Articles are available for reprint as long as the author is acknowledged: Domenick J. Maglio Ph.D.

Wednesday, April 06, 2016


By Domenick J. Maglio PhD Traditional Realist

Females in the armed forces go back to the American Revolution. There were some women like Deborah Sampson who pretended to be men in order to fight in the war.
Clara Barton went in the middle of an active battlefield to tend the wounded during the Civil war as bullets flew around her. WWI and WWII saw women in supportive roles and a few of them were nearby combat zones. From Vietnam to the Iraqi war women’s roles have expanded in wars that have no defined fronts. Modern female soldiers in computerized combat using drones or sophisticated aircraft have ample ability to perform the mission as well as men.

President Obama’s administration has been pressuring the military to open up opportunities for women in direct combat. Secretary of Defense, Ashton Carter, recently finalized former Secretary of Defense, Leon Panetta’s directive that stated all direct combat units will be available to women.  Females in all the Special Operations are close to becoming a reality.

Not everyone in the military thinks this is a viable idea. On April 4th, 2015 a survey of Special Ops troops found a majority of them believe that women do not have the ability to withstand the physical and mental demands of elite combat. These incredible men should know better than anyone else the reality of these operations. Not surprisingly test results of females versus men in physical comparisons have mysteriously been lost. There were two different sets of standards being used to evaluate them.

Even if females were able to meet the vigorous, high physical standards in large numbers there are many other crucial issues to be considered before going farther down this radical path.  The decision to put women in special operations is not just another progressive gender diversity program to demonstrate that women can do anything men can do.  The stakes are much greater than appeasing and increasing the feminist-voting block. It is placing women in dangerous and treacherous situations that can arise anytime, any place in the world where their physical differences make them more vulnerable than men.

The success of these special operations is vital to the survival of the nation. Physical strength and endurance, coupled with the ability to function under physical pain, mental stress, lack of food or shelter are crucial criteria to be measured in choosing the unit’s members. Army General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the joint-chiefs of staff, made a clearly political decision when he tried to get around mandating different physical standards for males and females. He did this in a conniving, PC manner. The general placed the burden on the individual Special Operations forces to show why lowering the physical standards for female accommodation should not take place. This was done instead of requiring the commander to demonstrate the positive reasons why females would be equal or an asset in accomplishing these strategic missions. This was a top-down decision making process.

Besides these important physical differences there are strong cultural, religious and moral values that complicate sending females to these high risk and high value assignments. The close quarters will create an emotionally heightened situation producing a strong attraction among the opposite sexes. The emotional dynamics of an all male special Ops groups would change drastically with the addition of females. Obviously, the natural attraction and possibly romance could cloud the decision making process in these very tight groups.

Strong feelings or open romances could endanger the lives of the unit members and the entire operation. This cannot be controlled with orders. On the home front the implications for the military spouses’ relationships will destroy the cohesiveness of the military community. This could be curtailed and modified by micro- psychological monitoring of the group dynamics but it would add an unnecessary problem to an already difficult situation.

The more subtle although strong instinctual and cultural value is the urge by men to protect females. This can have a disastrous impact on a military mission.
The potential rape and torture of females by the enemy would complicate the decision making and be used to break down soldiers to give intelligence information to the enemy in order to prevent it from happening or stopping it.

The preserving of Special Ops unit readiness, cohesiveness, morale and ability to successfully complete the mission should be the number one priority. Being an equal opportunity employer should not be a consideration. The president and his military leaders’ major responsibility is to protect America, not use social engineering to advance their domestic agenda.

The use of the military to foster gender equality is lunacy and puts our nations’ survival in jeopardy. Placing females in special operations should be reevaluated taking all the physical, emotional and mental factors into consideration from a military perspective not a domestic reelection one.

Domenick Maglio, PhD. is a columnist carried by various newspapers, an author of several books and owner/director of Wider Horizons School, a college prep program. You can visit Dr. Maglio at

Labels: , ,


Blogger Larry Maglio said...

I'll get your articles from the Facebook blog so you don't have to have them e-mailed necessarily although I may not to see them at work.

On the article, if it was possible to test ability to stand up to torture, maintain the same high standards of endurance and the same physical thresholds the other special ops people have would it be acceptable? In my opinion the answer is no. You have a choice of making it voluntary, but it will be a problem from an equal treatment point of view if a draft is needed. Would the traditional woman get to opt out?


5:37 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home