Las Vegas Sun

April 20, 2014

Currently: 68° — Complete forecast | Log in | Create an account

OTHER VOICES:

Bittersweet equality in U.S. military

Another view?

View more of the Las Vegas Sun's opinion section:

Editorials - the Sun's viewpoint.

Columnists - local and syndicated writers.

Letters to the editor - readers' views.

Have your own opinion? Write a letter to the editor.

It is hard for me to celebrate the news that women will be permitted to serve in combat roles.

I am pleased for the women in the military who will not have their paths to promotion blocked by artificial limits. Women are, in fact, in harm’s way in Afghanistan and other hot spots, and they deserve whatever rewards come with that.

And I agree with retired Air Force Brig. Gen. Wilma Vaught, who told Gail Collins of The New York Times, “I think people have come to the sensible conclusion that you can’t say a woman’s life is more valuable than a man’s life.”

It is good that we are over the old “she carries the eggs of the next generation” excuse.

And, since I have both a son and a daughter, I do not want any limits placed on the career path of either child simply because of their gender. But neither am I more willing to sacrifice one child than the other.

That’s why this decision by the Pentagon reminds me of “Sophie’s Choice.”

You remember the novel by William Styron? The mother, played to excruciating effect by Meryl Streep in the movie version, is taken to Auschwitz during World War II and must choose which child will go with her to work in the camp, knowing that the other child will be killed.

A variation of the impossible situation that confronted Sophie could now potentially apply to military parents. Which child would you rather risk in war: your son or your daughter? Do you see what a ridiculous question this is?

For those of us with a son in the military, the idea that our daughters have won the “right” to be put equally at risk is a Pyrrhic victory. I don’t see equal opportunity here. I see equal measures of fear and dread. Those parents who say how proud they are of their children in uniform are telling only half the truth.

My neighbor in Annapolis is in the U.S. Naval Academy, and I see the young men and women midshipmen, in their crisp uniforms, everywhere I go. I know how hard they work at their studies, their sports and their military responsibilities, and the idea that the guys would eventually have choices and earn benefits that the women would not makes the feminist in me angry.

But the mother in me is not happy. I would rather they all graduated to carrying clipboards on battleships and none would be as close to death as those in war zones.

More than 20,000 women have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, more than 800 have been wounded and more than 130 have died. I can’t imagine that their families are grateful for the equality of that opportunity.

What I am asking for, of course, is the end to combat, the end to war. As insurgencies flare like wildfires all over the world, I realize I am not going to get my wish.

But forgive me if I don’t greet the Pentagon’s decision with satisfaction. More women in leadership in the military will improve the lives and careers of the women who serve under them, but I don’t think it will make anyone in uniform safer from an enemy’s bullet.

Polls suggest Americans support this change by a wide margin, and there was much rejoicing among women in Congress, who found the combat exclusion policy archaic, sexist, and out of touch with reality of wars where there are no front lines and no trenches.

Meanwhile, conservative groups such as the Family Research Council said, “the people making this decision are doing so as part of another social experiment.”

But at the end of the day, I don’t believe the families who open the door to a pair of uniformed officers and know the awful message they carry would make any distinction about whether they came with news of a daughter or a son.

Susan Reimer is a columnist for the Baltimore Sun.

Join the Discussion:

Check this out for a full explanation of our conversion to the LiveFyre commenting system and instructions on how to sign up for an account.

Full comments policy

Previous Discussion: 3 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. Let's see what the polls say when women come back in body bags and coffins by the scores.

    CarmineD

  2. I'm not sure I agree with any of this.I believe women want to be in the military and only a hand full "truly" want to be on the front line(men as well). But now that the barn door is open will this cause the next line of women to think twice before joining? I'm a Vietnam era vet...there was the draft...no getting around it,you were going.We have pulled bodies from EVERY corner of this country to fill the numbers they required to see these wars out.Non citizens ? unheard of ! National Guard? unheard of ! Whole families of boys going in together...unheard of! They would have done none of that years ago. Back then it was called the "buddy system" you joined with a buddy and you could name anywhere in the world you wanted to be stationed.You know how that turned out.But I think the math will prove me right....the majority of women do not want marching orders for the front line.It's NOT going to be a option.

  3. Equal pay for Equal work, its about time.