Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster

To start with, his argument would have been more persuasive if his editor had eliminated the strident sarcastic tone. His arguments are so one sided and so much braying like a donkey that his one or two reasonable points get lost in the noise. Snickering references to perfumed plebes and women whose pregnancies are self-inflicted (that's interesting - did they use basters?) don't make for convincing arguments. ...no one's bothered to look at how undocumented his conclusions are. We have the heavy recitations of who, what, where and when but when it comes to the why, the reason for men and women leaving the force for example, there's no documentation whatsoever. Just unsupported conclusions of Brian Mitchell. For example, he states that Air Force enlistments are on the decrease and that Air Force Academy graduates leave in droves. He cites as the reason for departures the presence of women in the force (with no corresponding note in the margin for a source). Has he ever considered that both men and women are leaving the Air Force for the better paying commercial pilot jobs? Has he ever considered that women leave the service at a higher rate than men because of attitudes like his? The job is hard enough without the friendly fire that women recruits face on a regular basis.
And so what if flak jackets have to be redesigned to accommodate female breasts? If the make-up of a workforce is to be limited by the availability of fitting uniforms and equipment, then I guess the Taliban should just move in to the United States and set up shop. All women should leave the workforce because at one time or another there were no female uniforms for the jobs they now have. Mitchell complains about the cost of kitting up women. If Congress can authorize $300 million for Trent Lott's pork barrel ship building program for a ship the Navy doesn't want, I'm sure it can afford to pay for flak jackets for female breasts.
And again, so what if women report illness and injury to a greater extent than men? This is true of the civilian population as well. Mitchell believes that men who are injured and just grin and bear it rather then getting medical help are somehow braver and more courageous than women. I'm sure doctors would have another word for it.
He recites figures about women using medical services for acne and menstruation as if these conditions somehow affect force preparedness (men have acne too and I don't believe anyone ever suggested men weren't capable soldiers because they suffer from jock itch).
Mitchell likes to recite all kinds of numbers and percentages about women in the military and rarely compares the figures for the men in the same circumstances. He assumes that all men are willing to fight and die for their country without hesitation and without sniffles. Men in the face of real battle have similar emotions as those exhibited by the women, as is duly recounted in compelling books such as "Black Hawk Down". If there are only slight differences in the percentages between men and women, Mitchell dismisses the male figures with undocumented conclusory statements because they don't suit his argument.

Mitchell's accounts of Tailhook and other earlier instances where the Navy caved to the political pressures of the various administrations makes me wonder where the "fight" is in the Navy brass if it can't defend its own troops against a professedly weak organization like the much-maligned DACOWITS.

Kara Hultgreen's story might be more persuasive if it weren't of the anecdotal variety whereby one incident is used to explain why an entire movement should not be undertaken. Of course, it's a shame she died, but an awful lot of men die in training too. For example, it was much discussed during Kosovo that the Apache flight crews were not as well trained as they should be but no one turned that into an argument that men shouldn't fly Apaches.

All Mitchell has really accomplished is setting forth the growing pains of an institution as it incorporates the other half of the population. No one professed it would be easy. Mitchell's complaints about how difficult it is to accommodate the female soldier sound just a bit like the whining he condemns among the troops. I can only imagine the reasoning that was put forth to exclude african americans, latinos and other minorities from the armed services for decades. And relying on the beliefs and attitudes of men already in the force as his primary source documentation for why women should be excluded is a bit like relying upon the statements of plantation owners to negate the liberation of slaves. I was ready and willing to read a reasoned argument for why women should be excluded from the military. This diatribe of a book isn't it.


Better Than His First Book   February 2, 2002
 21 out of 32 found this review helpful

Great Update to Brian's First Work. As a combat vet with over 26 years in the military, I've witnessed what he describes. It is very unfortunate that we have allowed our armed services to become rife with political correctness. For those who beilieve it is fashionable to open all combat "jobs" to women; it would be very fitting that the women in combat at any cost crowd should be the first ones sent into the next combat zone. Oh by the way, in my 26 years I have NEVER seen a female be tasked more than a male. Those of you who write such goofy things should get their facts straight.