BACK-UP WARRIORS FILL UNRECOGNIZED ROLE

By Diane M. Grassi

For those who take real chances in their lives and who do so all in the interest of a better good are rightly and deservedly praised. Most recently the president, in his 2005 State of the Union Address starting off his 2nd term in office, thanked Congress “for providing our servicemen and women with the resources they have needed……and must continue to…….. give them the tools for victory.”

And as lip service and praise is given to our heroic troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the perceived success of the Iraqi people in their elections on January 30th, we are however provided a skewed view of another group of heroes who have often gotten overlooked, and in the capacity they have served our country in Iraq.

Many of our U.S. legislators will not admit that there is a need to officially reassess the structure of our armed services and our supply of available troops in light of the prolonged war in Iraq to make good on “providing our servicemen and women with the resources they have needed.” It would only be but healthy to do so in order to maintain our forces worldwide and to have the national guard available in the U.S. for matters of national regard and security.

Given that nearly 50% of the U.S. armed forces serving in Iraq are made up by the Army Reserve and our National Guard with deployments ongoing for up to 18 months, the 2005 yearly quota for recruiting reservists combined with reenlistments is down as much as 15%, and continues to decrease the longer the war goes on. How wise it is to depend so much on often aging reservists with growing families left behind in the midst of careers has been addressed on Capitol Hill, but not with any great fervor.

And shortage of troops has had a direct effect on another issue not being addressed, which is the “invisible” front line. There has been little media coverage as well as a lack of recognition to those who fill a void in those situations where there has been a shortage of combat soldiers serving in Iraq. And they are our female troops who are more and more found in the line of fire. Nearly 15% of those serving in Iraq are female soldiers who have included fighter pilots, combat helicopter pilots, as well as transport pilots. While not on the ground, but very much a part of the fall of Saddam Hussein, as well as with the ongoing transport of soldiers and supplies, they are flying above the front lines, often risking their lives.

But while not relegated to combat status, many female troops have recently been deployed with the Army’s 3rd Infantry Division for added “forward support companies” with supply and support services for infantry, armor and special forces and will find themselves on the “front lines” of Iraq, as terrorists do not acknowledge that line of demarcation between the front and back lines.

Prior to this acknowledged addition and admission by the Army this past November, female troops have been serving unacknowledged in this capacity since the beginning of the War in Iraq. Former POW’s Jessica Lynch and Shoshana Johnson and the death of Lori Piestawa were covered in the media as the exception to the rule, during their service in the supply line for the infantry, when caught in an ambush in 2003.

Presently, U.S. law prohibits women from serving in combat units. At issue is a separate Army regulation which also prohibits women from serving in front line support units. The Army claims the female troops in the 3rd Infantry are not “assigned” to the units but rather “attached” and therefore is following all laws and regulations. Since the Army is hiding behind its definitions, it stands by its decision in not advising the Congress, required by law, of its change to embed female troops with combat personnel. These roles until now were officially only held by male troops.

The traditional lines between combat and support functions have been blurred particularly by the characteristics of the War in Iraq. But the Army is also blurring the lines of the actual service these female troops are providing, while not having to credit them for it or provide the necessary training their male counterparts previously received. So often, with just basic infantry training, women are led to fend off attacks as well as protecting their comrades, much as if they were trained combat soldiers.

This is not at all a call for women to serve as combat troops. Advocates on one side are pushing for the status change of permitting women the right to engage as combat soldiers which is a different matter. Others believe this is an indirect way to unilaterally force women into combat situations, whether they want that assignment or not, whether capable or not and speaks to issues of proper training. Most important is providing our troops with the best training and equipment with the inherent ability to be as flexible as possible if need be. This is not an issue of gender but rather about one of sound policy-making.

That policy will ultimately fall upon the shoulders of the Pentagon and then hashed out by Congress most likely after the operation in Iraq. But let us not hail a policy which forbids women in combat while we use them in the air for battle operations and leave them on the ground without the appropriate training when caught in enemy fire. Given the volatile environment in Iraq which our soldiers must face, and many of them women reservists who are not active duty status, they are put further into harm’s way as we do not “train women for combat operations” according to the Army. That ultimately reflects upon the safety and security of all of our troops.

But putting policy aside for a moment, these women who have given their lives in the war in Iraq and Afghanistan - to date 32 with over 200 casualties - and those who continue to serve will never get the true recognition for the roles they play, mainly given the government’s continued denial that women do not serve in combat, and as a reminder to discourage such policy. Semantics aside, they are heroes nevertheless, and rather than covering up bad policy and skirting the real issues facing our forces in a post-9/11 world in the U.S. and abroad, it should be dealt with head on. There is no shame in doing so, but rather there is in denying our troops the best training and best chance to succeed, whether they be men or women. Let us not set up our women soldiers to fail, and then use them as scapegoats for failed missions.

Our security in the world and on our own soil depends just as much on sound policy and leadership as it does on state-of-the art weaponry. So let us give our troops the advantage of benefiting from both in order for them to successfully fulfill that mission.