As if there were not enough social turmoil in the armed forces, due to Congress’ vote to impose the LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered) agenda on the military, a high-profile advisory panel is calling for the assignment of female soldiers and Marines to all-male close combat units such as the infantry. 

According to Stars & Stripes, the congressionally authorized Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) has posted a "preliminary" version of its report, which is due in March: 

From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century Military

Among other things, the report advocates achievement of more “diversity” by eliminating “barriers” to women in combat:

Commission to Recommend Allowing Women in Combat Units

The definitions and recommendations of this EO report, available here, reveal it to be the least credible, most divorced-from-reality document produced since the report of the Defense Department’s Comprehensive Review Working Group on gays in the military, which was released on November 30, 2010.  This is not a military commission, it is the civilian EO industry trying to create a new power base in the Pentagon, in order to implement and enforce the current administration’s plans to put “diversity” above all other considerations.

The MLDC is not a military group, even though its members include some retired officers. The commissioners’ biographies show an over-representation of military and civilians with background in the “equal opportunity” (EO) consulting field.  The interests of Army and Marine infantry and Special Operations Forces are not represented adequately, even though recommendations center on “tip of the spear” direct ground combat (DGC) troops that currently are all-male.

Most of the commission staff members appear to be EO industry contractors with little or no military experience—primarily from the RAND Corporation and other consulting companies such as Visionary Integration Professionals (VIP) and CNA Analysis and Solutions. All that is missing is a representative of organized labor demanding changes in the military’s dangerous “workplace” conditions.

This equal opportunity-focused "diversity" commission is not qualified to make policy for the military—much less for direct ground combat (DGC) units that engage the enemy with deliberate offensive action.  All troops serving in a war zone are “in harms’ way,” but DGC units (infantry, armor, special operations forces) are considerably different because it is their mission to close with and engage the enemy with deliberate offensive action.  

The MLDC is operating as a pure EO lobby, as if it were the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) on steroids.  The preliminary report calls for an end to all regulations exempting women from close combat assignments for two primary reasons: a) More career advancement for military women and b) More “diversity” for minorities and women in the military.

“Diversity” Over Combat Effectiveness

According to articles posted on the website of the MLDC, Congress directed the commission to “execute a wide-ranging review of the issues regarding diversity in the military services” and to “…conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces, including minority members who are senior officers.” 

Following that mission statement, the report says little about combat effectiveness, and disregards the fact that women have enjoyed promotions at rates equal to or faster than men for decades.  Nor does it recognize that the smaller percentage of women achieving general officer rank is a direct result of individual choices.  No matter what the diversity industry wants, women often leave the military short of a full career and potential high rank because they are more interested in beginning or devoting more time to their own families.    

Throughout the report the phrase “diversity metrics” appears.  The phrase is “EO code” for hiring and promotion by affirmative action, i.e., quotas.  Such goals guarantee lower standards and shifting definitions of the word “qualified.” 

Every attempt to keep standards for men and women exactly the same, going back decades, has failed and drifted into various forms of gender-norming and DSIW (double standards involving women).  This happens because the same EO “diversity” supporters complain about physical and training standards that serve as “barriers” to women’s advancement. 

The recommendations about personnel evaluations confirm that the only officers who will be promoted in the future are diversity devotees.  As current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Adm. Mike Mullen said a few years ago, “Diversity is a strategic imperative for the security of our nation.”  On the contrary, most people believe that the purpose of the military is to deter or fight wars.

Semantics and Sophistry to Circumvent Law and Policy

Ms. Genevieve Chase, who is quoted in the Stars & Stripes article above, seems to believe that Army practices designed to circumvent extant Defense Department regulations and the congressional notification law makes everything all right.  Some of the changes in women’s assignments have been positive in terms of military effectiveness, and should have been reported to Congress and given appropriate recognition long ago.  But as CMR reported in this March 2008 Policy Analysis, the Army used admitted “subterfuge” to circumvent the law, and deliberately misled Congress about what was going on: 

• Army Policy on Women in Land Combat: Disrespecting Regulations, Congress, and Women

In 2007, CMR analyzed unauthorized practices that were condoned when the RAND corporation produced a report that used more semantics and sophistry to excuse what the Army was doing:

• Rubber Stamp RAND Report Promotes Women in Land Combat

The MLDC report includes much of the same misinformation that was originally published in the 2007 RAND report, which is not surprising since much of the MLDC staff members have associations with RAND. 

The unauthorized use of women in or near DGC units was unfair to military women, men, and to civilian women as well.  This is because the Army has also ignored the legal mandate to provide an analysis of proposed changes in regulations affecting women in combat with regard to Selective Service registration.  Another lawsuit by the ACLU—on behalf of men—could result in equal burdens for young women who would be required to register, without any congressional mandate or opportunity to oppose that change. 

Members of the incoming 112^th Congress need to pay attention to the misplaced priorities and unrealistic assumptions incorporated in the MLDC Report.  The lack of oversight since 2004 has created an untenable situation, but without congressional intervention, it could become much worse.