Path: bloom-picayune.mit.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!americast.com!americast.com!americast-post Newsgroups: americast.twt.news From: americast-post@AmeriCast.Com Organization: American Cybercasting Approved: americast-post@AmeriCast.com Subject: 15 panelists divided on women in combat Date: Mon, 26 Oct 92 14:37:03 EST Message-ID: \SE A;NATION \HD 15 panelists divided on women in combat \BY Rowan Scarborough \CR THE WASHINGTON TIMES A presidential commission this weekend debated a series of "facts" it will use to support a recommendation to the president on whether military women should participate in direct combat. The 15-member Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces hit repeated snags as it grappled with the task of reaching a consensus on hundreds of findings that will underpin its final report. On the job eight months, the panel appears deeply divided on the key question of whether the Pentagon should retain a policy of barring women from direct combat in aircraft, on ships, in the infantry and in armored units. On Thursday, eight commission members expressed strong doubts about overturning current policy, citing evidence that female combatants could harm unit cohesion and military effectiveness. But the panel will not vote until Nov. 2-3 on the specific issues, and some commission members said yesterday they believe a slim majority will approve female combat fliers. The members said there is less support for women serving on warships and little support for women engaging in direct ground combat. The commission's report is due Nov. 15. "You're going to see a lot of 8-7 votes," commission member Charles Moskos, a military expert and sociology professor at Northwestern University, predicted. The commission stumbled Saturday when it was asked to accept the opinions of William Gregor, a retired Army colonel and a military science professor who teaches ROTC students. Mr. Gregor, who testified before the commission last month, concluded that a "large majority [of women] cannot, and do not, meet the same physical standards as men." A 20- to 30-year-old woman, he said, has about the same aerobic capacity as a 50-year-old man. His conclusions were based largely on a study last summer of 623 women and 3,540 men ROTC cadets. In his testimony, Mr. Gregor added this opinion: "Because there is no current shortfall in military manpower, there is no functional reason for including women in combat formations. Hence any decision to open assignments in fighting units to women is a political, not a military, decision." Based on his study, the commission's final report would state, "Even the most physically fit women rarely exceed the physical fitness of average men." Giving the professor's words a prominent place in the panel's final report irked members who favor lifting some or all combat exclusion policies. "We're giving him an awful lot of ink here for one testimonial," commission Chairman Robert Herres, a retired Air Force four-star general, said. "Putting out what his findings are, to me, is data that doesn't have credibility," said another commission member, Army Capt. Mary Finch, a helicopter pilot. But to commission member Kate Walsh O'Beirne, a women-in-combat opponent, the Gregor findings "cut to the chase." "It's worded in a way to make sense to we lay people. There's nothing non-factual about it," she said. Some members also objected to proposed language that states the Persian Gulf war, where nearly 40,000 women were deployed, is not a useful gauge for deciding if women are suited to combat. "I guess I have a problem thinking that we can't learn anything from the most recent war we just had," said Capt. Finch. "We had women in there, and we have no lessons to learn. If military can't learn from the lessons learned from wars, we're in a world of hurt." This article is copyright 1992 The Washington Times. Redistribution to other sites is not permitted except by arrangement with American Cybercasting Corporation. For more information, send-email to usa@AmeriCast.COM