WASHINGTON — Republican representatives on Wednesday sought a ban on women in combat support units despite objections from the Army that the limits could confuse soldiers fighting overseas.
The House Armed Services subcommittee on military personnel passed a measure along party lines as part of the 2006 defense budget. It would prohibit female soldiers from joining forward support companies, defined as any unit supporting a ground combat battalion or even located in that battalion’s operating area.
In letters to the committee before the vote, Army Secretary Francis Harvey and Army vice chief of staff Gen. Richard A. Cody said the new law could send the wrong signal to male and female soldiers worldwide.
Both asked lawmakers to wait to act until the Army finishes reviewing its policies regarding women in combat before approving any limits.
“This is not the time to create such confusion,” the identical letters stated.
But supporters said their goal was to clarify a confusing existing policy.
Subcommittee chairman Rep. John McHugh, R-N.Y., said even though women can be assigned to combat support units, when the male soldiers move into combat the female soldiers must stay behind, since Defense Department policies prohibit sending women into combat.
“The Army’s policy is not enlightened; it’s schizophrenic,” McHugh said. “… To discount this as a Neanderthal initiative to take women out of the military misses the point.”
McHugh said only 31 women serving in Iraq and Afghanistan today fall into those categories, and none of them would be reassigned under the new law.
Armed Services Committee chairman Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., co-sponsor of the amendment, said the ban simply reaffirms current policy.
“The nation should not put women into the front lines of combat,” he said in a statement following Wednesday’s vote. “In my judgment, we will cross that line soon unless we make a policy decision as we design the new Army.”
About 17,000 female soldiers are currently serving in Iraq and Afghanistan, according to the committee.
Democrats on the committee blasted the measure as insulting to women and too broadly written, which could leave soldiers wondering whether it applies to their units.
Lory Manning, a director of the Women in the Military project for the Women’s Research and Education Institute, said in war zones like Iraq, where the battlefield is loosely defined, the amendment could put commanders in the awkward position of breaking the law to get critical equipment repaired.
“This policy needs to be looked at, but not during a time of war,” said Manning, a retired Navy captain. “There has been no public conversation on this. It’s a real sneak attack. And it’s a silly way to do it.”
But Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly, a vocal opponent of allowing women in combat, praised the ban as “a reasonable thing to do.”
“Now [the Army is] saying they remove female soldiers on the eve of battle … that type of plan is confusing and disruptive,” she said. “It’s harmful to unit cohesion, and it appears to be a way for the Army to circumvent the [women in combat] law.”
Next week the full House committee will review the defense budget, including the new limits on female soldiers. The budget must be approved by the full House and Senate, then signed into law by the president, before the ban would go into effect.
