Pentagon lifts ban on women in combat; aren’t they already there?

Let’s face it, the thought of women in combat makes some people skittish. It just does not feel right. Gender socialization tells us that women are too delicate and too fragile to be put in harm’s way at the frontlines.

 

But the reality is that women are already at the frontlines. We just don’t hear enough about it because the military is so thoroughly masculinized. The contributions of female soldiers are quickly forgotten or largely ignored. More than 150 women have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan, and over 800 have been wounded.

 

There are no traditional “frontlines” anymore. There are no big armies fighting other big armies. The nature of terror threats are different from what they were in the 19th century. Wars are now unconventional. We live in a world of Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) and suicide bombers.

 

Everywhere in a war zone is a frontline.

 

Driving a Humvee down the street in Fallujah is just as dangerous as flying an AH-64 Apache helicopter in the Helmand province while taking fire, and women already do this.

 

A major concern that looms large in the minds of opponents of this new policy is the issue of rape and sexual abuse. Women in combat face the risk of rape and sexual abuse, a risk their male counterparts do not. So the argument goes. But the truth is that men face that risk as well, and not from the enemy, but from their military male counterparts.

 

For example, in 2010, nearly 50,000 male veterans screened positive for “military sexual trauma” at the Department of Veterans Affairs, up from 30,000 in 2003, according to a report by Jesse Ellison of Newsweek Magazine. If a woman is aware of that risk, and is still willing and physically able to perform in combat, why should she be denied the opportunity?

 

Others are concerned that combat strength and endurance requirements will be reduced to accommodate more women. That concern is legitimate and should be taken seriously. In the army currently, women are allowed to pass physical fitness tests with fewer push-ups and slower two-mile runs than men.

 

So it is incumbent on the new Defense Secretary to ensure that gender-neutral standards are developed and upheld.

 

The knowledge that men and women are built differently is not novel. There is a reason why women do not play in the NFL. There is a reason why men record faster times, higher jumps, and longer throws in Olympic competition. It has nothing to do with training, it is genetics. Men genetically have greater upper-body strength, size, muscle mass and aerobic capacity on average than women.

 

The low testosterone levels in women does not allow them to gain the same level of muscular size and strength that a man with the same training can. But if a woman can meet or outperform her male counterpart in fitness tests, should she not be given a chance to fight in combat?

 

Not every woman will qualify to be a combat soldier, but every woman deserves a chance. 

Manti Te’o's hoax reveals a larger societal problem

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 17, 2013 — One of the biggest and perhaps strangest stories capturing attention right now has nothing to do with guns, the debt ceiling, or whether President Obama needs some binders full of women.

It is about Manti Te’o.

Early last year, Manti Te'o, a linebacker and Heisman Trophy candidate from Notre Dame began dating a woman named Lennay Kekua. In September 2012, both his mother, Annette Santiago, and his purported girlfriend, Lennay Kekua, died. Upon hearing the news of the two deaths, Te'o went on to lead his Notre Dame Fighting Irish to a 20-3 win over Michigan State.

It turns out that not only had Lennay never died, but she never existed in the first place. An embarrassed Manti Te'o released a statement saying:

“We maintained what I thought to be an authentic relationship by communicating frequently online and on the phone, and I grew to care deeply about her. To realize that I was the victim of what was apparently someone's sick joke and constant lies was, and is, painful and humiliating. It further pains me that the grief I felt and the sympathies expressed to me at the time of my grandmother's death in September were in any way deepened by what I believed to be another significant loss in my life …”

This story is indicative of a larger societal problem—the degeneration of interpersonal relationships and the rise of insular communities.

Online social networking has become a substitute for face-to-face interactions. Why bother picking up the phone to call a friend or loved one when you can simply write on their Facebook wall or mention them in a tweet?

Everyone is addicted to their little gadgets – the iPads, laptops, and smartphones that are used for Instant Messenger, Facebook, and Twitter.

The benefits of online social networking are undeniable. It helps connect people with similar interests. Anyone with an internet access can get plugged in to the rest of the world. It makes information sharing easier. But, spreading misinformation is just as easy as spreading information. The next hoax is just another tweet, another Facebook comment away.

Beyond that, online social networking breeds insular communities that become polarized against each other. Liberals and conservatives restrict themselves to news outlets that reinforce their respective ideologies.

No one wants to get out of their comfort zone. Very few are willing to expose themselves to new ideas and new ways of thinking. Just as society has become more insular, so has the government.
Take a look at Washington. Ideological purity is now seen as a sign of loyalty.

Politicians on both sides of the aisle are reluctant to stray from their sacred talking points. Members of Congress do not spend time with one another. Instead, they isolate themselves and retreat to their respective ideological corners.

Maybe Manti Te’o was a victim of a hoax, maybe he was not. One thing is clear, America is divided.

And a house divided against itself cannot stand.

---

Republicans have leverage on the debt ceiling? What leverage?

WASHINGTON, D.C., January 4, 2013 — Will Republicans really threaten to destroy the full faith and credit of the United States in order to get significant cuts in Medicare and Social Security?

Sure they will. But in the end, they will cave.

Smashing into the debt-ceiling is worse than falling off the fiscal cliff. Defaulting on the national debt means the United States will fail to meet its obligations on wages, Social Security payments, and interest on the national debt. Beyond that, stock markets would plunge, interest rates would soar, and the dollar would lose its value. Republicans are aware of that reality, and will not want to be blamed for causing a global recession.

The best leverage the GOP had to restore fiscal discipline to the country was when we were on the edge of the “fiscal cliff.” But they overestimated the leverage President Obama supposedly had. They forgot that President Obama was not the only person who won reelection. Republicans won as well.

Instead, a Republican Party that had not voted for a tax increase in two decades ended up doing so, with only $12 billion in spending cuts to show for it.

During the fiscal cliff negotiations, The White House leaked that President Obama was willing to go over the fiscal cliff if Republicans refused to give in on tax increases.

It was a bluff, a brinkmanship exercise, and Republicans fell for it.

Would a newly reelected, second-term president really risk a nine percent unemployment rate, and another recession just to score a political victory on higher taxes? Doubtful.

If Republicans get spending cuts and entitlement reform during the debt-ceiling negotiations, it will not be because they have “leverage.” It will be because President Obama, after all this time, finally decided to get serious about solving the fiscal crisis.

Obama pays lip service to debt reduction but has done very little to tackle it. In Feb. 2009, “I am pledging to cut the deficit we inherited by half by the end of my first term in office,” Obama said, in a serious tone. He put together a bipartisan Fiscal Commission (Simpson-Bowles) but ignored their recommendations.

For a president who many thought would usher in a new kind of leadership and a refreshing boldness, President Obama has been missing in action when it comes to dealing with one of the most important issues the country faces: the national debt.

Why is there always short-term fiscal deal under this president? The country goes from one fiscal cliff to another, year after year, on his watch. Why is that?

Blaming it all on Republican intransigence is intellectual laziness.

The reality is that President Obama is not an effective negotiator. He does not put in the time and effort to cultivate relationships with Congress. He believes so much in his rhetorical prowess that he consistently goes over the heads of members of Congress to appeal directly to the American people.

Democrats worry that he is not a tough negotiator. Republicans do not trust him, which is why Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell chose Vice President Joe Biden as his negotiating partner in the final hours of the “fiscal cliff” talks.

If President Obama were really serious about reining in the national debt, he would have put forth a plan by now. Whispering to John Boehner behind closed doors about what you might be willing to cut is not leadership. Put it out in the open. Have an honest conversation with the American people and explain that the current spending levels are unsustainable. Tell them that we are leaving a mountain of debt for our children and grandchildren. Mean it. Then get behind closed doors, and find a way to get it done.

When historians write about the failure of America to reach a grand bargain on fiscal issues, they will not remember the names of the House Republicans that did not want to deal. No one will remember “Plan B.” They will say Barack Obama was a two-term president who failed to put America on a sound fiscal footing for future generations.

That will be his legacy.

Ayobami is a graduate student in George Washington University Graduate School of Political Management.