going on in the civilian world with what the military is doing as far as promoting life after death in terms of crime going on in the country from a civilian perspective, but the military acting as if we can live life after death and shoved it into our reality. I think youre asking, is religious liberty being threatened by the new policy regarding lesbians and gays, bisexuals, lgbt personnel in the military . Is that your question . There are those in the military that cant come out saying i am a muslim or a jew. This has been a problem from the start. The myth that repealing the 1993 law regarding gays in the military has gone smoothly is a myth. There have been five major changes that are negative. One being the attack on religious liberty. The second is gay marriage and benefits, both of which were denied by the Obama Administration at the time. Then you have lgbt transgender is a big issue now being upheld as a Civil Rights Group with special privileges. The last one regarding agreement retention recruiting and retention will come later. On the transgender part, doctors and nurses are facing a moral dilemma. They are being ordered to do something they consider a violation of medical ethics. I have heard from two military doctors that said, how am i going to do this and teach people under me when i know you cannot by change in a sentence on a paper a woman into a man . It is the ultimate theory that is falling apart. A a lot of people will be affected. Transgender effects everybody. It is a constant problem. Social engineering is bumping up against military readiness. The military is there to defend the country, not advanced social agendas. The women surveyed. They said it is a social agenda. There is nothing to benefit or strengthen the military. I come back to what i said before. It is up to civilians to repeal the law. They need to be held accountable for the problems that they caused. Then we can see if there is some other way to proceed. Other questions . I bring 20 years of experience as an armor officer. I was in vietnam. My cav troop led what was called the cambodian incursion. Constant maneuvering and fighting one day after another. I would never want to see any woman in that because they go through pms cycles, which no one has talked about. I was told that a woman loses 50 of her strength during that cycle. We have talked about task cohesion. Task cohesion has to be built on the ability to do the task. Armor is not just driving a tank. You have to change the trackpads. You have to change road wheels. That is a load of demanding work. I cant imagine women having the ability to take up a road wheel, do all the other things, when you are under time constraints or dodging downrange. We all talk about combat. You mentioned infantry. A large part of the infantry has to be able to throw a grenade. There is a video showing a woman marine trying to throw a grenade. She threw it three or four feet in front of the sandbags. Everybody had to hit the ground. That is a physical reality that no one has addressed. Are we going to take that off of the list . That is automatically a communicator that that person is not capable of doing the job. I dont see how you get task cohesion, or people. Orhboard evacuating evacuating people. Battle is strenuous. Then you get up and go again. Plus, you are living in confined spaces. Sorry, but it is a bunch of whatever. I was not in any unit that had women other than in headquarters. Thed a friend, this was in 1970s, who commended the first air defense unit in greece at that time. Said and and he he was one of the first units with integrated women. He said it was one of the worst jobs he ever had. He said once a woman has sex with someone in a unit, everybody else gets jealous. It is a male thing. You look at all of the reports of sexual harassment. And yet here we are, pushing them together and expect that not to happen . What you just said reminded me of what an admiral told me. You introduce sexuality into the community and youll have disruption like you have never seen before. He said it is not the womens fault. The men will compete. Why are we pretending these factors dont matter . 17 of the women could not do the job. Only 1 of the men could not. 33 on a heavy task could not, the men only 1 . If your son is a navy seal or in an army battalion, what you want your son to be on an aircraft knowing that 30 of those parachutes are not going to work . Why do we elevate risks like this . It really makes no sense. I think we have two more questions before we have to wrap up. I want to interject and say, i want us to be careful and not do a disservice to young women, who are extremely idealistic, and a few of whom will be able to do everything youre describing, whether its live in the dirt. I spent a lot of time in wherees all over Africa Eugene where hygiene may not be what we are used to. I think we need to be extremely careful in terms of the arguments that get made in the 21st century about what it is that young women can or cannot do. What we needed to focus on again is, what is it that is going to make combat units more lethal and more effective . Someone might be able to make a very cogent persuasive argument that there will be a need for an allfemale unit of direct action, or individuals who will be able to go into someplace unrecognized and do something. I dont think that we should automatically dismiss the idea that women arent capable. The question that we should be wrestling with his, what do we already know is likely to happen to small unit integrity when you introduce women into otherwise all mail units . It is not just sex that will rear its head. There are also emotional bonds that tend to be different between men and women than between justin and o between just men or just women. To only talk about sex is to do a disservice to the very complicated affects or dynamics that result when men and women are together. Thank you for saying that. There are so many new issues. Women cope. They do things that you or i civilian women would not dream of doing. I admire them for doing that. The empirical evidence cannot be denied, and it is being denied. That is a problem that has to stop somewhere. You have your hand up. When you start with a social darwinism theory that is based on an essential icing of male and female. I one to go back to what you are saying, the crucial element of social cohesion. I want to logically follow your argument out to its end. The premise as i understand it is that you are saying it is a darwinian principle that men will be sexually aggressive toward women. First of all, i think that is really dangerous to assume that all men in the service will have this compulsion, if they see a heterosexual female, to want to engage her in a sexual liaison because they are in a small unit. I think that is doing a disservice to the discipline of about having and transcendent identity as a soldier. I think that is unfair to men. Is we follow your argument out that we need all male combat units because being men and i assume heterosexual men they will be more cohesive and factional. My question is, how does a gay man fit into the cohesion of a heterosexual unit . And secondly, if we do adopt your darwinian premise of the rape proclivity of men, which i think is unfair to them, can you and imagine a gay male female heterosexual unit that would function better because that sexual tension is gone . What is so disturbing is the essential icing of both male and female proclivities based on testosterone, or a chemical element that men cant control, therefore they will attack women in their units. En are too gentle this argument is dangerous. That was not said by anyone on this program. Then you exaggerated what was said in a way that is a most bizarre. To deny that men and women are different, the counter theory is that we have to eliminate masculine tendencies in the military. The advocates of women in combat are serious about that too and have been since the 1990s. What are you suggesting, that masculinity is a disease some people believe that. No we need professional behavior between men and women. We need to acknowledge that people are human. They make mistakes. They are not perfect. Training does not solve all issues of personal character. If we are going to have a strong military, we need to allow for that. We need to encourage discipline. Some people are stronger than others. I think it is unfair to put words in our mouth better mouth that are unfair to men. We respect both men and women in the military. Appreciate the degree to which you embroidered and rewrote most of what i said. I would adjust pitch back to you this question, if you dont like the idea of essentializing, which is a classic academic term these days how do you address the attrition interchangeability issue or challenge that will always be faced by combat units . If you do not consider people to be interchangeable, then what do you do in terms of attrition in a war . I would leave you with that to ponder. I would ask everybody else to, for embroidering what i said and turning it inside out, more or less like a mobius strip. Please join me in thanking our panel. [applause] [chatter] Judiciary Committee needs monday vote on the Supreme Court nomination of neil gorsuch. Live on cspan2 at 10 00 a. M. Eastern. After the vote, the full senate takes nomination. Mitch mcconnell plans to hold the final confirmation vote friday, april 7. Watch the senate live on cspan two. Cspan washington journal live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. Sunday morning, director of the National Institute of of allergy and infectious diseases, and director and producer of the discuss the enemy potential of pandemics around the world and what can be done to prevent them. Dave spencer talks about his assessment of the Republican Party and what needs to change. Then European Union ambassador to the u. S. Discusses the decision by theresa may to formally begin the process to leave the European Union. Be sure to watch cspans washington journal live at 7 00 a. M. Eastern sunday morning. Join the discussion. The weekly addresses from the president and democrats both deal with the neil gorsuch Supreme Court nomination. We will hear from president trump, and then senator Sheldon Whitehouse environment. My fellowtrump americans, it is an exciting time for our country. Our new administration has so much change underway, change that is going to strengthen our union and improve so many peoples lives. For the next few days, the senate will be taking an important step, one that will protect the rule of law and democratic way of life that is abso