Timely answers are needed so that Congress can exercise responsible oversight on matters affecting our women serving in the war on terrorism, who have a right to expect that official policies and law will be faithfully followed.

QUESTIONS FOR THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF DEFENSE

AND THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

1. Full Review & Report Needed for Congressional Oversight on Women in Combat

Background:On May 18, 2005, following the first debate on women in land combat in more than a decade, the House Armed Services Committee (HASC) approved legislation, co-sponsored by HASC Chairman Duncan Hunter and Personnel Subcommittee Chairman John McHugh, to codify 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.

Now the DoD is reneging on that promise and ignoring a second law mandating congressional oversight on women in combat. 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. Once again, the Defense Department is showing a contemptuous attitude toward a law mandating congressional oversight on a major national defense issue.

Questions:

• In view of the many months that this issue has remained unresolved, and the importance of congressional oversight, how can this delay be justified?

• Why is this important, congressionally mandated review being delegated to an unaccountable private organization?

• Will this presumptuous, unauthorized delay be cited as a reason to postpone congressional hearings on this subject until after unauthorized policies are “set in stone,” regardless of their impact on military and even civilian women?

2. Choice of RAND Problematic

Background: The RAND Corporation has a record of “spinning” reports of this kind. In 1997, RAND produced a report titled New Opportunities for Women: Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion and Morale.The original version included many findings and statements from soldiers in the field who expressed serious concerns about issues such as training standards, sexual misconduct, and non-deployability. Those statements were purged, paraphrased, or “scrubbed” before publication of the final report.

Delegating responsibility for this report to RAND, and delaying it until the 2006 Christmas holiday season, frustrates congressional intent to have moreoversight of these matters, not less. The OSD direction to RAND also adds new language to that in the actual statute.

Questions:

• Why did the OSD add extraneous language to the report directive, referring to “the need to reframe/recast/update the DoD Policy using new language…” ?

• What is the expected cost in defense dollars to produce this report, including follow-up contracts to accomplish what the DoD should be doing itself?

3. Regulations on Women in Land Combat (WIC)

Background:Current DoD regulations on women in land combat, including the collocation rule, were established by then-Defense Secretary Les Aspin on January 13, 1994. The various services provided responses on how the new rules would be applied. Lists of opened and closed units were approved by Aspin’s successor, William J. Perry, on July 28, and changes were put into effect on October 1, 1994. Under current law, proposed changes must be reported to Congress at least 30 legislative days (approximately 3 months) in advance, with an analysis of the effect on women’s exemption from Selective Service obligations.

Sec. 541 of the 2006 National Defense Authorization Act added the following language to Title X, Chapter 37, in a new Sec. 652, paragraph (a)(f): “In this subsection, the term ‘ground combat exclusion policy’ means the military personnel policies of the Department of Defense and the military departments, as in effect on October 1, 1994…. Section (a)(6) continues: “For purposes of this subsection, a military career designator is one that is related to military operations on the ground as of May 18, 2005…”(emphasis added)

There is no evidence that DoD regulations on women in combat (WIC) changed on May 18, 2005, or 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. The Army’s unauthorized changes are likely to be imposed on the Marine Corps in due course.

Questions:

• Have there been any documents produced by the DoD or Army that change the list of MOS or career designators that are open and closed to women, as approved by Secretary Perry on July 28, 1994, and implemented on October 1, 1994?

• If there are such documents, were they approved by Secretary Rumsfeld?

• If there are none, why are Army officials training female soldiers to serve in land-combat collocated units that are required by regulation to be all male?

4. Land Combat-Collocated Forward Support Companies (FSCs)

Background: On May 17, 2005, Lt. Gen. James L. Campbell, Director of the Army Staff, wrote a two-sentence letter to HASC Chairman Duncan Hunter, indicating that if the Hunter/McHugh Amendment passed, “…in Heavy and Infantry Brigade Combat Teams and equivalent elements of Stryker Brigades, a total of 21,925 spaces currently open for assignment to female Soldiers would be closed.”(Emphasis added) The Secretary of Defense did not approve this letter. The Hunter/McHugh amendment would not have closed any military occupational specialties (MOSs) to women for which they were already eligible.

Questions:

• What was the purpose of releasing this letter on the eve of the House debate?

• What was the specific breakdown of (MOSs) adding up to the 21,925 figure?

• If the Army has opened 21,925 previously closed positions that would be closed by the legislation, when was this decision made and why was notice not given to Congress, as required by law?

• Are all positions in the forward support companies and similar collocated units now considered by the Army to be open to women, or only some of them?

• If only some, which ones, and why?

• What distinguishes these open positions from others in land combat-collocated forward support companies (FSCs), required by regulation to be all male?

5. Importance of the Collocation Rule

Background:When the DoD Risk Rule was dropped in 1994, assurances were given that direct ground combat (DGC) units would not be negatively affected because of restrictions such as the collocation rule. Many land combat soldiers carry 100 pounds or more, but individual physical qualification tests for these positions have been unnecessary because average men have sufficient physical strength to do the job. All-male DGC units have also been spared social complications that are common in gender-mixed units.

Contrary to the notion “there is no front line,” the deliberately offensive missions of DGC troops have not changed. If this were not the case, the Army could abolish the infantry and Special Operations Forces, and rely upon female soldiers who are 5-foot 110-pounds to attack the enemy in battles such as the liberation of Fallujah in November 2004.

Army orders to assign female soldiers to forward support companies (FSCs), which collocate with direct ground combat troops at the battalion level, effectively repeal the collocation rule, without the required notice to Congress. In addition to being illegal, this practice increases burdens and risks for all land combat soldiers, for at least three reasons:

a) High level departures from law and policy are confusing and demoralizing to the troops.

b) Infantry/armor and Special Operations Forces will have to wage offensive warfare without the immediate support of embedded soldiers who are physically strong enough to perform single-man rescues under fire.

c) DGC soldiers will have to cope with the full range of issues associated with gender integration; i.e., sexual misconduct allegations, higher non-deployability and evacuation rates, the extra need to protect females from capture, etc.

Questions:

• Are there figures demonstrating a shortage of male soldiers for direct ground combat forces and units that collocate with them 100% of the time?

• How can the imposition of extra burdens mentioned above be justified in terms of military necessity?

• How would gender-mixed collocated troops improve the strength, readiness, discipline, and morale of infantry/armor, Marine and Special Operations Forces?

• If the Army claims that the collocation rule remains intact, why did Staff Director Lt. Gen. James Campbell claim that 21,925 positions would be closed to women if the Hunter/McHugh amendment codifying current rules had been passed?

• What (if anything) is being done to inform female soldiers that the collocation rule is no longer operative, meaning that they will be trained to serve in units embedded with direct ground combat troops 100% of the time?

6. Semantics and Sophistry About Collocation

Background:The Collocation rule is easy to understand. Unlike brigade-level units that travel back and forth from brigade level forward operating bases (FOBs), forward support company (FSC) personnel collocate, or embed, with infantry/armor maneuver battalions 100% of time. The character and requirements of these DGC and collocated support assignments have not changed due to “today’s battlefield,” or the fact that everyone is in danger under current conditions in the Global War on Terror.

To circumvent the DoD collocation rule, the Army has trained female soldiers for forward support companies (FSCs) that are administratively “assigned” to legally open brigade-level units, but “attached” or “opconned” to smaller infantry/armor maneuver battalions. Such “assignments,” on paper only, constitute circumvention of the DoD collocation rule.

In several documents published by Army officials, the language of the DoD collocation rule has been unilaterally changed, so that it now refers only to “units conducting an assigned direct ground combat mission.” The word “conducting” does not appear in the DoD regulation. Army officials have claimed that it is not necessary to inform Congress of any change in DoD rules because female soldiers will be removed prior to combat operations.

Questions:

• What was the purpose of this unilateral change in DoD regulations, which the Army does not have the power to make, and the contrivance of “assigning” women to open units while “attaching” or “opconning” them to closed ones?

• Have provisions been made for extra transportation vehicles to accomplish evacuations of women assigned to combat-collocated FSCs just prior to battle?

• If the Army insists that women are now eligible for the combat-collocated FSCs, what has changed in direct ground combat forces to justify that conclusion?

• Have the offensive missions and capabilities of infantry and Special Operations Forces been officially changed?

7. Physical Requirements In or Near Direct Ground Combat

Background:The collocation rule assures that maneuver battalion combat soldiers will be accompanied by men who have the physical ability to provide immediate support in offensive combat operations, including single-man evacuations of wounded soldiers under fire. This rule is even more important since repeal of the DoD Risk Rule in 1994.

The Army is providing additional body armor, which every soldier will be expected to wear in hostile areas. The weight of full body armor, totaling approximately 33 pounds, is proportionately heavier on female soldiers, who have smaller bones, less upper body strength, and less aerobic capacity for endurance.

Female soldiers are known to suffer 5 times as many bone stress fractures as men, and 8 times as many knee injuries as male soldiers. According to Army Times, back pain and injuries outnumber wounds among soldiers who are medically evacuated. (Dec. 12, 2005) The so-called “battlefield of today” has not changed these basic realities.

Questions:

• If women are now considered eligible for combat-collocated support units, are there qualifying tests to assure that all FSC soldiers have the physical capabilities of men serving in all-male land combat-collocated FSCs? If not, why not?

• If women are now considered eligible for combat-collocated units, what rationale is there for not assigning them to the infantry/armor, Marine, and Special Operations Forces units with which their gender-mixed units are collocating?

• Does the Army have plans to replace female soldiers who will be non-deployable or evacuated from their units due to predictable physical injuries?

• Will female soldiers be excused from orders to wear extra body armor in transportation and other support units that are legally open to women?

7. Surveys on Potential Effect on Recruiting

Background:Professionals who assist the volunteer force in targeting advertising to potential recruits have reported that the realities of battle tend to deter parents and other influencers, who discourage young men and women from joining the military.

Questions:

• Have surveys determined the effect of requiring female soldiers to serve in or near land combat¾including support troops that collocate with the infantry/armor, Marine, and Special Operations Forces¾on parents and other influencers?

• Have surveys determined the effect on potential female recruits of officially changing the rules so that they must serve in or near land combat troops?

• Have surveys determined the effect on potential male recruits of officially changing the rules so that will serve in gender-integrated land combat units?

8. Additional Questions:

• If women in combat-collocated FSCs do searches of female civilians, will extra personnel be added to the FSC to compensate for their displacement of men?

• How many female Iraqis are being trained to do female civilian searches?

• If or when women are assigned to land combat and/or collocated support troops, on what basis would women’s exemption from Selective Service registration be retained and defended when challenged in federal court?

• If the Army is allowed to unilaterally repeal the collocation rule by redefining and circumventing it, how will congressional oversight be protected if the Army decides to assign female soldiers to infantry, armor, and other DGC units?

• If the Army is allowed to unilaterally repeal the collocation rule by redefining and circumventing it, how will congressional oversight be protected if the Navy decides to assign women to Marine infantry units and Navy submarines?

• If the changes being implemented by the Army are such a good idea, why have Army officials not secured approval from Secretary Rumsfeld, and formally reported them in advance to Congress, as required by law?

* * * * *

More information on these issues and questions are posted in the Issues/Women in Combat section of www.cmrlink.org.

WC030106