The request for intervention focuses on a “Women in the Army Point Paper,” produced by the office of Secretary of the Army Francis J. Harvey on January 24. Officials claim that the document is “pre-decisional,” but it is being implemented anyway. The Army also claims that what is now being called a “concept” is in compliance with current Defense Department (DoD) rules. The four-page point paper, however, arbitrarily changes the “gender codes” of 24 of 225 positions in a formerly all-male forward support company assigned to the 3rd Infantry Division, based at Fort Stewart, GAand recently deployed to Iraq.

The FSC in question is one of several designed to collocate with the Army’s new combined infantry/armor maneuver battalions, which are part of modular “unit of action” brigade combat teams. CMR has learned that leaders of several other combat-collocated support units are revising and “validating” similar unauthorized changes, even though the Pentagon official who sent the Women in the Army Point Paper did not produce copies of orders mandating such changes.

The Women in the Army Point Paper also drops several land combat units from the list of those coded to be all-male, including multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and reconnaissance, surveillance target acquisition (RSTA) squadrons in the Army’s Stryker Brigade Combat Teams (SBCTs) These conspicuous omissions could be a sign of even more radical changes that will eventually affect all land combat units, including all Special Operations Forces units and the Marine Corps.

Evasion, Equivocation, and Battlefield Evacuations

The supposedly “unofficial” Women in the Army Point Paper includes a subtle but momentous change in the wording of current Defense Department regulations, which the Army does not have the power to make. Current rules prohibit the assignment of female soldiers from assignment to “battalion size or small units which are assigned a primary mission to engage in direct ground combat or which collocate routinely with units assigned a direct ground combat mission.”(AR 600-13, as affirmed by DoD, 1994, emphasis added).

The new wording would only exempt female soldiers from such assignments when the land combat battalions are “conducting an assigned direct ground combat mission.” (emphasis added) Under this new “concept,” female soldiers in forward support companies won't be collocated, even though they will be in the FSCs, because they really won’t be there when the battle begins.

This astonishing scenario was first set forth by the Secretary of the Army and the Vice Chief Staff, Gen. Richard Cody, during a meeting with Elaine Donnelly and her associate Dr. Charmaine Yoeston February 16. During that meeting the two women pointed out that such a directive would be virtually impossible to write, and even more difficult to enforce. Donnelly asked for copies of the documents that were apparently influencing the Secretary’s thinking, but did not receive a copy of the Women in the Army Point Paper from that office until two days later.

The altered language of the collocation rule apparently underlies the unrealistic notion that only male soldiers will go forward when a unit is “conducting” a battle, while female soldiers will be evacuated and sent elsewhere just prior to hostilities. That would leave as many as 24 positions vacant when the combined infantry/armor battalion is most in need of formerly all-male soldiers in its collocated forward support company.

Donnelly told Secretary Harvey and General Cody that orders to evacuate female soldiers on the eve of a battle would be unfair to male and female soldiers alike. It would mean that battalion commanders would have to choose between the combat  mission and a new Army mandate that sacrifices the advantages of modularity in order to achieve social/political objectives that should not be given priority.

Evacuating 24 fully loaded female soldiers would require two Blackhawk helicopters, six Huey helicopters, one Chinook helicopter, two 5-ton trucks, or 12 fully-crewed up-armored humvees—assets that cannot be spared on the eve of battle. The ensuing turmoil in the ranks would render the collocation rule virtually meaningless. That would suit Army planners who said in a November 29 briefing that they wanted to eliminate the rule, despite prior assurances to Congress that they had no intention of doing so.

Doublethink Definition

Secretary Harvey’s office insists that the new language is “unofficial,” but the same wording was used in a February 24 letter addressed to a concerned CMR supporter whose letter to Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was referred to the Army for a reply. That letter contradicted itself by simultaneously suggesting that women would not be routinely collocated with units “conducting” an assigned ground combat mission, but in the event of hostilities they will “remain” with their units. (letter signed by Col. Kenneth E. Musser, Chief, Individual Readiness Policy Division, Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff G-1)

Donnelly noted that the latter statement is more credible than the first, but it cannot be made in the same letter claiming that the Army is “vigilant” in staying within current “guidelines” governing the “assignment, placement, and employment” of female soldiers. DoD regulations are not just “guidelines,” and there is a law requiring priornotice to Congress before those rules are changed.

In subsequent correspondence with Pentagon officials, Donnelly noted that contradictions in the February 24 letter, which is the latest in a series of constantly changing statements to Congress, the media, and the general public, fits the definition of George Orwell’s doublethink: “Thought marked by the acceptance of gross contradictions and falsehoods, especially when used as a technique for self-indoctrination.” (American Heritage College Dictionary, Third Edition)

Intervention Required

The Center for Military Readiness first became aware of persistent efforts to force female soldiers into land combat-collocated units early last year. An unclassified document titled “Combat Exclusion Quick Look Options,” dated May 10, 2004, set forth several alternatives for assigning women to units that are coded all-male. One of the options proposed the assignment of female soldiers to a larger gender-integrated unit on paper, but collocation with an all-male infantry/armor maneuver battalion in reality. The 3rd Infantry has implemented a variation of that plan, which the Army admitted could be seen as “subterfuge” to avoid the required notice to Congress.

On June 25 CMR petitioned the Inspectors General of the Departments of Defense and Army for immediate intervention to restore the Army to compliance with law and policy. Nothing substantive was done, but the Army kept coming up with new explanations for actions that officials claim have not changed the rules, and therefore do not have to be reported to Congress 30 legislative days in advance, as required by law. That law also requires a detailed analysis of the effect of proposed changes on women’s exemption from Selective Serviceobligations. The Army has provided no such analysis.

At the time that CMR filed its first Request for Correction Action, Pentagon officials were still denying that female soldiers were being assigned to forward support companies (FSCs), which are organic to and collocated withcombined infantry/armor maneuver battalions. 

The new Women in the Army Point Paper, however, reveals that 24 positions were slated for the assignment of female soldiers, apparently without the approval of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld or the required prior notice to Congress. Female soldiers have already been deployed to Iraq in formerly all-male forward support companies, which are designed to collocate with combined infantry/armor “unit of action” brigade combat teams. (Boston Globe, Jan. 26)

CMR has visited the Pentagon to discuss this issue with high-level officials who have the authority—and the responsibility—to bring the Army back into line with law and policy. Despite repeated requests for intervention, however, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld has not intervened.

CMR has also attempted to bring the matter to the attention of General Richard Myers (USAF) and General Peter Pace (USMC), Chairman and Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, since precedents set by the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division are sure to affect all of the services. The staff of both officials nevertheless deferred the matter to Army and DoD officials who have been part of the problem, not the solution.

This would include Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, Dr. David Chu and his Principal Deputy Charles Abell, former Army Acting Secretary Les Brownlee, former Assistant Army Secretary for Manpower & Personnel Reginald Brown, and pre-Bush Administration civilian staffer Bradford Loo.

High-level failures of leadership on this issue are disappointing, since precedents set by the 3rd Infantry’s recent deployment are likely to be applied to all the services for consistency’s sake, and the credibility of Army officials on the issue has been repeatedly undermined by conflicting statements to Congress and the media regarding the wording and meaning of the collocation rule.

Some Army officials have claimed that women are needed for the new modular combat teams because there are not enough male soldiers for the forward support companies. CMR sources in the field dispute this, and the Army has not produced actual numbers to support their assertion. To the extent that shortages do exist, they are the result of gender-based recruiting quotas that should have been eliminated long ago, especially when the Army realized that it would need more land combat soldiers to fight the war on terrorism after the 9/11 attack on America.

Nor have Army officials made a convincing case for policies that would undermine the advantages of modularity in land combat units. Instead, uniformed and civilian officials have claimed that the changes are needed in order to “grow” the careers of female officers.

CMR supports women in the military, but maintains that this rationale is not valid. Female soldiers have historically been promoted at rates equal to or faster than men for several decades. Even if career advancement were a problem, the overwhelming majority of female soldiers, who are in the enlisted ranks and are known to oppose involuntary land combat assignments, should not have pay the price for bureaucratic errors and career advancement for a few female officers aspiring to flag rank.

The changes revealed in the point paper exceed the authority of the Department of the Army, and stand in violation of current Defense Department policy, a law requiring prior congressional notification, and the wishes of the Commander in Chief. The ultimate responsibility for bringing the Army back into line is invested in Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and President George W. Bush, who said in an interview that his position was “No women in [land] combat.” (Washington Times, Jan. 11)

In the document linked below, CMR has asked that the Army return to a policy of clarity, consistency, and compliance with law, policy, and the wishes of the Commander in Chief.