Women in Combat
by Elaine Donnelly

In my December article in this space, I reported some great news. President George W. Bush told editors of the Washington Times, in no uncertain terms, that his policy is "No women in [land] combat. "

Subsequent events cause me great concern. Despite the President's unequivocal statement, the Department of the Army has just deployed female soldiers in forward support companies (FSCs), which will collocate with smaller infantry and armor (tank) battalions. The Boston Globe reported on January 26 that this is happening in the 3 rd Infantry Division. The famed 3 rd ID is the first to re-deploy to Iraq after reconfiguration of its infantry and armor components in the Army's new, modular brigade combat teams, which are also called "units of action." The article can be accessed at US Women get Closer to Combat

Army officials claim that they have not changed Pentagon policy regarding women in combat, but the Globe reports that "The Army's Third Infantry Division has added scores of female soldiers to newly created ‘forward support companies' that provide maintenance, food service, and other support services to infantry, armor, and Special Forces units that commonly engage in direct combat."

Also notice that the Boston Globe article included the unsupported claim that "The Army, as required by law, has notified Congress of the [3rd I.D.] division's changes." A second article on January 29 compounded the misinformation by quoting from a January 13 letter from the new Secretary of the Army, Francis Harvey, to leaders of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees: Army Secretary Rejects Change in Policy on Women in Combat

Some members of Congress mistakenly believe that the Secretary of the Army has "certified that the Army is complying with the law." On the contrary, the fact that female soldiers remain in the land combat-collocated support units indicates that the Army is operating in violation of current DoD regulations. Furthermore, Secretary Harvey's dissembling letter does not come close to complying with the congressional notification law. A letter that did meet legal requirements would:

• Be signed by the Secretary of Defense, not the Secretary of the Army;
• Be sent at least 30 legislative days, when both Houses are in session, in advance of proposed rule changes regarding women in combat (about 3 months in calendar days);
• Include an analysis of the legal consequences of proposed rule changes on young women's exemption from Selective Service registration and a possible future draft.

It is not enough for the Secretary of the Army to simply claim compliance with current DoD policy on women in combat, much less the congressional notification law, when the facts indicate otherwise.

CMR has also received new information -- previously withheld by Army officials despite Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) inquiries that CMR filed in early 2004 -- that the 4 th Infantry Division also had women assigned to forward support companies collocated with infantry and armor battalions. In the meantime, the Army plans to continue and expand these illicit assignments, which are going forward at Fort Campbell and other military bases that I have heard from so far.

What is going on? Someone should ask President Bush or Secretary Rumsfeld or Congress, why is the Army not following the law and presidential directives?

Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness

Email the Editor