Defense officials said that the ranking of the new medal recognized the changing nature of warfare. A Defense Department press release said that in addition to drone operators, a possible recipient could be "a soldier at Fort Meade, Md., who detects and thwarts a cyber attack on a DOD computer system."Personally, not sure why service members need yet another medal when the Pentagon already awards a couple dozen campaign, combat and warfare related medals. Then again, I was in the Navy and not Air Force.
"I've seen firsthand how modern tools, like remotely piloted platforms and cyber systems, have changed the way wars are fought," Panetta said in announcing the medal. "And they've given our men and women the ability to engage the enemy and change the course of battle, even from afar."
But the thought of placing a medal for drone pilots — operating their aircraft from secure sites far from the battlefield — above medals for members of the military actually under fire drew a barrage of criticism from veterans and their families.
What’s been surprising about this entire episode has been the lack of outrage from Congress. Don’t they want the administration to have to justify their actions even in AFTER-action settings? It’s amazing that it took Brennan’s confirmation hearing to convince the White House to allow even a FEW members of Congress to read the ACTUAL legal memos and not just a “white paper.”
Political whiplash: You’ll be forgiven if you’ve had political whiplash with Republicans defending Obama on the issue. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and even ex-Bush U.N. Amb. John Bolton gave full-throated defenses of Obama’s use of drones even in the targeting of American citizens-turned-al Qaeda operatives. Graham yesterday said that he was "totally supportive” of the actions. Bolton called it “entirely sensible” and “derived from the Bush administration approach to the War on Terror.” This is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue. This is an Executive branch vs. Legislative branch issue. There are still important and serious questions to be asked about the United States' use and increased use of a program that can catch (and has caught) civilians in the line of fire. But the big difference between this and, say, the political opposition to the torture memos is you had prominent voices on the right opposing this (John McCain), who were feeding the media back in the day. It’s not like Hillary Clinton is sitting in the Senate criticizing the drone program. That’s essentially what McCain did to Bush. But, as we learned then and see now, the public also seemed to overwhelmingly favor the use of drones overseas to target terrorists. In a Washington Post/ABC poll last year, 83% said they approved; it’s when they’re used domestically that people start to have privacy concerns.Many leaders from both sides of the aisle are seemingly following the sentiments of their constituents. If, in fact, 83% of Americans approve of drones assassinating terrorists overseas, then they apparently do not distinguish between killing foreign terrorists in foreign lands and killing AMCITs in foreign lands. Makes sense to me. If a SEAL or Force Recon Marine in Iraq, Afghanistan or anywhere OCONUS is authorized to kill an AMCIT by way of 7.62mm round to the skull, then why would it be any different for a Barclay Lounge operator (aka Air Force UAV pilot) sitting in Nevada to fire a Hellfire missile from a Predator at the same target?
Being an infantryman isn’t just about uncomfortable living situations. It’s kill or be killed, blood, entrails and fear. We are a brotherhood; a collection of ragtag men who hunt and kill the enemy and travel to undesirable places to do even more undesirable things. Maybe women can join the infantry and succeed, but many of us are not sure. There’s more at stake here than equal opportunity and political correctness.
* * *
Integrating women into the infantry is asking to shift a cultural norm. It is not something that is impossible but it will take much effort and training to be successful. I, for one, am torn.I, too am torn. I enthusiastically and emphatically endorse women in the military and even in some combat roles, but question the efficacy of having women integrate into certain elite, specialized combat units. But I also realize the decision has been made and will not be rescinded. We as a society have turned a corner from which we'll never go back.
In the summary section, the report states:
Over the years, more than 283,000 female service members have been deployed worldwide. In approximately 10 years of combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, over 800 women have been wounded and over 130 have died. According to the Department of Defense (DOD), as of February 29, 2012, over 20,000 female members have served or are serving Afghanistan and Iraq. (U.S. forces were out of Iraq as of Dec. 2011.) On numerous occasions women have been recognized for their heroism, two earning Silver Star medals. This has resulted in a renewed interest in Congress, the Administration, and beyond in reviewing and possibly refining or redefining the role of women in the military. The expansion of roles for women in the armed forces has evolved over decades. Women are not precluded from serving in any military unit bylaw today. (Past laws that precluded women from serving on board military aircraft and ships assigned combat missions were repealed in the early 1990s.) DOD policy restricting women from serving in ground combat units was most recently modified in 1994. Under this policy, women may not be assigned to units, below the brigade level, whose primary mission is to engage in direct combat on the ground. Primarily, this means that women are barred from infantry, artillery, armor, combat engineers, and special operations units of battalion size or smaller. Since there areno laws precluding such service, changes made in assigning women are only controlled under current policies which may be modified by the Administration and DOD.
Supporters of opening more areas to women note that they are already serving, fighting, and in some cases, dying in combat. Critics contend that it is the military that is ignoring its own policy and thereby creating a fait accompli that puts women and the military mission at risk.
Those opposed to women in combat note that the progress of women is not the most important issue at hand. They contend that national security has been and would further be jeopardized because of the presence of women in the ranks. They note the Canadian experience in which women were recruited for the 16-week infantry training course which was identical to the men’s course. The outcome was described as the ‘high cost of recruiting women that yielded poor results.These critics note disruptions to cohesion and high rates of attrition for females in labor intensive specialties due to lower average upper body strength and higher rates of stress fractures. Those opposed note that close combat situations have and continue to exist, especially in Afghanistan, and that there is a distinction between ‘returning fire’ and ‘offensive close combat.’
The Marine Corps opened its Infantry Officers Course to women, planning to admit up to 100 women in a one-year experiment. Two female Marines have so far signed up and begun training; neither completed the grueling 13-week program. Since women themselves are divided on the issue, one option is to permit women who meet the service standards (physical, training, etc.) to be assigned to combat positions, but that they should be sent into combat only if they volunteer for such missions. Critics contend that it would be unfair to permit women a choice that is not available to men, and that to make the choice available to both men and women would make if difficult for the services to function, especially in the event of war or national emergency.
Any changes proposed by the Services will likely be subjected to congressional scrutiny. Congress may accept any proposed changes or seek to subject such changes to certain limitations. Conversely, Congress may consider that any proposed changes remain too restrictive concerning the availability of combat roles for women.The entire report can be found here.
