PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE : No Giant Step for Women in the Military Services

CAMBRIDGE, MASS. — Since Defense Secretary Les Aspin ordered the services to allow women to compete for combat roles, several people have stopped to congratulate me, saying, “You won!” As a woman who is about to receive a commission in the U.S. Navy, I regard the Defense Department’s “concessions” to be a hollow victory.

The only thing women really won was the right to compete for job assignments on the basis of competence rather than gender. Is that a victory, or the acknowledgment of a right long denied? Combat- exclusion policies have persisted for years, and are now among the last remaining institutional barriers restricting women’s participation in the armed forces. It is frustrating to consider the announcement of a long-overdue policy change as a victory for women.

My “victory celebration” is also constrained by the knowledge that the pace of change will continue to be slow. Throughout Bill Clinton’s presidential campaign, he was repeatedly asked to state his position on women in combat. He invariably demurred, choosing instead to wait for a report from the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. The commission turned over its recommendations to President George Bush on Nov. 15, 1992. It then took the Clinton Administration nearly half a year to find its position, and it did so only after differences among the service chiefs forced Aspin’s hand.

This is no definition of victory. Indeed, the battle has just begun. Unless the services are forced and guided into action, their commitment to lift combat restrictions will languish. The Navy’s handling of the Tailhook scandal is an excellent illustration of how a service can drag its feet in accomplishing a directed task. The official report released late last month told of 90 sexual assaults occurring at the September, 1991, convention of naval aviators. It listed 140 accused officers, men and women. None of them has yet been held accountable to military authorities.

There is also the probability that the ordered combat-role changes will encounter resistance from the people charged with implementing them. Although Gen. Merrill McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff, admitted he may have erred in trying to limit the combat role women may serve in the Air Force, other top brass may not be so eager to admit fault. And before women can be assigned to combat vessels, Congress needs to repeal the Navy policy that limits women’s ship assignments to non-combatant tasks. While this necessary change may pass in the House without major opposition, Sens. John W. Warner (R-Va.), John McCain (R-Ariz.), John Glenn (D-Ohio) and Sam Nunn (D-Ga.) may try to block passage, just as they tried to prevent the repeal of combat-aircraft restrictions in December, 1991.

A final reason to be skeptical of Aspin’s call for change can be found in the inconsistency of his policy directive. He ordered that combat jobs in the Air Force and Navy be opened to women on the basis that they will have to satisfy the same requirements as men, thus enabling the services to call upon a much larger pool of talent to perform their military tasks. With respect to ground-combat units, however, the secretary focused on public acceptance rather than the possible establishment of gender-neutral aptitude tests to assess ground-combat qualifications.

There are women who would be able to pass such tests, and many of them are already members of the armed services. What happened to the larger pool of talent Aspin was interested in creating for the other combat positions? And what is going to happen if the services continue to keep some job assignments off limits to women and justify the restrictions by contending that American society is unprepared to see women in these jobs? Will these excuses be acceptable to the Administration, which uses similar evasions to leave ground-combat units out of the “women in combat” discussion?

After I graduate and am commissioned into the Navy, I will become a surface-warfare officer. My first tour will probably not be served on a combatant ship, because the process of change is too slow. It is my hope, however, that by the time I have the opportunity to request my second-tour assignment, I will be able to compete on the basis of my skills and abilities to perform as an officer, regardless of my gender. By then, America may be closer to resolving its patterns of denying women access to military assignments because of outdated notions of women’s proper roles. If this happens, the country will have won a much stronger national defense.