He who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.
- Harold Wilson

The military has until 1 January 2016 to fully integrate women into all occupational specialties, or to request waivers. Different services have launched various initiatives to facilitate the integration of women in an effective manner. The results of such initiatives must be coupled with the fact that American service women have been engaged in combat operations for the last 14 years, and that women in some foreign militaries have been at it for much longer. Integrating women into combat units is a big step towards full equality for both genders. Inevitably there are detractors and naysayers however who cannot conceive a world where men and women serve side by side.

A recent article supports the notion that it is wrong to integrate women specifically into infantry units, but the premise applies to any all-male combat branch. It advances the theory that teams will not be able to properly meld due to a lack of commitment and unwillingness to sacrifice for teammates. Strong implications are made that women cannot face the rigors of combat, and that there will be a quota of women assigned to combat units who will be allowed in after meeting a double standard. Males will be handicapped by having to observe political correctness, because the “youthful ingredients” that make men effective in combat naturally inhibit their ability to accept women. Ultimately the argument is that integration will do irrevocable damage not just to the combat capability of the unit, but to national security as a whole. This viewpoint does a disservice not only to women who wish to serve in combat units, but the men who will serve alongside them.

It is unconscionable to imagine that in the heat of combat, one American will not do everything in their power to assist another, regardless of gender. If a man were to refuse to go to the aide of another service member simply because that service member was a woman, he would be many things — to include untrustworthy, and unworthy to call himself a man. And that does not even suppose that the two knew one another, and had trained and worked together on the same team for an extended period. Regardless, Americans have the back of other Americans on the battlefield, no matter their age, sex, race, or religion. Women who volunteer and pay their dues to be in a combat unit have as much right to be there and expect the same treatment as any of their male counterparts.

This of course gives rise to fears that women would be given a leg up — a “female standard” that would enable them to make it into whatever unit they chose. Also that the Department of Defense may impose some sort of quota on the number of females that have to be in a unit under a certain specialty. Male and female alike should look with trepidation upon any double-standards or quotas. A female who volunteers and earns the right to be in a combat unit, even if she is the only one, would have her achievement cheapened by the arbitrary assignment or sudden accession of other females who got in under a separate standard/quota. Men would rightly resent such inclusions within the ranks.

One or both of these instances would be wrong, and both would be a setback in the quest for true equality. There should be one standard, period. It should be challenging, it should be fair, and it should ensure only the best qualified volunteers, from both genders, make the cut. To impose a quota system would fly in the very face of the volunteer spirit that makes the U.S. Military the force that it is. The key words in the previous two sentences are “fair” and “volunteer”. If a woman volunteers for a combat unit and passes a fair evaluation that has the same standards as her male peers, then she acknowledges what she is getting into and should be afforded the opportunity to prove herself.

Once women are in a combat unit, there is concern that the men from Mars will not be able to observe the political correctness that is supposedly required around females in the ranks. Women would have to have separate facilities, hygiene concerns, and medical care. Units would devolve into anarchy as young warriors would give into their base urges. Men and women would have sexual encounters, feminine products would be left laying about, and the whole system would break down. These concerns are compounded by the rigors of duties such as manning a combat outpost, or going on long missions outside the wire. This is all under the pall of combat operations, which women are not equipped to endure.

To an extent this is a valid concern. Women have never held combat specialties and been assigned to combat units. It will take time, training, and leadership to resolve the initial issues. Having a separate bathroom and hygiene area however is nothing new in society. The supply birds that bring the toilet paper and hand sanitizer could fit a crate of feminine products. Medical issues would be dealt with the same for the women as for the men — if the aid station cannot handle it, the issue goes to the next level of care. General orders banning sexual encounters would still exist, and adultery would still be against the UCMJ. Regardless, members of the same team should know better than to get involved with one another.

But most importantly, leaders will have to set the proper expectations and have young service members rise to them. Young service members can and should be treated like adults and obligated to act in a mature, intelligent manner. Those who do not meet the standards, male or female, do not belong. It will be an adjustment to integrate women into combat units. It will require a shift in thinking for both genders. Instead of a band of brothers, it will be a band of siblings fighting for a common cause. Men will have to be open-minded and tolerant. The pioneering women will have to be strong and steadfast. In the end we will have a more evolved military because of the unique strength found in diversity and service members able to cope with it.

As for being unable to withstand the rigors, stress, and pain of combat, a comfortable majority of men have proven their ability to endure in every conflict. But some have failed to measure up in spite of training, leadership, and social expectations. Historically however, men have been the sole focus group from which to draw data. Who can accurately say what a few intrepid female volunteers, let alone the entire gender can endure? Women have the capacity to endure tremendous amounts of pain, stress, and adversity. A female volunteer who understands the risks, has completed the assessment and training to be in combat, and has the right leadership (or some combination thereof) should be allowed to try. Some who think they can will not be able to — it is the same with the men. No group has a monopoly on the unique ability to function under fire, and no one knows until they try.

Members of the American military are capable of anything, and defeating anyone — save for their own populace and political leadership. The services should embrace the integration of women so they can own and facilitate the process for themselves, rather than arbitrarily resist and then have the changes haphazardly forced. Far from being obscene and selfish, fairness is what must guide this process. A women has no right to expect to be allowed into a combat unit simply because she is a woman who wants to be there. With her male peers she should expect to be held to high, fair standards. Units who want waivers should submit them, but they should meet a burden of proof that is fair and reasonable as to why. High level leaders from each service will have to ensure the process is equitable and palatable to both groups. National leaders should be fair and unbiased in their review as they make the best decision they can. All must avoid pandering to special interests that are more concerned with quantity rather than quality. The decision has been reached and it is time to execute.

The military should be proud that historically it has been the vanguard of change for the nation. It has dealt with desegregation, conscription vs. volunteerism, and (recently) equality for homosexuals. Gender equality is its own challenge, but not one the military cannot deal with. It is another step towards the day when service members can come together, look to their left and right, and simply see a Soldier, Sailor, Airman, or Marine. It is a disservice to think any branch or specialty in the military, and the Americans that comprise them, are capable of less.