Military Review English Edition November-December 2013 | Page 56

is an option, this decision must really be made on
an individual level if it is to be enduring. Here are
some thoughts on how to achieve a singular yet
diverse force.

Lead the Way

In most instances, the American military can
rightfully be proud of its efforts to make itself more
representative of the nation it swears to defend. It
took longer than it should have to allow gay and
lesbian soldiers to serve openly, but as Kenneth
Karst concludes, “. . . it is hard to find any other
institution in American society that has done better”
at integrating minorities.6
Often, the military’s hand is forced, such as Truman’s executive order mandating the full integration of African Americans. Naysayers viewed these
mandates as social experiments that would impair
military readiness. However, research tended to
prove otherwise. With each integration—whether it
was religious, ethnic, racial, or sexual minority—we
expanded our capacity to deal with an increasingly
complex, globalized, and interconnected world.
Perhaps because the integration of minorities
has always been directive in nature, it has fueled
quiet and persistent dissent and a sort of passiveaggressive behavior that insidiously weakens the
fabric of the force. The time has come for the Army
to champion the inclusion of all minorities openly
and proactively, and to say, quite simply, all are
welcome.
Entrance into the force should depend on criteria
that do not discriminate except to meet minimum
essential cognitive and physical standards, proven
competence, and a demonstrated willingness to
adhere to Army values and standards, period. What
this might mean, however, is that admittance of
individuals who do not fit neatly into sexual, racial,
or ethnic categories, such as those who are transgendered, will be allowed. The rationale will be clear:
we will want to recruit any individual who enables
us to become more sophisticated in our capacity
and capability to solve the intractable challenges
confronting us.
This same inclusive mindset should simultaneously enable us to value the soldiers who comprise
our force today and reject outright any behavior that
demonstrates disrespect toward any one of them.
The staggering statistics of harassment, rape, and
54

other forms of violence largely directed against
women is evidence that there is vast room for
improvement. However, we can no longer afford
to solve this and related problems through reactive,
overly prescriptive, and top-down-driven solutions.
Instead, we must quickly engender system-wide,
bottom-up acceptance of difference, otherness,
and diversity.
The momentum is there with the repeal of Don’t
Ask Don’t Tell and the impending policy change
to allow women into combat arms. We need to
continue, even accelerate, this momentum. The
more barriers we eliminate, the more each soldier
feels valued for his or her unique contribution and
the more quickly we can become an operationally
adaptive, resourceful, resilient, and optimized force.

Renormalize Standards

The main issues that continue to center the debate
about the proper role of women in the Army and
military are physical and biological differences and
the degree to which they affect, or should affect, the
integration of women into physically demanding
roles. As Catherine Aspy, a Harvard graduate and
former soldier, argues: “Combat is not primarily about
brains, or patriotism, or dedication to duty. There is
no question women soldiers have those in abundance.
Combat is about war-fighting capacity and the morale
of the unit. Here physical strength can be a life-anddeath issue. And that is why the physical disparities
between men and women cannot be ignored.”7
This matter is, without question, one of life or
death, and Aspy is correct: one cannot ignore physical disparities. However, this fact should not shut
down options, merely give gravity to the decisions
that senior leaders make in dealing with it. One of
the hallmarks of being an American is the opportunity to dream big and realize one’s dreams through
pluck, tenacity, and hard work. The goal should be
to maximize opportunities for all soldiers, to favor
inclusion over exclusion, to widen opportunities
for advancement, and help as many soldiers as possible achieve these opportunities, while minimizing
obstacles and barriers.
This does not mean lowering standards. Rather,
it means establishing the right standards for the
task based on a range of factors that themselves
are researched, measured, evaluated, reevaluated,
second-guessed, and explained thoroughly and
November-December 2013

• MILITARY REVIEW