Playing dolls with G.I. Joe

New'Expose' of Disaster of Gender-Neutral Military

It's not often that the most dubious proposition about a book comes from the publisher. But in the case of The Kinder, Gentler Military, the gang in PR over at Scribner has done just that.

They charge that Stephanie Gutmann's book is "a controversial look at women's impact on the armed forces." In fact there is no controversy about women in the military.

Controversy implies a discussion or a debate. Sure, there might be a subterranean complaint or two from some fellows in the military-or here atHUMAN EvENTs. But as Gutmann points out, there is no controversy. Women are in the military.

Besides, there are no media stories, exposes, or "special reports" devoted to the problems, hypocrisies, and errors of playing dolls with G.I. Joe. It is a virtually unchallenged maxim in politics, television and radio that women have helped not hurt the armed forces.

Gutmann's book, subtitled Can America's Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?, goes far in evening the score.

For the men and women who've seen it up close and are willing to risk media opprobrium and official sanction, the policy is a disaster-and it is only a matter of time before it comes crashing down into a battlefield debacle.

"Our armed forces are deeply mired in an expensive, resource-draining, time-consuming, morale-flattening project, one that has nothing to do with military readiness and everything to do with politically correct politics," she writes. "That project ... has used quotas, double standards, and coercive policies to recruit greater numbers of women, promote them faster, and put them closer to combat with little thought to the fact that this is, in effect, an attempt to meld two dissimilar populations-men and women-in an institution that requires sameness, interchangeability, standard issues, known quantities."

Gutmann's metaphors are powerful and fiery. And her sources impeccable. The nice thing about interviewing men still familiar with the warrior culture is that they have a sense that words means things. You won't hear this at your encounter group: "The emphasis has shifted dramatically from how to administer death and destruction to the enemy, to how to `get along; and how to prevent killing each other in the air," said one former F- 18 pilot.

Sadly, this vast experiment in "gender integration" takes place in an era when America's bayonet Boy Scouts are more burdened, more overwhelmed and less ready than ever before. Despite his vaunted popularity, President Bill Clinton has not taken the military on head-to-head. Instead he praises it with all the skill and devotion to truth as Marc Antony. When Clinton comes to praise the military, he means to bury it.

Gulf War Absurdities

Clinton has stressed in every State of the Union address the skill, readiness and "flexibility" of the U.S. military. Yet, as Gutmann points out, the very addition of women to the battlefield makes interchangeability and flexibility impossible.

"Modern warfare, with its light, compact, take-'em-with-you weapons, is even more fluid and unpredictable," Gutmann writes. "That means support troops have to be as tough as the guys on the front line."

As we know, only the self-imposed pseudo-reality of the modern liberal can ignore the evidence of 8th-grade gym class: Testosterone-propelled boys are stronger, more competitive, and more brutal than girls.

Military recruiters have been forced to sidestep such questions of feminine weakness, and instead let in female -recruits unable to shoulder their responsibilities. Thus, we're left with such absurdities as those in the Gulf War: "Men in many units took over tearing down tents or loading boxes because most of the women simply couldn't or wouldn't do these chores fast enough," Gutmann reports.

What do we do?

Among Gutmann's recommendation is: Be more like the Marines, who have been the one group to stand its ground and challenge lower standards-and they are also the only sector of the military not suffering recruitment problems. They've held tough, questioning everything from the "$6 billion `meals on wheels' program in Haiti" to lowered standards that will mean American blood on the battlefield.

As Gutmann writes, "If we had had sensible, plainspoken, morally courageous leaders, we could have had a force that continued to be appreciative of the women who are currently serving and the women who qualify to serve, without alienating (and in too many cases actively persecuting) the men who make up-and always will make up-the majority of the armed forces."

She may not be in office, but Gutmann is one of those "plainspoken, morally courageous leaders" we need.

BY MATTHEW ROBINSON

Mr. Robinson is the 1999 Phillips Foundation Fellow.

Copyright Human Events Publishing, Inc. Sep 1, 2000
Provided by ProQuest Information and Learning Company. All rights Reserved