Military Review English Edition March-April 2015 | Page 59

FEMALE ENGAGEMENT TEAM

T

he status of women in combat arms units is
a frequent topic in today’s media. Between
the admittance of women into The Basic
School of the U.S. Marine Corps and the trial phase
of the U.S. Army Ranger School, voices can be heard
on both sides of the aisle arguing over the perceived
capabilities of women in these roles. The prevailing
discourse has been the debate over what women can
handle, physically and emotionally, and what they
are not fundamentally equipped to sustain. Others
argue that this is an equal rights issue—that women should be allowed into the ranks simply because
men are allowed. Yet, the issue is not whether or not
America’s women can rise to the challenge; the issue
is that modern warfare requires women to be an
integral part of combat forces.

The Need for Female Engagement
Teams
The necessity of women in these roles was revealed over the last decade of warfare. The successes
experienced by units in the Army, Special Forces,
and the Marine Corps during Operations Enduring
Freedom and Iraqi Freedom—using everything from
“Lioness” teams to female engagement teams (FETs)
and cultural support teams—prove that modern
warfare is changing the role of women in combat.
One after action review credits a particular FET
with searching hundreds of compounds and thousands of women, and uncovering critical intelligence
by members of the team.1
These anecdotal results were indicative of the
success achieved by many units that deployed with
FETs. The current operational environment presents an enemy who uses the lack of women in U.S.
combat arms as a tactical weakness. The terror
group Boko Haram has seen a disturbing spike in the
number of women and girls volunteering as suicide
bombers. It has been reported that female suicide
bombers affiliated with Boko Haram have carried
out “more than a dozen attacks … with some attacks claiming up to 78 victims.”2 The use of female
suicide bombers in order to exploit cultural sensitivities, as well as the inability of male soldiers to gain
intelligence from women and children, weakens the
ability of U.S. forces to fight effectively.3 Further,
those same conflicts are occurring in regions where
MILITARY REVIEW  March-April 2015

cultural sensitivity is paramount, highlighting the
critical need for female soldiers to conduct specific
tasks that male soldiers are unable to execute. If the
recent rise of the self-proclaimed Islamic State is any
indication, these conditions will not be changing in
the near future.
A 2003 study by the National Center for Women
and Policing found that “women officers rely on a
style of policing that uses less physical force, are better at defusing and de-escalating potentially violent
confrontations with citizens, and are less likely to
become involved in problems with use of excessive
force.”4 These findings are certainly something to
consider given that the population in most of our
recent conflicts was considered the center of gravity.
The U.S. Border Patrol has also recognized this
need. As recently reported by the Associated Press,
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (of which
the Border Patrol is a part) “acquired a federal exemption to recruit strictly female agents.”5 Reasons
stated by the agency included needing assistance
interfacing with women and children as well as assistance searching women—needs that directly mirror
the needs of the U.S. military. Given the role of the
Army in humanitarian missions, namely the fight
against Ebola, the prevalence of building relationships and working among host-nation populations
will continue to grow as part of the Army mission.
However, some arguments for the mainstream
integration of women into line units have some validity. Some studies suggest that women are far more
prone to injury during training than men. According
to the 2011 report Musculoskeletal Injuries in
Military Women, “the combination of anatomy and
physiology appears to predispose women to a higher
risk of pelvic stress fractures and knee damage.” The
report states that female soldiers are “about 67 percent more likely than male soldiers to be discharged
for a musculoskeletal disorder.”6
These statistics, as well as the physically demanding requirements of many of these jobs, have
called into question the number of women physically
qualified to volunteer for these positions. Despite
assurances from the Pentagon that high qualification standards will be maintained, skeptics wonder
if standards will ultimately be lowered to answer
the call for the presence of women by those solely
57