The Center for Military Readiness has provided the following information to officials in the Pentagon, Congress, and the White House, starting in April 2006. This document accompanies a list of questions about this issue, which appears nearby on this website.

Army Changing Regulations Without Required Notice to Congress

Our female soldiers are serving with courage and distinction in Iraq and Afghanistan, and all soldiers, regardless of their specialty, are “in harms way.” But even without a “front line,” missions of “direct ground combat” (DGC) troops remain the same.

• “Direct ground combat” means engaging or attacking the enemy with deliberate offensive action under fire. It is more than the experience of being in danger or “in harms way.” ¹

• Direct ground combat units, coded “P1,” are required by current Defense Department regulations to be all male. Examples of DGC units include Army and Marine infantry, armor, and Special Operations Forces like those that fought to liberate Baghdad in March 2003 and Fallujah in November 2004.

• Female soldiers are also exempt from placement in support units that embed or “collocate” with smaller direct ground combat battalions 100% of the time. Most brigade level positions, which do not involve constant collocation, are coded “P2” and are open to women.

• These regulations, including the collocation rule, were adopted in January 1994 and remain in effect today. ²

• If Army leaders want to change these regulations, current law requires formal notice from the Secretary of Defense to Congress 30 legislative days (about 3 months) in advance. Current law also requires a report on the effect of proposed rule changes on women’s exemption from Selective Service registration. ³

Land Combat-Collocated Forward Support Companies (FSCs)

The DoD collocation rule, which is not difficult to understand or implement, affects only those support units that constantly collocate with DGC maneuver battalions. Army officials nevertheless have placed female soldiers in forward support companies (FSCs), which collocate with all-male infantry/armor maneuver battalions 100% of the time.

• To support the claim that this practice does not violate current regulations and the congressional notification law, Army officials have administratively “assigned” female soldiers (on paper only) to brigade support battalions (BSBs) that are legally open to women, while physically “attaching” or “opconning” them to battalion-level direct ground combat units.

• Arrangements of this kind have been made in maneuver battalion forward support companies in the 3rd and 4th Infantry Divisions, the 101st Airborne, the 1st Cavalry, and Reconnaisance, Surveillance, Target Acquisition (RSTA) squadrons. (See February 2006 CMR Policy Analysis)

• This practice violates DoD regulations, which requires land combat-collocated units to be all-male. (See diagram of “opconned” FSCs in the 1st Cavalry)

• The Secretary of the Army and other officials claim the service is in compliance with policy and law because female soldiers will not be present when DGC units are “conducting” direct ground combat. This suggests that the women will be evacuated (somehow) just prior to battle. ⁴ 

• It is not clear how these evacuations might be accomplished under wartime conditions, when there are no aircraft or vehicles available for that purpose. Nor is it clear how the separation of FSC personnel on the eve of battle, when they are needed most, would improve the combat effectiveness of land combat battalions.

• In addition to land combat-collocated support units, the Army has dropped multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) and RSTA squadrons from the list of DGC units coded to be all male, without DoD authorization or notice to Congress.

Congressional Oversight Delayed and Denied

Nothing in the history of regulations regarding female soldiers, going back to 1992, indicates that the Army may alter DoD regulations without the approval of the Secretary of Defense.

• The Army’s practice of “assigning,” “attaching,” or “opconning” female soldiers to combat collocated forward support companies effectively and unilaterally repeals the collocation rule by rendering it meaningless.

• The Defense Department has also disregarded legislation in the 2006 National Defense Act, which mandated a report on this subject by March 31, 2006. ⁵ 

• Although a May 2004 Army briefing speculated that there might be a shortage of male soldiers for placement in the combat-collocated forward support companies, no data has been presented to support that speculation.

• The law requiring advance notice to Congress of proposed rule changes regarding land combat, and a similar one regarding assignment of female sailors to submarines, were designed to ensure congressional oversight.

• Acceptance of the status quo effectively relinquishes responsible congressional oversight, and opens the door to future incremental rule changes without the opportunity to have timely hearings. Units affected could include Army and Marine infantry, armor, and Special Operations Forces, and even submarines.

Endnotes:

^1.  The official definition reads: “Direct ground combat is engaging an enemy on the ground with individual or crew served weapons, while being exposed to hostile fire and to a high probability of direct physical combat with the hostile force’s personnel. Direct ground combat takes place well forward on the battlefield while locating and closing with the enemy to defeat them by fire, maneuver, or shock effect.”  

^2.  On January 13, 1994, then-Secretary of Defense abolished the DoD Risk Rule, which affected women in support units. Aspin also deleted “substantial risk of capture” as a factor in determining which positions would be open to women. The Aspin regulations, still in effect, permit the assignment of women “…to all positions for which they are qualified, except that women shall be excluded from assignments to units below the brigade level whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground…” (emphasis added)

 The various services provided responses on how the new rules would be implemented. Lists of open and closed units were approved by Aspin’s successor, William J. Perry, on July 28, 1994, and changes were put into effect on October 1, 1994. A direct ground combat probability code (DCPC) system designates land units as “P1” (male only) or “P2” (open to both sexes). There is no evidence that DoD regulations on women in combat changed at any other time since January 13, 1994. Nor has there been any legislative action in Congress or Defense Department instruction repealing the DoD collocation rule.  

^3. PL 103-160, Sec. 591, amended 2001. Federal courts have repeatedly exempted women from Selective Service obligations because they are not used in land combat. If that exemption is eliminated, deliberately or by default, a future legal challenge, brought on behalf of men by the ACLU, would likely succeed.  

^4.  Army officials occasionally have used the words “undertaking” or “performing” direct ground combat, suggesting that a unit not “conducting” land combat can be legally open to women. Despite previous denials that anything had changed, a “Women in the Army Point Paper,” produced by the Office of the Secretary of the Army on January 24, 2005, indicated that 24 of 225 positions in a typical forward support company would be open to women. A November 3, 2004, briefing for HASC staff indicated that the Army would retain the collocation rule, but a Pentagon briefing on November 29, 2004, indicated intent to repeal the rule.  

^5.  On May 18, 2005, following the first debate on women in land combat in more than a decade, the House Armed Services Committee approved legislation, co-sponsored by HASC Chairman Duncan Hunter and Personnel Subcommittee Chairman John McHugh, to codify current DoD regulations on women in combat. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld subsequently met with Chairman Hunter, and reportedly assured him that the DoD would review the assignments of women and provide a report to Congress by March 2006.  

With that assurance and understanding, Chairman Hunter withdrew the legislation approved by the full HASC, and substituted language in the Defense Authorization Bill (HR 1815) mandating a full report by March 1—later extended to March 31, 2006. The House Report affirmed that Congress expected more “proactive control over assignment policies,” not less. Despite this reasonable expectation, an internal Army Staff directive indicates that the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) has appointed the RAND Corp to examine women in the military, with a report delayed until December 31, 2006. The directive to RAND added new language to that in the actual statute, signaling that the DoD expects the delegated report to come to predetermined conclusions. In 1997, RAND produced a report on women in the military that purged, paraphrased, or “scrubbed” negative comments and information before publication of the final report.

This paper has been prepared by the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that specializes in military personnel issues. More information is posted at www.cmrlink.org, and documents mentioned are available from info@cmrlink.org.