When special ops means equal ops

0 Comments | Insight on the News, Sept 8, 1997 | by Woody West

Hollywood is a hoot. Its moguls have traded plot and character, rarely more than epidermally deep, for special effects, with generous doses of graphic sex. As a corollary, a liberal political flavor frequently is stirred into the mash.

A goofy instance is Demi Moore's new movie, G.I. Jane, in which her character essays to be the first female Navy SEAL -- the superbly trained and conditioned special-operations unit. There is, of course, a scheme by macho meanies to thwart her. And so on.

There are no women in the elite SEALs, just as there are no women accepted as volunteers for the Army Rangers or other commando units. In fact, there are very few men, as the vast majority fail the punishing training.

Flicks such as G.I. Jane are intent on forwarding feminist dogma, and Demi was candid, disingenuously or inadvertently, in discussing the high-and-tight military haircut the picture requires: That shearing, she said, is "about neutralizing her [character's] sex.... She knows she'll never be accepted if she bunks alone and looks too girlish. She has to shower with them and everything."

Well, Demi's superstructure, shall we say, surgically has been enhanced and robustly displayed in movies and other media. The showering scenes are to keep the proles lining up at the ticket window.

However, the point here is that before long there will be women in the special-ops groups, and that all combat slots will include women. Bet on it. By the public's silence, Americans appear to have accepted "equal opportunity" military service at its grittiest and potentially most lethal.

A cultural anthropologist, David E. Jones, recently published Women Warriors, a book in which he argues that women always have been part of the "warrior" tradition in history and, indeed, prehistory. His provocative exercise is not entirely persuasive. Excluding women from the sanguinary drill purely is a matter of social conditioning, he asserts.

Jones then quotes the Spartan king Archidamus: "The truth is that the intrinsic differences between individuals are negligible, and that the victory is to those who are trained in the strictest essentials."

It's not clear that the Greek was referring to women. But, for the sake of argument, grant that an armed force with no sexual restrictions is not, ah, unreasonable. However, it dismally follows that the United States is failing precisely at the critical requirement. Instead, the anxiety of the Pentagon to conform to feminist doctrine, abetted by the terror of politicians lest they be considered less than committed to the glorious crusade, has the march going in the other direction.

Even Time magazine recently hooted about the reduction of vigor in G.I. training (the magazine is well behind the curve of perception, but never mind). "Complaints are ricocheting in all branches of the service that 'basic' has lost its edge -- the rigors aren't all that rigorous, there's more silliness than saluting at shape-ups and there's altogether too much flirting between men and women. (Only the Marine Corps insists on separating males and females during boot camp.)

Thus, frantic to curb high, early dropout rates of recruits and a higher injury rate among women enlistees, the military has converted to a gentler regimen that won't upset or "stress" the apprentice warriors. In the Navy, new swabbies are issued a "blue card" to present to an instructor if they decide things are getting beastly. "Feelings" in focus groups are invited by the Army to learn if "soldierization" is effective. And unit cohesion is defined in touchy-feely terms: Do trainees "feel very close" or "like and trust" one another?

The litany of compromised standards stretches on -- as do the linguistic contortions to camouflage the changes. For instance, a concept called "comparable effort" may grade a female trainee whose performance is inferior to a male's as high or higher than his. Great for morale.

Meanwhile, in the continuing fuss about sexual scandals -- with the Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds problems prominent -- there's a sort-of debate whether women and men again should go separately through basic training. Defense Secretary William Cohen has appointed an "independent" (wink, nudge) commission to ponder the matter, and the Republican Congress, flinching at legislating a ban on coed training, also has called for a commission. Neat tactics to deflect accountability.

The fundamental goal of the military presumably still is to fight and win wars. If America's military continues toward full sexual integration, it had better gird up its loins and institute the "strictest essentials" in training. Should sexual politics continue to count the cadence, there's a disaster down the road -- both martial and cultural. And it won't be Demi Moore coming home in a body bag.