It isn't "equal pay for equal work" in the military. Serving in combat speeds up your promotions and the accompanying salary boost, and women aren't allowed to serve in combat. A couple of female soldiers are in federal court asking that the ban be lifted:
U.S. Army reservists Jane Baldwin and Ellen Haring, in a lawsuit filed today in Washington, said policies excluding them from assignments "solely because they are women" violate their right to equal protection guaranteed by the Constitution's 5th Amendment. The complaint names Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Army Secretary John McHugh as defendants.
"This limitation on plaintiffs' careers restricts their current and future earnings, their potential for promotion and advancement, and their future retirement benefits," the women said in the complaint filed by Christopher Sipes of Covington & Burling LLP in Washington.
The Pentagon in February announced a change in policy that opened more than 14,000 additional positions to women across the armed services, most of them in the Army. Still, it stopped short of allowing women to serve in so-called ground combat assignments, including special forces and long range reconnaissance operations.
Lots of interesting stuff here, especially if "fairness" is a big deal for you. It's true, as the suit alleges, that the "linear battlefield" no longer exists -- female soldiers are put in the line of fire all the time -- just because it isn't officially called "combat" doesn't mean they aren't in danger; at least 144 female troops have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan and more than 860 have been wounded. Not going the next step and letting women serve in actual combat is arbitrary and capricious and all that, the essence of unfairness. But, the Pentagon says, we've opened up more than 14,000 additional positions for women, the big hint being that women are going to be in line for more promotions without the combat experience. But that's unfair to the men, isn't it?
FWIW, I'm with the women here. The thing I've always appreciated about the military is that it has strived -- not always succeeded, but tried -- to be a pure meritocracy. Nothing else matters about you except that you understand the mission and get it done; the better and the faster you get it done, the more successful you are. The arguments might be different if there were still a draft, but these are all people who volunteer to serve their country, so why not honor that commitment and let them up the ante to the ultimate commitment if they want to? That's the argument for gays in the military anyway -- itsn't it at least as valid for women?
Sooner or later, someone is going to ask, "Well, wouldn't it be better not to tie combat and promotions for anybody?" But there's a reason for the connection. Military promotions are chiefely about leadership ability, and leadership is nowhere more important than in combat. Being ready for combat is what the military is all about, and what better way to know if you have leaders capable of handling combat than to promote them from combat units?
