Attrition: Girls With Guns Get It Done

Archives

November 2, 2009: American women in combat is no longer news, nor is the sight of many women in a combat zone. Currently, there are about 10,000 women serving in Iraq, and about 4,000 in Afghanistan. While are the female troops are technically in support roles, those jobs include flying helicopters and other aircraft, military police (as in guarding bases and convoys) and truck drivers (convoys under fire). The women troops also participate in base security (guard duty) and, in general, have ample opportunity for armed and violent interactions with unfriendly locals.

In eight years of combat, about 2.2 percent of the 5266 combat zone deaths have been women troops. Over a third of the female dead (and nearly as many male dead) were from non-combat causes (traffic accidents, or mishaps on bases). The rest of the dead and wounded women were killed in combat. Women comprise 5-15 percent of the troops in the combat zones, and about 15 percent of all U.S. troops worldwide.

Department of Defense policy forbids the use of female troops in direct combat. This is mostly about politics, but the rule is there and must be obeyed. Or at least an attempt must be made to enforce the rule. While many women finding themselves in firefights, and exposed to roadside bombs anyway, that's normal for a combat zone. As far back as World War II, 25 percent of all troops in the army found themselves under fire at one time or another, although only about 15 percent of soldiers had a "direct combat" job. In Iraq, women make up about eight percent of the military personnel, but only two percent of the casualties (dead and wounded). So the policy, which many politicians oppose, but most women soldiers favor, appears to be working.

As a practical matter, you will never have a lot of women in combat. Mainly because women have never been as effective as men in combat units. In the past century, there have been several serious attempts to employ women in combat. Except for some guerilla units, it never worked out well enough to make it practical to continue the practice. But women have proved very valuable in combat support units, where physical strength, and a taste for ultra violence (the two things that have always made men such eager warriors), are not essential. But American women have increasingly been in combat situations, as part of a sixty year trend. That means more of them are getting killed or wounded.

The casualty rate of the American 450,000 women who served in World War II (where very few women were sent to the combat zone) was about 11 dead per 100,000 troops. It was about ten times that in Vietnam, where some 10,000 women served. However, the casualty rate for women in combat zones during World War II, was about the same as for those women in Vietnam.

In the 1991 Gulf War, 33,000 women participated, and the casualty rate was about the same as Vietnam. That trend took a sharp turn upward in Iraq, where about ten percent of the troops are female, although the women suffer casualties at about one-tenth the rate of the men. This is largely because women are not in combat units, and are not involved in convoy operations to the same extent as the male troops. So far, about two percent of the deaths in Iraq have been women.

Still, the casualty rate for women in Iraq is over ten times what it was in World War II, Vietnam and the 1991 Gulf War. A lot of the combat operations experienced by women in Iraq involves base security, or guard duty. Female troops have performed well in that. This is a job that requires alertness, attention to detail and ability to quickly use your weapons when needed. In convoy operations, women have also done well, especially when it comes to spotting, and dealing with, IEDs (roadside bombs and ambushes). Going into the 21st century, warfare is becoming more automated, and less dependent on muscle and testosterone. That gives women an edge, and they exploit it, just as they have done in so many other fields.

Compared to past wars, overall casualties in Iraq have been quite low, with only 1.7 percent of troops getting killed or wounded in combat. Since most of the casualties were suffered by the army and marines, and these two services only supplied 40 percent of the personnel, their casualty rate was more like 4.2 percent. But that's still a third of the rate in Vietnam (12.5 percent, or 350,000 combat casualties for 2.8 million who served there).

 

 


Article Archive

Attrition: Current 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 


X

ad
0
30

Help Keep Us Soaring

We need your help! Our subscription base has slowly been dwindling. We need your help in reversing that trend. We would like to add 30 new subscribers this month.

Each month we count on your subscriptions or contributions. You can support us in the following ways:

  1. Make sure you spread the word about us. Two ways to do that are to like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter.
  2. Subscribe to our daily newsletter. We’ll send the news to your email box, and you don’t have to come to the site unless you want to read columns or see photos.
  3. You can contribute to the health of StrategyPage. A contribution is not a donation that you can deduct at tax time, but a form of crowdfunding. We store none of your information when you contribute..
Subscribe   Contribute   Close