By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
September 2, 1998
It is a key part of our Constitutional system that the nation's military is under civilian control. The President of the United States is its top executive as Commander-in-Chief. In his first inaugural address, Thomas Jefferson stated that he believed "the essential principles of our government" included the "supremacy of the civil over the military." Why was that an important principle? Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, in his charges against King George III, "He has kept among us...standing Armies without the consent of our people," and "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil.."
With that in mind, Congress long ago passed laws that forbid federal agency, such as the Army, from certain types of lobbying. They can provide members of Congress, for example, with information about why they oppose or support policies, but cannot lobby actively.
In the last few weeks, the Army's chief legislative officer and liaison with Congress, Maj. Gen. Bruce Scott, has been on the hill pressuring House members to stop advocating sex-segregated basic training. Part of the pressure, it is reported, has included making snide remarks about Rep. Roscoe Bartlett who authored the bill that passed the House of Representatives outlawing mixed sex basic training.
Currently the Army, Navy and Air Force integrate men and women at all levels of training and house both sexes in the same buildings, but on different floors or "bays" - which of course make it very easy for them to intermingle with little protection for improper contact between the sexes.
The Marine Corps, which continues to abide by a high code of honor and serious military preparation for combat, still separates the sexes during training and in housing. The Defense Reauthorization bill for 1999 includes a provision passed in the house that would require all military units to separate men and women at the small-unit level and maintain separate-barracks housing for males and females by the ear 2001. The Senate voted for the Status Quo, lead by several feminist Senators during the debate.
Now the Conference Committee has to come up with the final version and Maj. Gen. Bruce Scott is campaigning against Rep. Bartlett who wrote to the House/Senate conferees for the 1999 Defense Authorization bill signed by Speaker Gingrich, Majority Leader Dick Armey, Majority Whip Tom DeLay and most of the House leaders, including 18 of 19 full committee chairmen which would separate the sexes in the Army, Navy and Air Force, as they are in the Marines.
In a letter to Secretary of the Army Luis Caldera, Rep. Bartlett complained about "completely unacceptable" behavior by Maj. Gen. Scott. Bartlett noted, "General Scott has continued to make disparaging remarks about me to other members of Congress, their staffs and others within the defense community. In fact, one individual described General Scott's comments as nothing short of character assassination."
What is fascinating to me about all this is that no report I have read mentions ANY information Maj. Gen. Scott or anyone else has provided members of Congress and their staffs that makes a case that mixed sex training improves military preparedness.
However, the Federal Advisory Committee on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Issues, recommended segregation of the sexes in recruit training and in housing. After numerous military interviews, the panel concluded training standards were too low. The integration of the sexes did not promote military readiness and it served as a major distraction to the mission of a strong national defense. One Pentagon official noted what we already know to be true: "the separation of men and women in barracks lessens many disciplinary problems. If the recommendation for gender segregation is implemented one could speculate the number of sexual harassment cases would diminish."
Rep. Jane Harman, one of the Congress' most ardent feminists, insisted that ending mixed gender training would "undermine national security." Why? Because, she said, "Resegregating men and women is guaranteed to diminish the opportunities and success of women in the military."
What in the world does "opportunities" for women in the military have to do with military preparedness? How effective would a 115 pound woman be in a foxhole next to a 180 pound man, if the man were shot?
Under Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution the Congress of the United States has the responsibility to make regulations for an effective military. If the US Defense fails at some point in the future, it is Congress that will be held responsible. I have seen no information that even suggests that mixed gender training and units improve the fighting ability of the units. In fact, experience invariably indicates that mixed basic training or mixed units lower the effectiveness of the military.
The Army first initiated mixed-sex basic training at five bases in 1977, but returned to single sex basic training in 1982. The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces recommended keeping basic training segregated. The Marines have retained single-sex basic training with same-sex drill instructors. After toying with mixed sex basic training, Israel also re-segregated its military. It found the hard way that, in battle, the men would make military decisions based on their desire to protect the weaker female soldiers, rather than on military necessities to win the battle.
We live in a dangerous world. We need a well-trained, effective fighting force, not a social experiment to protect America. As I noted in a column some months ago, during Desert Storm, none of the feminists were begging to be allowed to join the Marines who were moving around the desert five times a day, in 120 degree heat, dodging Scud missiles and sleeping out in the open. Nor were the women complaining about "lack of opportunity" because they missed all the gory battles - the tank battle, seizing the Iraqi command center, have the "opportunity" to check out the bunkers where Kuwaiti women were sexually abused, tortured and killed.
It's interesting to note that none of the Marine Battalion that spent seven months in the desert and who actually fought the battles complained to their Battalion Surgeon, who was my son, Dr. Guy Grooms, of being disabled with the elusive "Gulf War Syndrome." The primary lobbyist for some kind of compensation for "Gulf War Syndrome" is a female who never set foot on shore in Saudi Arabia, much less ever fought in the battles. Those Marines were there to fight for their country and to defend their buddies on the battlefield.
If the House and Senate Conferees are serious about developing and maintaining military units capable of actually defending America, they will scrap once and for all the mixed gender basic training and housing.
Considering the problems President Clinton, a man in his 50s, has had keeping his mind on his work with a cute intern nearby, putting 19 year old hot blooded males and females in the same training units where they need to learn to care enough for each other to risk theirs lives for one another as a comrade in battle, putting them in the same barracks at night is simply stupid. If a drill sergeant did the same things with a recruit that their Commander-in-Chief did with an intern, there would be an immediate court martial.
It's time to stop the hypocrisy and the nonsense. The Conference Committee on the 1999 Defense Appropriations bill should dump the "mixed gender" training and barracks and bring some sanity back to the Army, Navy and Air Force.
To Comment: mmostert @originalsources.com
Note: Key conferees on the Conference Committee include: Sen. Strom Thurmond, Chairman, Senate Armed Services Committee; senator@thurmond.senate.gov ; and Sen. Carl Levin, ranking member, Senate Armed Services Committee; senator@levin.senate.gov ; Rep. Floyd Spence, Chairman House National Security Committee, Phone: (202)-225-2452 and Rep. Ike Skelton, ranking member, House National Security Committee, Phone (202) 225-2876