However, no one blames their gender for their shortcomings. There are plenty of instances of all-male units failing to coalesce into a perfect unit, resulting in some of the dire consequences Newbold cautions against. Instances of poor cohesion and performance are a result of deficient training and sub-standard leadership. But these problems are not unique to women. Have there been problems in unit cohesion? Certainly. With a task-oriented purpose, the assumptions Newbold relies on to differentiate men and women fall by the wayside, and are instead replaced by a shared sense of purpose and dedication to mission accomplishment. The shared experiences of these groups of individuals fostered cohesion and morale. The blurring of the front lines of combat – from convoys coming under direct-fire during ambushes to military police being used as initial checkpoints and first-line defenses – have shown that mixed-gender units succeed in the harshest environments. In the past 15 years, groups of young Marines of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and genders have been tested in Iraq and Afghanistan, often performing duties for which they were not specifically trained or equipped. These findings on the formation and strengthening of unit cohesion through task-completion and effective leadership are not relegated to the pages of academic journals. This “task based” cohesion is magnified by the presence of positive small unit leadership, certainly something the Marine Corps prides itself on. Similar studies have also found that the stresses of military training and deployment are just the sort of conditions to strengthen cohesive bonds between people and that create military units that are both efficient and effective at integrating new members. In fact, groups comprised of too-similar individuals tend to deteriorate under stressful conditions due to an inability to solve problems creatively. Military sociologists and psychologists alike have found that successful unit cohesion is forged not due to the likeness of group members, but around the accomplishment of specific tasks and the quality of small-unit leadership. As a crux in an argument that has such dire consequences for our nation, it deserves rigorous due diligence, not just comfortable assumptions. Despite Newbold’s assertion to the contrary, unit cohesion can – and has – been successfully measured and studied. This ethereal assumption – that there is something mystical about 19 to 22 year old males that holds them together – denies the research done on both the formation of unit cohesion and its impact on effectiveness. Newbold speaks of the “nearly spiritual glue” that holds infantry units together. The root of the unit cohesion argument is that camaraderie and trust are uniquely forged in situations where individuals must reach beyond themselves in order to achieve a common goal. Not only can women be part of the elite forces designed to combat our nations foes, the best strategic decision we can make now is to ensure that they do. In both Iraq and Afghanistan, women have been an integral part of the success of our military’s most celebrated units. In resorting to the comfortable “war is hell, and introducing a lady will make men unable to confront that hell” argument, he ignores the reality of the past 15 years of combat operations. While combat success is a component of military effectiveness, his narrow characterization misses the strategic forest for the trees. Second, he infers that military effectiveness is directly tied to a specific character trait seen in a limited definition of combat operations. However, Newbold believes that he holds the keys to explaining it, shutting down measured debate in the name of passion over evidence. While the argument that women do not belong among those who “can confront the Islamic State, North Korean automatons, or Putin’s Spetsnaz and win every time” is convenient, it rests on two problematic points. With the arguments about physicality or capability debunked through these announcements, the case against full integration has turned to intangibles.Īs highlighted in a recent War on the Rocks article by LtGen Gregory Newbold (USMC, ret), those arguing against the full integration of women tend to turn to the ideas of “unit cohesion” and “military effectiveness” to prove women have no place in combat units. However, the comment sections of articles announcing the expanded role of women show that while the political debate may be close to over, the cultural one is still raging. With these definitive statements, one could assume the conversation is over. With his announcement that all combat jobs, including Marine Infantry, will be open to women, Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus has joined both the Army and the Air Force in lifting restrictions to combat arms Military Occupational Specialties (MOS).
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |