[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 85 (Wednesday, June 11, 2003)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E1223-E1229]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 FACTS, NOT POLITICAL CORRECTNESS, SHOULD DETERMINE MILITARY PERSONNEL 
                                POLICIES

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. ROSCOE G. BARTLETT

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 11, 2003

  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker: The men and women who serve in 
America's Armed Services performed exceptionally well during Operation 
Iraqi Freedom.
  During the three weeks of initial heavy combat, members of the Army's 
507th Maintenance Unit were ambushed along the lengthy supply lines 
within Iraq. The death, brief imprisonment, and serious injuries to 
three

[[Page E1224]]

women in that unit briefly captured the attention of the world.
  Pfc. Lori Piestewa, a single mother of two toddlers, a 3-year old and 
a 4-year old, was killed in the attack. Pfc. Piestewa had joined the 
military 2 years earlier after being divorced.
  Spec. Shoshana Johnson, a single mother of a 2-year old, had joined 
the Army to gain experience as a cook. She was held briefly as a POW. 
In gross violation of the Geneva Convention, the Iraqis videotaped and 
distributed footage of the clearly terrified Spec. Johnson and her 
fellow American captives being interrogated.
  Pfc. Jessica Lynch joined the military to earn educational benefits 
to fulfill her dream of becoming a teacher. She is now recovering from 
serious injuries following her rescue from an Iraqi hospital by 
American Special Forces.
  Spec. Johnson's family was shocked to find out that her Army career 
as a cook for a Maintenance Unit placed her in harm's way within enemy 
territory during the invasion of Iraq. It was news to millions of 
Americans that military personnel policies deliberately assign women to 
serve in units that are routinely deployed in harm's way.
  As a scientist, I believe that government policies should be based 
upon facts. The facts are that men and women are different. As the only 
Member of Congress with a Ph.D. in Human Physiology, I can assert this 
as a matter of scientific fact. However, you don't need to be a 
scientist to know this is true. It is basic common sense.
  The military is a profession where the stakes involved are a matter 
of life and death. On a battlefield, the differences between men and 
women have potentially life and death consequences. I would like to 
submit for the record and edification of my colleagues and the nation a 
number of documents examining the evidence of the impact of the 
differences between men and women on the battlefield.
  Most of the documents have been organized by Ms. Elaine Donnelly, the 
President of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public 
policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues. Ms. 
Donnelly is also a former member of the 1992 Presidential Commission on 
the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, and of the Defense 
Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS, 1984-86). For 
additional information, you may log onto the CMR website: 
www.cmrlink.org.
 Included among these documents are: ``Army Gender-Integrated Basic 
Training (GIBT)--Summary of Relevant Findings and Recommendations: 
1993-2002.'' Additional articles from major news organizations include: 
``No More GI Orphans,'' Editorial, The Boston Globe, April 9, 2003; 
``Mothers at War,'' Editorial, The Washington Post, March 25, 2003; 
``Mothers At Sea,'' Editorial, The Wall Street Journal, December 3, 
1999.
  I am also including an article by Anita Ramasastry, ``What Happens 
When GI Jane is Captured: Women Prisoners of War and the Geneva 
Conventions,'' April 2, 2003. Ms. Ramasastry is an Assistant Professor 
of Law at the University of Washington School of Law in Seattle and the 
Associate Director of the Shidler Center for Law, Commerce & 
Technology.
  I hope these documents will encourage our nation and policy makers to 
address this important issue.
  All of these documents ask tough questions about the impact, costs 
and consequences of current military personnel policies concerning the 
assignments of men and women. A number of significant changes in 
military personnel policies affecting men and women were adopted during 
the previous administration. These policy changes did not receive 
public attention or scrutiny until Operation Enduring Freedom and 
Operation Iraqi Freedom.
  It is not an exaggeration to say that among policy makers, at least 
for the public record, there has been a reluctance to ask, let alone 
endeavor to discover the answers to these tough questions. This is a 
mistake.
  The fear that the facts that we might discover about the real world 
impact of changes in military personnel policies might prove 
inconvenient or politically incorrect is no justification for ignoring 
the necessity to do so. From my previous work as a scientist and 
engineer and now as a Member of Congress, I believe public policies 
should be grounded in facts, not wishful thinking. This is especially 
true with respect to military personnel polices. We, as public policy 
makers, owe the individual men and women who sacrifice so much to serve 
in our military personnel policies that will enhance their capability 
to achieve the military's mission and to protect their lives. We can 
never forget that military service is a profession where the stakes can 
not be higher or have graver consequences.
  I hope the material I have submitted for publication in the 
Congressional Record encourages a vigorous inquiry and debate about 
military personnel policies by both the public and government 
officials.

   Army Gender-Integrated Basic Training (GIBT)--Summary of Relevant 
                Findings and Recommendations: 1993-2002

       In a slide presentation prepared for presentation to the 
     Secretary of the Army on March 22, 2002, the Army Training 
     and Doctrine Command claimed that GIBT is ``effective'' in 
     terms of social benefits. TRADOC also conceded that gender-
     integrated basic training (GIBT) is an ``inefficient'' format 
     for basic instruction of recruits. Inefficiencies associated 
     with GIBT, some of which were admitted but downplayed by 
     TRADOC in March 2002, include the following:
       Less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more distraction 
     from training programs.
       Voluntary and involuntary misconduct, due to an emotionally 
     volatile environment for which leaders and recruits are 
     unprepared.
       Higher physical injury and sick call rates that detract 
     from primary training objectives.
       Diversion from essential training time due to interpersonal 
     distractions and the need for an extra week of costly 
     ``sensitivity training.''
       A perceived decline in the overall quality and discipline 
     of GIBT; lack of confidence in the abilities of fellow 
     soldiers; and the need to provide remedial instruction to 
     compensate for military skills not learned in basic training.
       Re-defined or lowered standards, gender-normed scores, and 
     elimination of physically demanding exercises so that women 
     will succeed.
       Additional stress on instructors who must deal with 
     different physical abilities and psychological needs of male 
     and female recruits.
       Contrivances to reduce the risk of scandal, such as 
     changing rooms, extra security equipment and personnel hours 
     to monitor barracks activities, and ``no talk, no touch'' 
     rules, which interfere with informal contacts between 
     recruits and instructors.
       No evidence of objectively measured positive benefits from 
     GIBT, and no evidence that restoration of separate gender 
     training would have negative consequences for women or men.
       An admittedly ``inefficient'' method of basic training that 
     produces little or no tangible benefits cannot be described 
     as ``effective'' in military terms. This is especially so 
     when findings of two major blue ribbon commissions on co-ed 
     basic training have indicated otherwise.
       GIBT was implemented administratively in 1994. It is 
     possible to restore superior gender-separate basic training, 
     which is both efficient and effective in military terms, in 
     the same way. For the sake of military efficiency and the 
     best interests of Army men and women, this should be done 
     without further delay.
       1. The need for women in the military is unquestioned and 
     not relevant to the issue of Gender-Integrated Training. The 
     real question is whether it makes sense to retain an 
     expensive, inefficient form of Army training that offers 
     minimal benefits in terms of military necessity.
       The Final Report of the 1999 Congressional Commission on 
     Military Training and Gender-Related Issues noted that 
     ``Whether [gender-integrated basic training] improves the 
     readiness of the performance of the operational force is 
     subjective.''
       A close look at data and testimony gathered by this and 
     other recent studies indicate that there are no significant 
     benefits from gender integrated basic training, but many 
     problems and complications that detract from the primary 
     purpose of GIBT.
       2. The only argument offered by TRADOC in 2002 in favor of 
     retaining GIBT is that male and female recruits prefer 
     training together for social reasons.
       Young people entering the services today are more ``gender-
     aware'' than generations past, and making recruits happy is 
     not the purpose of basic training. Three years after the 
     return of GIBT, sensational sex scandals involving everything 
     from sexual abuse to consensual but exploitive relationships 
     between cadre and junior trainees made headlines nationwide.
       The 1997 Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated 
     Training and Related Issues, headed by former Kansas Senator 
     Nancy Kassebaum Baker, found that ``. . . the present 
     organizational structure in integrated basic training is 
     resulting in less discipline, less unit cohesion, and more 
     distraction from training programs.''
       The Kassebaum Baker Commission, whose members were largely 
     independent and free of conflicts of interest, voted 
     unanimously that gender-integrated basic training should be 
     discontinued.
       3. The 1999 Congressional Commission reported abundant 
     evidence of inappropriate relationships and distractions in 
     GIBT.
       The Congressional Commission report cataloged numerous 
     policies and practices, made necessary by GIBT, which create 
     inefficiencies and detract from concentration. These include 
     separate changing rooms, loss of informal counseling 
     opportunities (due to the need to meet in the presence of a 
     ``battle buddy'' on neutral territory), differences in needs 
     and abilities, the need to enforce ``no talk, no touch'' 
     rules, and miscommunications due to lost messages between 
     platoon leaders. All have placed great stress on already 
     overburdened instructors.
       Collateral policies introduced to cope with these 
     distractions make it more difficult for instructors to 
     enforce necessary discipline. For example, special ``hot 
     lines'' set up to receive anonymous complaints have ruined 
     careers, caused several suicides, and driven a

[[Page E1225]]

     wedge between Army men and women. Tolerance of false or 
     exaggerated accusations is as demoralizing as sexual 
     misconduct itself.
       4. Problems associated with gender-integrated basic 
     training (GIBT) cannot be resolved with ``leadership'' or 
     ``sensitivity training'' alone.
       Continuing a program that increases costs and complicates 
     the training mission, while providing minimal benefits, is 
     not responsible leadership. Military policy makers should 
     establish basic training programs that encourage discipline, 
     rather than indiscipline.
       Excessive ``sensitivity/diversity'' training has become a 
     jobs program for civilian ``equal opportunity'' consultants, 
     paid for with funds diverted from more essential military 
     training. When the 1997 Army Senior Review Panel (SRP) 
     recommended an extra week of sensitivity or ``values'' 
     education to counter sexual harassment, Army Times estimated 
     the cost to be equivalent to that of three battalions of 
     soldiers in the field.
       Given today's threat environment, the substantial amount of 
     time devoted to sensitivity training in basic training might 
     be better spent on potentially life-saving training in areas 
     such as antiterrorism and force protection.
       5. Higher physical injury and sick call rates among female 
     trainees create serious ``inefficiencies'' that detract from 
     the primary goal of basic training.
       Prof. Charles Moskos, a respected military sociologist and 
     member of the Congressional Commission, wrote in the panel's 
     Final Report: ``I am particularly perturbed by the high 
     physical injury rate of women trainees compared to men. 
     Likewise, I am put off by the double-talk in training 
     standards that often obscures physical strength differences 
     between men and women. The extraordinarily high dropout rate 
     of women in IET cannot be overlooked (nor should the fact 
     that females are more than twice as likely to be non-
     deployable than are male servicemembers) The bottom line must 
     be what improves military readiness.''
       In Great Britain in 1997, Army commander noted that co-ed 
     basic training was causing many young women to drop out 
     early, due to injuries to their lower limbs. Restoration of 
     all female platoons for a one-year trial in 1996 reduced 
     women's injury rates by 50%, and first-time pass rates 
     increased from 50% to 70%. Incidents of sexual misconduct 
     between instructors and recruits also decreased 
     significantly. Col. Simon Vandeleur, commanding officer of 
     the Army Training Regiment at Pirbright, Surrey, said that 
     the move to train women separately ``started as a trial, but 
     has continued unquestioned, due to its success.''
       Recent Army figures indicate that female soldiers take sick 
     calls at rates double those of men.
       Extensive tests conducted with ROTC cadets indicate that a 
     wide gap exists between the physical performance and 
     potential of men and women. Among other things, testimony and 
     charts prepared by training expert Dr. William J. Gregor 
     indicate that only 2.5% of female ROTC cadets were able to 
     attain the male mean score on the 2-mile run, and only 4.5% 
     could do so on the strength test. Only 19% of all cadet women 
     achieved the minimum level of aerobic fitness set for men.
       6. Every commission study since 1992, including the 2002 
     TRADOC report, found evidence that real or perceived double 
     or relaxed standards are demoralizing to all who are aware of 
     them.
       In the aftermath of the 1996 Aberdeen scandals, then-Army 
     Secretary Togo D. West, Jr., formed a Senior Review Panel 
     (SRP) to study the issue of sexual harassment. The SRP was 
     staunchly supportive of Secretary West's policies (which 
     several members had helped to formulate), but nonetheless 
     reported disturbing findings.
       Among men surveyed, 60% were either ``not sure'' or 
     ``disagreed'' that ``The soldiers in this company have enough 
     skills that 1 would trust them with my life in combat. `` The 
     combined figure for women was 74%. In response to ``If we 
     went to war tomorrow, I would feel good about going with this 
     company,'' 63% of the men said they weren't sure or 
     disagreed, while 76% of the women said the same.
       A 1997 congressionally authorized RAND study on GIBT was 
     released in an edited version that differed greatly from the 
     original draft. RAND originally found, for example, that 
     gender-norming reduces female injuries but heightens 
     resentment of double standards and degrades morale. In the 
     chapter on ``cohesion,'' the study declared ``success'' under 
     a civilianized ``workplace'' definition, instead of the 
     classic principle that ``. . . group members must meet all 
     standards of performance and behavior in order not to 
     threaten group survival.''
       7. There is no empirical evidence that GIBT improves the 
     quality of military training for male or female trainees.
       According to surveys conducted by the Congressional 
     Commission, 48% of Army recruit trainers said that the 
     quality of basic training declines when men and women are in 
     the same units.
       When asked about the current quality of entry-level 
     graduates compared to five years ago, 74% of Army leaders who 
     responded to the survey indicated that ``Overall quality'' 
     had declined, and 80% said that ``Discipline'' had declined.
       8. GIBT always requires adjustments in standards to 
     accommodate physical differences. Gender-normed qualification 
     requirements reduce excessive stress fractures and other 
     injuries among female trainees, but also have the effect of 
     making training less rigorous for men.
       Training standards frequently measure ``team'' 
     accomplishments rather than individual performance, which 
     contributes to mutual trust, teamwork, and genuine unit 
     cohesion. Under this concept, which is stressed in the TRADOC 
     slide presentation, stronger members fill in for weaker ones, 
     and recognition is given for ``equal effort'' rather than 
     equal accomplishment.
       This means that some trainees are allowed to graduate 
     simply by trying to accomplish given training tasks, such as 
     scaling high walls or throwing practice grenades, even if 
     they do not succeed. Claims that women's training is 
     ``exactly the same as men'' ignore the reality of gender-
     normed scores and qualification standards that are inherently 
     demoralizing.
       The concept is inherently dubious, since trainees know that 
     there are extra step stools, protective barriers, or gender-
     normed scores on the battlefield. Attempts to ignore that 
     reality have hurt the credibility of Army leadership.
       9. There is no evidence that GIBT would be more successful 
     if women are actually ``held to the same high standards as 
     men.''
       This argument disregards the effect of political pressures 
     from feminists who demand ``equality,'' but are the first to 
     demand ``fairer'' gender-normed standards so that women will 
     not fail. In the past two decades, attempts to toughen 
     training or match the person to the job were withdrawn 
     because organized civilian feminists perceived them as 
     threatening to women's ``career opportunities.''
       The Army tried twice in the early 1980s to implement 
     realistic strength standards, commensurate with wartime 
     demands, in occupations rated from light to very heavy. In 
     both instances, tests showed that most women were unable to 
     meet the standards for nearly 70% of Army occupational 
     specialties. The recommendations were never implemented as 
     planned because the former Defense Advisory Committee on 
     Women in the Services (DACOWITS) complained that such systems 
     would have a ``disproportionate impact'' on the careers of 
     female soldiers.
       10. Numerous military and civilian studies done in the 
     United States and in other countries have documented 
     significant differences in male and female physiology that 
     are relevant to military performance.
       Numerous American studies have confirmed that in general, 
     women are shorter, weigh less, and have less muscle mass and 
     greater relative fat content than men. Women are at a 
     distinct disadvantage because dynamic upper torso muscular 
     strength is approximately 50-60% that of males, and aerobic 
     capacity (important for endurance) is approximately 70-75% 
     that of males.
       A test of Army recruits found that women had a 2.13 times 
     greater risk for lower extremity injuries and a 4.71 times 
     greater risk for stress fractures. Men sustained 99 days of 
     limited duty due to injury while women incurred 481 days of 
     limited duty.
       In the United Kingdom, major studies were ordered in 1998 
     to ascertain the feasibility of co-ed basic training. Army 
     doctors found that eight times as many women as men were 
     being discharged during basic training, due to injury rates 
     that doubled following the introduction of identical training 
     programs for both sexes. Differences in strength, bone mass, 
     stride length and lower body bone structure caused women to 
     suffer disproportionately from Achilles tendon problems, 
     knee, back and leg pain, and fractures of the tibia, foot, 
     and hip.
       The ``gender-free'' system was ended in January 2002 
     because stress fractures for women rose from 4.6% to 11.1%, 
     compared to less than 1.5% for male trainees.
       11. Contrary to the claims of GIBT proponents, studies 
     conducted by the Army Research Institute (ARI) in 1993-1995 
     did not confirm that mixed training produced better results.
       After a 1993 pilot test at Fort Jackson, SC, commanders 
     recommended the continuance of gender-separate training 
     because they observed no improvements in fitness and military 
     proficiency for men or women.
       Later in 1993, the Army ordered a new 3-year study from 
     ARI, this time to include an assessment of soldiers' 
     attitudes toward mixed or separate training. Inquiries 
     centered on measures of social/psychological interest (i.e., 
     how well do people get along together?) instead of measures 
     of military interest (i.e., how well will people trained in 
     this way fulfill their duties, especially under crisis 
     conditions?)
       The latter 1993 ARI study proclaimed GIBT superior because 
     it was found in separate-gender focus groups that the morale 
     of women improved by 14 points. At the same time, however, 
     the men's morale dropped by 17 points. The gap narrowed 
     somewhat when subsequent focus groups were gender-mixed. ARI 
     questions still focused on ``touchy-feely'' questions, i.e., 
     whether others want to do a good job.''
       12. There are no empirical studies showing that women 
     perform better in GIBT than they formerly did in separate-
     gender training prior to 1994.
       After the initial 1993 study, the Army never again compared 
     results of mixed versus separate training formats. Tests 
     thereafter were to determine the best mix of males and 
     females in a platoon (75/25, a ratio

[[Page E1226]]

     almost never observed). Even before the ARI surveys of 
     ``attitudes'' were complete, the Army announced its decision 
     to discontinue gender-separate training, except for ground 
     combat trainees, in August 1994.
       When GIBT was implemented in 1994, the training regimen was 
     adjusted to reduce the risk of injuries among female 
     recruits. Meanings of the words ``soldierization'' and 
     ``proficiency'' were re-defined, physical requirements were 
     de-emphasized, and ``success'' was measured with new training 
     exercises that would not disadvantage women, such as map 
     reading, first aid, and putting on protective gear.
       The Army informed the Congressional Commission, in response 
     to a specific demand by Congress, that it has not, and does 
     not plan to, objectively measure or evaluate the 
     effectiveness of GIBT. Many officials taking this position 
     were responsible for implementing and making a ``success'' of 
     GIBT in the first place.
       13. The Army slogan ``Train as We Fight'' is an important 
     goal in advanced training. For basic training, however, 
     ``Train to Transform'' is a more appropriate slogan. Basic 
     training is the first step in a progressive, building block 
     process of training soldiers to serve, fight, and win.
       Within only a few weeks, young civilian recruits must learn 
     to wear a uniform properly, have respect for authority, 
     observe proper customs and courtesies, and accept and live by 
     the core values of the service. Operational commanders should 
     not have to spend time for remedial training in these 
     matters, due to inadequacies at the basic level.
       Maj. Gen. William Keys, USMC (Ret.), a member of the 
     Congressional Commission, wrote in a statement to Congress 
     that ``Basic training teaches basic military skills such as 
     physical fitness, close order drill and marksmanship. It is a 
     military socialization process--civilians are transformed 
     into soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines. This training 
     provides recruits the basic military skills needed to 
     integrate into an operational unit. It does not teach war-
     fighting skills nor should it be the staging ground for 
     ``gender'' etiquette skills.''
       The slogan is also inconsistent with special ``lights out'' 
     security alarms and other security measures, as described on 
     Slide #18, which are not available in an operational 
     environment, These include barracks guards who conduct ``bed-
     checks'' of GIBT trainees every 30 minutes and are changed 
     every two hours.
       14. The Marine Corps has demonstrated that a well-designed 
     single-gender basic training program, with same-sex drill 
     instructors, can be tailored to challenge male and female 
     trainees to the limit.
       Separate sex training increases ``rigor'' for all soldiers, 
     forces female recruits to be self-reliant, and reduces the 
     risk of demoralizing injuries that cause female recruits to 
     drop out.
       The Kassebaum Baker Commission found that the Marines' 
     single sex approach was producing ``impressive levels of 
     confidence, team building and esprit de corps in all female 
     platoons at the Parris Island base.''
       The Congressional Commission found that female Marine 
     trainees scored significantly higher than any other group in 
     commitment, group identity and respect for authority--all of 
     which are important elements of military cohesion.
       Separate housing and instruction improves the ability of 
     male and female recruits to concentrate on transformation. As 
     stated by then-Marine Assistant Commandant Richard I. Neal, 
     ``We don't want them to think about anything else than 
     becoming a Marine.''
       15. There is no evidence that restoration of gender-
     separate basic training would ``reinforce negative attitudes 
     and stereotypes,'' or hurt morale among female soldiers.
       On the contrary, members of the Congressional Commission 
     noticed that GIBT might be reinforcing, rather than 
     eliminating, stereotypes. Female trainees frequently said 
     that they liked training with the men because ``The guys 
     really help us.'' When asked how, they typically answered, 
     ``They motivate us. They lift heavy stuff for us. We trade--
     we do their ironing, and they clean our floors.'' Women 
     Marines, by contrast, have to do every task themselves, 
     without passing off dirty or difficult jobs to men. They must 
     team up and find a way to lug heavy objects, and are 
     motivated to climb walls by other women who have demonstrated 
     that it can be done.
       Separate-gender training develops self-reliance and 
     confidence as well as teamwork. In the Marine Corps, female 
     trainees must find ways to accomplish basic training tasks on 
     their own, without assistance from male trainees to assist 
     them with heavy loads.
       Military historian S.L.A. Marshall has noted that 
     ``Authentic morale does not grow in its own soil, [with] 
     combat efficiency as a mysterious byproduct. . . . [Rather,] 
     high morale flows when the ranks are at all times conscious 
     that they are service in a highly efficient institution.'' 
     Attorney Adam G. Mersereau amplified the point as follows:
       ``[M]orale without combat efficiency is most likely an 
     inauthentic form of morale, brought on by false confidence. . 
     . To try to build a military's morale without first, or at 
     least concurrently, establishing a foundation of unshakable 
     efficiency is a dangerous error.''
       The Congressional Commission found that among male soldiers 
     in training, the most frequently mentioned recommendations 
     for change were to separate males and females during basic 
     combat training (BCT), make the training harder; and require 
     recruiters to tell the truth. Female recruits called for an 
     end to ``battle buddy'' restrictions, improved barracks, and 
     more sexual harassment training.
       16. Army women deserve the same high quality training as 
     women Marines have today, and Army women had prior to 1994.
       The drawbacks of GIBT conflict with the tradition of Army 
     discipline and the current concept of Transformation, which 
     depends on personnel who are stronger, more versatile, and 
     better prepared.
       Short-term costs for returning to single sex basic training 
     would be minimal, and long-term savings related to fewer 
     disciplinary problems and injuries could be substantial.
       Sound policies regarding basic training should not be based 
     on unrealistic theories or feminist ideology, including the 
     belief that men and women are interchangeable in all military 
     roles. Nor should gender integration be considered an ``end'' 
     in itself. The Army needs to encourage competence in 
     training, not egalitarianism at all costs.
       17. It is possible that restoration of separate gender 
     training would have a positive effect on recruiting for the 
     volunteer Army.
       The 1998 Youth Attitudes Tracking Study (YATS) found that 
     the great majority of both men (83%) and women (77%) said it 
     would make no difference to them whether basic training was 
     conducted with or without the opposite sex. The YATS also 
     found that young men, who constitute 80% of enlistees, are 
     more interested in seeking physical challenge than young 
     women, and they perceive the Air Force and the Navy as less 
     physically challenging than the Marine Corps and the Army. 
     Members of the Congressional Commission concluded that: 
     ``Only the Marine Corps and the Army have all-male training, 
     and it is not unreasonable to suppose that this enhances 
     their image of being physically challenging. Overall, the 
     results of the 1998 YATS suggest that the Army, Navy, and Air 
     Force probably would suffer no loss in terms of recruiting 
     (and might gain) if they decided to change, in whole or in 
     part, from gender-integrated training to gender-separate 
     training.''
       18. Military personnel policies are bi-partisan, but there 
     is evidence of political support to ``fix the clock'' on this 
     and other social policies implemented during the previous 
     administration.
       During the 2000 Presidential Campaign, the American Legion 
     Magazine asked then-Texas Governor George W. Bush about his 
     views on co-ed basic training. Candidate Bush replied, ``The 
     experts tell me, such as Condoleezza Rice, that we ought to 
     have separate basic training facilities. 1 think women in the 
     military have an important and good role, but the people who 
     study the issue tell me that the most effective training 
     would be to have the genders separated.''
       Dr. Rice, who is now National Security Advisor to 
     President, Bush, voted with all other members of the 1998 
     Kassebaum Baker Commission to end co-ed basic training.
       A mandate for change was evident in votes cast by military 
     personnel, their families, and supporters, who were told by 
     Governor Bush's running mate, Dick Cheney, that ``help is on 
     the way.''
       19. GIBT can and should be eliminated administratively, 
     without further delay.
       GIBT was not authorized by Congress after careful 
     deliberation, but imposed by administrative directives 
     written by former Assistant Secretary of the Army Sara 
     Lister, a civilian lawyer who notoriously depicted the 
     Marines as ``extremist.''
       No one has seen a written order setting forth a logical 
     rationale for the Army's action. Indications are, however, 
     that the decision was accepted as a trade-off to head off 
     even more egregious mandates being promoted by Sara Lister at 
     the time; i.e., gender integration of multiple launch rocket 
     systems (MLRS) and special operations helicopters.
       In 1994, uniformed leaders of the Army implemented GIBT 
     without dissent. One brigade training commander told the 
     Washington Post that it was necessary to take the ``Attila 
     the Hun approach'' with drill instructors that resisted. ``I 
     told them that gender integration was our mission, and any 
     outward manifestation of noncompliance would not be 
     tolerated.''
       Having invested so much in the process, some Army officials 
     lobbied hard to defeat legislation, which passed the House in 
     1998, to implement recommendations of the Kassebaum Baker 
     Commission. Nevertheless, during the March 17, 1998, HNSC 
     hearing, senior officers representing the armed forces had 
     difficulty making a convincing case for gender-mixed basic 
     training.
       20. This is not a question of turning the clock backward or 
     forward. If the clock is broken, it should be fixed.
       A five-year experiment with GIBT during the Carter 
     Administration was summarily terminated in 1982 not because 
     of lack of confidence in women's abilities to become 
     soldiers, but because women were suffering injuries in far 
     greater numbers, and men were not being challenged enough. 
     Contemporaneous news reports indicated that GIBT was 
     eliminated in order ``to facilitate the Army's toughening 
     goals and enhance the soldierization process.''
       Civilian oversight of the military includes the 
     responsibility to set policies for the future, not to 
     continue flawed policies of the past.

[[Page E1227]]

     
                                  ____
                [From the New York Times, Apr. 9, 2003]

                           No More GI Orphans

       Lori Piestewa died in combat in the Iraq war's first week. 
     She was a single parent who left two small children. Shoshana 
     Johnson, who was taken prisoner in the same clash, is the 
     single parent of a small child. It is high time the Defense 
     Department redrew its policies to stop single custodial 
     parents--female or male--from being deployed in harm's way. 
     The military should not run the risk that children will be 
     orphaned or face extended separations from their single 
     parent.
       During the first Gulf War, Senator Barbara Boxer of 
     California was so concerned that she sponsored a Gulf orphan 
     bill. Boxer's measure would also have kept the services from 
     deploying both parents when both a father and mother were in 
     the military. The Pentagon resisted, however, and before 
     Congress could take any action the war ended. About 80,000 
     children have a single parent or both parents in the 
     services. Women still cannot serve in ground combat infantry, 
     tank, or artillery positions, but since 1991 the Defense 
     Department has opened up more front-line opportunities to 
     women, who are more likely than men to be single custodial 
     parents. In light of the Piestewa and Johnson cases, Boxer 
     and others in Congress should force the military to ask why 
     its policies place so many children at risk of being 
     orphaned.
       The issue brings into conflict the interests of the parent-
     soldier, the commanding officer, and the child. A parent 
     seeking advancement might be reluctant to accept limits on 
     assignments that could slow promotions. A commanding officer 
     does not want to have several positions filled by soldiers 
     who have to stay at the base when the fighting starts.
       But it is the interest of the child in not losing a 
     custodial parent forever, or for a long time, that should be 
     paramount. Instead, the Pentagon, in opposing bills like 
     Boxer's, worried about the abstract unfairness of granting 
     single-parent soldiers the full set of career and educational 
     benefits without the obligation of front-line service. The 
     military does require that parents submit ``family care 
     plans'' for alternative caregivers when they are deployed. 
     But an alternate caregiver, whether it is a grandparent, 
     aunt, uncle, or family friend, is not the same as a parent.
       The late senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania favored limits 
     on single-parent deployment in 1991. To critics who said that 
     parent-soldiers knew what they were getting into, Heinz 
     replied that it was ``questionable whether an 18-year-old 
     tantalized by offers of tuition money has any inkling; of 
     what he or she is giving up in `volunteering' to leave 
     children yet to be born behind. Our righteous insistence that 
     `a deal is a deal' is reminiscent of the story of 
     Rumpelstiltskin, the dwarf in German folklore who exacts a 
     terrible price for helping a desperate young woman--her 
     first-born child.'' A humane military would limit the 
     sacrifices it asks of parents--and their children.
                                  ____


               [From the Washington Post, Mar. 25, 2003]

                             Mothers at War

       Yesterday morning relatives of one of the American 
     prisoners of war in Iraq, Army Spc. Shoshawna Johnson, went 
     on television to say how much everyone missed her: her 
     parents, her cousins and especially her 2-year-old daughter, 
     Janelle. Spc. Johnson is a single mother, one of about 90,000 
     in the active-duty service. Lately such women have been 
     featured in heartbreaking photos in Air Force Times and Army 
     Times: Staff Sgt. Rikki Hurston, for example, feeding her 
     four-month-old while her 8-year-old daughter looks up with 
     wide eyes, clutching her mother's kit bag. Sgt. Hurston was 
     headed with her unit to the Persian Gulf. ``Who knows when 
     I'll be back,'' she said to the reporter; with her children 
     she strove for more cheerfulness. More than ever, women are 
     crucial to the U.S. military; they make up 16 percent of the 
     force and perform key front-line jobs. But the increased 
     integration comes at a price, in the form of tens of 
     thousands of temporary orphans.
       Almost 10 percent of active-duty service members are either 
     single with children or married to another active-duty 
     person, which means both can be called up. In the first 
     Persian Gulf war this produced 36,704 children who had no 
     parent left at home; this time the number is expected to be 
     much larger. These children range from infants to teenagers. 
     In school, many act brave and resilient; anxieties come out 
     obliquely. Boisterous ones retreat and want only to draw 
     strange pictures; an 11-year-old in Colorado has suddenly 
     started failing some of his classes.
       Most militaries in the world do not have women serving; 
     those that do make allowances for family circumstance, infant 
     children at home or two parents away. But this is a touchy 
     issue for the U.S. military. Integrationists have fought hard 
     over the past two decades to win full acceptance of women, 
     who in many cases bristle at any notion that they should be 
     treated differently. No one would want to let down her unit; 
     besides, downsizing in the volunteer force means that any no-
     show is disruptive. During the first Gulf war, a presidential 
     commission tried to address this question, recommending 
     flexibility for the primary caregivers of children under 2. 
     Then there was resistance; women were still a fairly new and 
     unproven presence in many jobs. Now, and especially following 
     this war, they will be tested and no doubt proven: ``Now, 
     you're the fighter pilot--not the female fighter pilot,'' 
     Capt. ``Charlie'' recently told Time magazine.
       If women are to continue their critical role in the armed 
     services, which they should, perhaps it's time to loosen up a 
     little on the deployment rule. Right now families are 
     required to have a child-care plan in place in case of 
     deployment. A commander can grant exceptions if no plan is 
     available, but service spokesmen say they almost never do. 
     Even if no family or friends are available, the Navy can 
     place children in volunteer families resembling foster care, 
     so it's difficult for parents to say no. Perhaps the 
     flexibility could start slowly. For starters, the services 
     could coordinate and try to stagger deployments of two 
     parents; right now it's not even a consideration. Then maybe 
     they could tackle the more sensitive issue of single mothers, 
     giving, say, mothers of children under 2 a real option of 
     deferring if they had no comfortable child-care available. 
     Surely integration would survive that.
                                  ____


              [From the Wall Street Journal, Dec. 3, 1999]

                             Mothers At Sea

       Amid all the flotsam crossing our desk lately came one 
     surprise: a new Defense Department report on women sailors. 
     The study focuses on families in which the enlisted mothers 
     of small children are away at sea five or six months at a 
     stretch. Not surprisingly, small children who spend months 
     without their mothers do not fare so very well.
       As interesting as the findings has been the reaction: 
     zilch. As it happens, these days a mom at sea is not so 
     unusual. Of the 51,000 women in the Navy, 10,000 serve on 
     shipboard. Many of them are single moms. The study, by 
     Michelle Kelley of Old Dominion University, compared the 
     children of women with land jobs to the kids of women who 
     serve on extended tours. Turns out that half of these Navy 
     women were single or divorced. This meant that when they were 
     shipped off to sea, many of their children, whose ages ranged 
     from one to three, had no parent at home.
       If you didn't even know this was a problem, you're not 
     alone. The idea seems to be that to admit even the slightest 
     difficulty with women in the service threatens to drag women 
     back to the 1950s. So instead of an open debate we get the 
     movie version. In ``Courage Under Fire'' actress Meg Ryan 
     plays a heroic Army helicopter captain who leaves her 
     daughter behind with grandma as she goes off to die in the 
     Gulf War--and feels just fine about it.
       Unfortunately, no amount of Hollywood glitz is likely to 
     console the real-world children of these military moms. And, 
     by the way, it's not just those children. An earlier Navy 
     study showed that four out of 10 pregnancies of women on sea 
     duty culminated in abortion or miscarriage. That compares to 
     two out of 10 for women sailors on shore duty. The news comes 
     in the wake of a controversial 1995 ruling from the admirals 
     saying that pregnancy was compatible with a Navy career, 
     meaning that pregnant women could even serve aboard ships up 
     to their 20th week. To put it harshly, there is a sense here 
     that some babies are being thrown out with the seawater.
       Of course, the problems of the extended tour are by no 
     means confined to women. Military families have long suffered 
     from the prolonged absence of fathers. In his memoir, John 
     McCain notes that one reason he found it so easy, as a child, 
     to idolize his father was that his father wasn't around 
     enough to mar the golden image. What makes the Mom-Goes-to-
     Sea story different is the all-too-frequent absence of any 
     parent.
       Could it be that the unwillingness to address this issue 
     signals a belief that women will suffer from any retreat from 
     the feminist absolute? Perhaps. Whatever the reason, there is 
     a noticeable slippery-slope effect. Thus we must have not 
     only a woman in the military, but a mother; not only a mother 
     but a single one; not only a trip abroad but an extended one, 
     and so on. As the White House wonk bleats in ``Courage Under 
     Fire'': ``She has to get the medal of honor. She's a woman. 
     That's the point!''
       Surely we are beyond that. The late 1990s are not, after 
     all, the 1950s. No one is talking about keeping women out of 
     the boardroom, or shutting them out of the officer's club. A 
     little consideration for the realities of family life can 
     only strengthen the cause of women. Owning up to the problem 
     will, however, require courage. Maybe there should be a medal 
     for that.
                                  ____


                 What Happens When GI Jane Is Captured?


           Women Prisoners of War and the Geneva Conventions

                         (By Anita Ramasastry)

       Just over one week ago, American television viewers saw 
     disturbing images of American soldiers who had become 
     prisoners of war (POWs) in Iraq. Among those taken captive 
     was Specialist Shoshana Johnson, an Army cook--America's 
     first female POW in the Iraqi conflict. Meanwhile, two other 
     women were missing in action--Privates First Class Jessica 
     Lynch and Lori Piestewa. (Lynch was just rescued yesterday.)
       Seeing Shoshana Johnson--thirty years old, and the single 
     mother of a two-year old child--held captive in Iraq bothered 
     me more than I would have imagined. Like the male soldiers 
     held with her, she faces a ruthless regime. Unlike them, 
     however, she may also be the target of misogynistic 
     treatment, and a potential victim of sexual assault.

[[Page E1228]]

       Anthony Dworkin recently discussed, in a column for this 
     site, some of the protections the Geneva Conventions offer 
     all POWs. But what, if anything, in the Geneva Conventions 
     protects women POWs, in particular?
       Before addressing that question, it's worth examining the 
     history of women in the U.S. military in recent years, and of 
     women as POWs, to provide some context for the Conventions' 
     guarantees.


         Women's Role in the U.S. Military Now and In the Past

       Overall, more than 200,000 women currently serve in the 
     armed forces. These women make up 15 percent of both the 
     enlisted ranks and the officer corps, 6 percent of the 
     Marines, and 19 percent of the Air Force.
       These women serve in a wide variety of positions. In part, 
     that is because in 1994, during the Clinton Administration, 
     the Pentagon discarded the ``Risk Rule,'' and authorized 
     women to serve in any military post other than in frontline 
     infantry, Special Forces, or armor or artillery units.
       As a result, women reportedly now are allowed to hold 52 
     percent of active-duty positions in the Marines--about a 
     twofold increase since the 1994 rule change. Women in the 
     Army can hold 70 percent of such positions. And women in the 
     Air Force and Navy can perform in 99 percent of such 
     positions. For example, women in the Navy can now serve on 
     ships, though not on submarines. Women in the Air Force can 
     now fly combat missions.
       American women have been in combat ever since Margaret 
     Corbin replaced her fallen husband behind cannon during the 
     Revolution. But this war promises to involve more women in 
     combat than ever before.
       Meanwhile, due to the nature of modern warfare, and the war 
     on Iraq in particular, a soldier can be in serious jeopardy 
     whether or not he or she is technically in a combat unit. 
     There is no longer a clear ``front'' line.
       Thus, support units, whose job is maintenance or supply, 
     can find themselves in grave danger. For instance, Shoshana 
     Johnson and her fellow POWs were a maintenance crew in a 
     convoy that got ambushed.


                 women as pows throughout u.s. history

       Long before the 1994 rule change, there were women POWs. 
     During the Civil War, for example, Dr. Mary Walker was 
     imprisoned for four months by the Confederacy, accused of 
     spying for the Union Army. (Doctor Walker is the only woman 
     to receive the Congressional Medal of Honor.)
       During World War II, more than 80 military nurses, 
     including 67 from the Army and 16 from the Navy, spent three 
     years as prisoners of the Japanese. Many were captured when 
     Corregidor fell in 1942. The nurses were subsequently 
     transported to the Santo Tomas Internment camp in Manila in 
     the Philippines--which was not liberated until February of 
     1945. Five Navy nurses were captured on Guam and interned in 
     a military prison in Japan.
       Meanwhile, during the 1991 Gulf War, there were two 
     American female POWs: an Army Flight Surgeon, Major Rhonda 
     Cornum, and an Army Transportation Specialist, Melissa 
     Rathbun-Nealy. Cornum was subjected to ``sexual indecencies'' 
     within hours of her capture. (She was released eight days 
     later, but said nothing in public about the sexual assault 
     for more than a year.)
       And women, like men, have been casualties of war. According 
     to various reports, there have also been nearly 1,000 women 
     killed in action since the Spanish American War. Women 
     casualties include including two aboard the USS Cole when it 
     was attacked by terrorists in 2000, sixteen in Desert Storm, 
     and eight in Vietnam.


                       women and the laws of war

       The Geneva Conventions of 1949 govern the treatment of 
     soldiers and civilians during armed conflicts. The Geneva 
     Convention III relates to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. 
     The August 1949 treaties, whose signatories include the 
     United States and Iraq, took effect on October 21, 1950, 
     after the Nuremberg war crimes trials in Germany. They 
     continue to apply now.
       With respect to POWs generally, Article 13 of Geneva 
     Convention III requires that they ``must at all times be 
     humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the 
     Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the 
     health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and 
     will be regarded as a serious breach of the present 
     Convention.'' And Article 3 (common to all four Conventions) 
     prohibits ``violence to the life, health, or physical or 
     mental well-being of persons'' including torture of all 
     kinds, whether physical or mental. Such acts of violence 
     ``remain prohibited at any time and in any place . . .'' with 
     respect to persons being detained.
       The Geneva Convention III says relatively little about 
     women--primarily because, at the time it was drafted, women 
     were not involved on the battlefield to the same extent as 
     men.
       It does provide some privacy guarantees for women, however. 
     Article 25 states that women prisoners must be housed 
     separately from the men. And Article 29, which deals with 
     hygiene and medical attention states that ``[i]n any camps in 
     which women prisoners of war are accommodated, separate 
     conveniences shall be provided for them.''
       Meanwhile, Article 14 provides an equality guarantee of 
     sorts for women POWs. It says that ``women shall be treated 
     with all the regard due to their sex and shall in all cases 
     benefit by treatment as favorable as that granted to men.''
       As with domestic laws, there is a question as to how far 
     this equality guarantee requires additional safeguards for 
     women, beyond what men are entitled to. Some commentators 
     argue that it does, for women have specific needs arising 
     from gender differences, honor and modesty, and pregnancy 
     and childbirth.
       Other specific protections are also included. Women 
     prisoners who are being disciplined are required to be 
     confined in separate quarters under the immediate supervision 
     of women--apparently to prevent any risk that an isolated 
     women might be subject to sexual assault or mistreatment.
       In addition, all women POWs who are pregnant or mothers 
     with infants and small children are to be conveyed and 
     accommodated in a neutral country. Shoshana Johnson, as the 
     mother of a 2-year old toddler, would seem to qualify.
       And more generally, under international humanitarian law, 
     the ill-treatment of persons detained in relation to armed 
     conflict is prohibited.
       Meanwhile, civilians taken captive are meant to be afforded 
     similar protections pursuant to Geneva Convention IV. Women 
     are to be protected ``against rape, enforced prostitution or 
     any form of indecent assault.'' Additional Protocol I to the 
     Geneva Conventions, relating to civilians, notes that ``women 
     shall be the object of special respect and shall be protected 
     in particular against rape, forced prostitution and any other 
     form of indecent assault.'' One need only remember the 
     conflict in the former Yugoslavia, however, to see that rape 
     has often been used against civilian women during armed 
     conflict. Finally, with respect to relief shipments for 
     civilians, Convention IV notes that ``expectant mothers, 
     maternity cases and nursing mothers'' are to be given 
     priority.


   potential remedies: red cross factfinders and war crimes tribunals

       Iraq has claimed publicly that it is adhering to the 
     Conventions. But the recent video footage of American POWs 
     has given others a different impression.
       In addition, past history leads to reasonable fears that 
     woman POWs will be mistreated by Iraq in ways particular to 
     their gender. Consider, for instance, the sexual assault 
     suffered by Major Cornum. Will there be any recourse if women 
     are, in fact harmed or mistreated?
       The answer is: Perhaps during the war, and certainly after 
     the war.
       The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC)--which 
     drafted the original treaties--serves as a fact finder with 
     respect to possible violations. During war, the ICRC attempts 
     to protect military prisoners of war, civilians caught in war 
     zones, and wounded or sick service members.
       An ICRC delegate who witnesses disturbing violations at a 
     jail, hospital, or other facility has the duty to report it 
     to the ICRC, who advise the victim what to do. Thus, if U.S. 
     POWs are mistreated in Iraq, and the Red Cross is let in to 
     see them, and they feel comfortable reporting their 
     mistreatment, there may be some recourse for them.
       But all of these contingencies may not actually become 
     reality--and remedies may have to wait until the war's end. 
     At that point, a special war crimes tribunal may well be 
     created in order to prosecute individuals for ``grave 
     breaches'' of international humanitarian law.
       Not all violations of the law of war, indeed not all 
     violations of the Geneva Convention, are grave breaches. 
     ``Grave breaches'' are defined in the Geneva Convention III 
     to include intentional killing, torture, or inhumane 
     treatment.
       Today, such breaches would include sexual violence against 
     women POWs. Such violence, under international law, is 
     criminal.
       Both the Red Cross and the international community--through 
     war crimes tribunals--should insist on strict adherence to 
     Geneva Convention III, for men and women prisoners of war 
     alike, and equally.
       Unless women prisoners are truly protected equally--meaning 
     that they are protected when it comes to gender-specific 
     crimes and with respect to crimes with gender-specific 
     additional impact--the equality of women in the military will 
     itself be imperiled.


 Sex Crimes In War May Also Be Breaches of International Humanitarian 
                                  Law

       As the ICRC has previously stated, ``although both men and 
     women are subject to sexual assault, a distinction needs to 
     be drawn between them. Sexual torture as such, particularly 
     during interrogation, with its full spectrum of 
     humiliation and violence can, and often does, culminate in 
     the rape of the victim, and is more common with women 
     prisoners. In male prisoners, direct violence to sexual 
     organs is more common during this same phase.''
       To note this is not in any way to minimize the terrible 
     things that may happen to male POWs. But it is to say that 
     women do face a special risk: the risk of rape, and of being 
     pregnant as a result of rape.
       To cope with a pregnancy as a result of rape is terrible 
     enough, and is made all the worse by being in detention. 
     Women may also be forced to terminate their ongoing 
     pregnancies against their will.
       Other abuses inflicted on POWs, while not suffered solely 
     by women, could be worse for women than men. They might 
     include beatings, strip searches by men, intimate and abusive 
     medical examinations or body searches, and sexual or gender-
     based humiliation (such as non-provision of sanitary 
     protection).

[[Page E1229]]

       Under international law, rape, sexual assault, sexual 
     slavery, forced prostitution, forced sterilization, forced 
     abortion, and forced pregnancy may all qualify as crimes.


           Rape as A War Crime, and A Crime Against Humanity

       The crime of rape, in particular, has long existed under 
     customary international law. Some treaties have mentioned 
     rape specifically, whereas other treaties and international 
     conventions have made reference to rape as a crime against 
     humanity when directed against a civilian population.
       The nineteenth century Leiber Code, for example, listed 
     rape as a specific offense, and made it a capital offense. 
     Later, World War II prosecutions, and the Geneva Conventions, 
     reinforced the prohibitions on rape and other sexual 
     violence, although the focus was on crimes of sexual violence 
     against civilian populations.
       Some evidence of sexual violence was presented before the 
     International Military Tribunals, after World War II. Most 
     notably, in the judgments of the International Military 
     Tribunal for the Far East, rape was first specifically 
     referenced. Allied Control Council Law No. 10, which 
     governed the prosecution of defendants at Nuremberg, 
     listed rape as one of the enumerated acts constituting a 
     crime against humanity.
       In the Tokyo war crimes trials, acts of sexual violence and 
     rape were not placed at a level that would allow them to 
     stand alone. The Tribunal presented evidence relating to 
     sexual atrocities committed upon women in places such as 
     Nanking, Borneo, the Philippines, and French Indochina. Rape 
     and acts of sexual violence were categorized as crimes 
     against humanity because they amounted to inhumane treatment.
       Today, the prohibition against rape and sexual violence in 
     armed conflict is even stronger. In 1993 and 1994, rape was 
     specifically codified as a recognizable and independent crime 
     within the statutes of the International Criminal Tribunals 
     for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and for Rwanda (ICTR).
       In addition, the ICTY and ICTR cases have also reinforced 
     the legal basis for arguing that rape and sexual violence are 
     both individual crimes against humanity, and violations of 
     the laws and customs of war.
       Finally, the new statute of the International Criminal 
     Court also recognizes rape as crime against humanity when it 
     occurs in the context of armed conflict.
       I hope that all of the POWs are treated humanely, and come 
     home soon. And I hope Shoshana Johnson is transported to a 
     neutral country--as she is entitled to be, as the mother of 
     an infant--if she continues to be held.
       To ensure that these things happen, it is also important 
     for the international community to make clear what 
     obligations Iraq has with respect to all POWs, and the 
     special obligations it bears to female POWs in particular.

                          ____________________