Sunday, March 9, 2014
By MATTHEW HAY BROWN The Baltimore Sun
BALTIMORE - As a woman in the Army, Staff Sgt. Jennifer Hunt is barred from serving in the infantry. But that didn't stop commanders in Afghanistan from tapping her when they needed a female soldier to accompany men on their door-kicking missions.
Capt. Sara Rodriguez, 26, of the 101st Airborne Division, is seen during the Expert Field Medical Badge training at Fort Campbell, Ky. A lawsuit under way, however, seeks to allow women to train, and perform, in direct combat.
The Associated Press
Sgt. Jennifer Hunt
Hunt's job on those house-to-house raids was to search any women and girls they came across. Not having trained with the teams, she says, made the work more dangerous.
"The infantry operates together," she said. "Then I get kind of dropped in on them, and I don't know what their operating procedures are. If 'X' happens, what is their reaction to it?"
The 28-year-old Gaithersburg, Md., reservist, who earned a Purple Heart in Iraq, is one of four servicewomen suing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta to end the long-standing policy that excludes women from serving in direct combat.
The women, each of whom has served in Afghanistan or Iraq, say the combat exclusion policy is unconstitutional and outdated in an age of war without front lines -- where anyone might face hostile fire and women are called on to provide close support to fighting troops.
The Clinton-era policy bars women from infantry, artillery, tank and other units that engage in direct combat with the enemy -- currently some 238,000 positions, or about one-fifth of the regular, active-duty armed forces. Most of the male-only jobs are in the Army and Marines, the "tip of the spear" of the U.S. military.
Panetta was chief of staff to President Bill Clinton when the policy was developed in 1994.
The service members in the lawsuit, who are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, say the rule denies women the opportunity to train with units that they might end up fighting alongside, makes it more difficult for them to advance in military careers and endangers all troops by preventing commanders from assigning the best personnel to perform missions.
"If someone's going to cover you in a firefight, you don't care if that person's a man or a woman," said Hunt, a member of the 450th Civil Affairs Battalion, based in Riverdale. "You just care that they can shoot and move.
"Taking down this combat exclusion policy is going to allow the military to take the best-qualified people, men or women, who can meet the physical standards."
The lawsuit, filed last month in California, is the most recent salvo in the long battle to open more jobs in the military to women, who now make up 14 percent of the armed forces.
More than 280,000 women have served in Afghanistan or Iraq since Sept. 11, 2001. More than 150 have been killed, and nearly 1,000 wounded.
The Defense Department, under pressure from Congress, has been looking for ways to expand opportunities for women. In February, the Army opened about 14,500 positions previously off-limits to women, including jobs for intelligence and personnel officers, and artillery and tank mechanics.
The Marine Corps is allowing women to attend its grueling Infantry Officer Course; the first two volunteers last fall failed to complete the 10-week program. The Marines are also assigning women to train in certain combat-related jobs with infantry, artillery, tank and other units for testing purposes.
A Pentagon spokesman declined to comment on the pending litigation but said Panetta is "very committed to examining the expansion of roles for women."
"His record is very strong on this issue," spokesman George Little said.
But an attorney for the servicewomen said the numbers so far "simply fall short." Ariela Migdal, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Women's Rights Project, says women are already serving in combat but often not getting the same credit as men, or the same opportunities for training and promotion.
(Continued on page 2)