Pentagon’s Top General: Women in Combat Help Cut Down on Military Sexual Assaults

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin DempseyDOD photo

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.


If the United States had previously allowed women to serve officially in military combat roles, including special operations forces, there might be fewer sexual assaults in the armed services, the Pentagon’s top general told reporters Thursday.

Having studied the issue of rampant sexual misconduct in the ranks, Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted that he has concluded that the phenomenon exists partly because women have been subordinated to men in military culture: “It’s because we’ve had separate classes of military personnel.” 

Dempsey’s comments came during a press conference with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, with the pair announcing the end of restrictions on women serving in previously all-male combat-arms roles, such as within the infantry, the artillery, and special forces. “We’ve been on a long journey, a long journey towards achieving equality, and there have been some tough challenges along the road,” Panetta said.

Despite the announcement, the road to full equality may well be rocky; each of the armed services has until May to report to the incoming defense secretary (presumably Chuck Hagel) on how—and how quickly—it will integrate women into combat billets. “We want to make sure we get the standards right, and we don’t overengineer them either,” Dempsey said.

Nevertheless, the move largely codifies a practice long under way in combat zones like Afghanistan and Iraq, where women serving in what are technically non-combat roles—such as patrolling in vehicles and aircraft—can find themselves under fire. And the transition to women serving fully side-by-side with men has been happening in several services already. “Women are now in submarines, and that was one of the concerns at the time,” Panetta said, answering a reporter’s questions about “privacy issues” among troops. “Women are fighter pilots now. So Air Force, Navy have moved in that direction. The Marines and the Army are now gonna move in that direction.”

Dempsey echoed that. “We figured out privacy right from the start,” he said, referring to Desert Shield operations in 1990 and 1991 that required men and women to huddle together in ad hoc desert encampments.

Asked whether the military’s elite Seals and Green Berets might soon see female recruits, Dempsey said he had discussed that with Army Chief of Staff Ray Odierno and Marine Commandant James Amos, both combat veterans themselves. “I think we all believe that there will be women who can meet those standards,” he added.

Dempsey appeared to chafe when asked by a reporter about his personal opinions on whether women would affect combat readiness: “I graduated from West Point in 1974. It was an all-male institution. I went back to teach at West Point in 1984 and found the place far better than it was when I had been a cadet… I attributed a good amount of that to the fact that we opened up the academy to women.” 

Dempsey noted that allowing women to serve in such coveted roles as infantry could help erode a male-dominated culture in which sexual assaults have been rising among uniformed personnel. “The more we can treat people equally, the more likely they are to treat each other equally,” he said.

Both men conceded that they didn’t know if this move means that women will have to register for the draft with Selective Service, as young men are required to do. “That’s not our operation,” Panetta said, stumbling over his words, then adding, “I don’t know who the hell controls Selective Service, to tell the truth.”

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. It's our first time asking for an outpouring of support since screams of FAKE NEWS and so much of what Trump stood for made everything we do so visceral. Like most newsrooms, we face incredibly hard budget realities, and it's unnerving needing to raise big money when traffic is down.

So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE SCREWED WITHOUT TRUMP:

"It's that we're screwed with or without him if we can't show the public that what we do matters for the long term," writes Mother Jones CEO Monika Bauerlein as she kicks off our drive to raise $350,000 in donations from readers by July 17.

This is a big one for us. So, as we ask you to consider supporting our team's journalism, we thought we'd slow down and check in about where Mother Jones is and where we're going after the chaotic last several years. This comparatively slow moment is also an urgent one for Mother Jones: You can read more in "Slow News Is Good News," and if you're able to, please support our team's hard-hitting journalism and help us reach our big $350,000 goal with a donation today.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate