<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=4>
<DIV class=timestamp>From: <EM>New York Times OP/ED
05-20-05</EM></DIV>
<DIV class=timestamp> </DIV>
<DIV class=timestamp>May 20, 2005</DIV><NYT_HEADLINE version="1.0" type=" ">
<H1>Chauvinism at the Battlefront</H1></NYT_HEADLINE><NYT_BYLINE version="1.0"
type=" "></NYT_BYLINE><NYT_TEXT>
<DIV id=articleBody>
<P>Female soldiers are barred by national policy from direct ground combat in
Iraq, but that has not saved the lives of 34 American women killed so far in
that lethal battlefield bereft of front lines. In a remedy steeped more in
misplaced gallantry than wisdom, House Republicans ran into Pentagon opposition
this week with a sudden proposal to protect women by cutting back the jobs they
could hold in support units stationed to the rear of ground combat soldiers. The
net effect, Army leaders properly warned, would hurt women's careers by shutting
them out of more than 20,000 vital support jobs in a military effort that is
already hard-pressed to keep its ranks filled with fresh volunteers. </P>
<P>Fighter aircraft and surface warship postings were opened to women a decade
ago in a heated but progressive national debate after the Persian Gulf war. The
overall policy entrusted to the Pentagon provided larger job opportunities for
women in the services. Right now, with a war raging, female soldiers vital to
the effort need no demoralizing intrusion into the gender issue by impulsive
lawmakers. </P>
<P>As it turns out, the job cutback proposal created such a furor from military
professionals and opposition Democrats that Republicans on the House Armed
Services Committee had to retreat at the last minute, but not entirely. They
approved a face-saving substitute that is less sweeping but would still give
Congress excessive power to control future advancements for women in the
military. </P>
<P>The amendment would hobble service commanders and deserves to be stricken
next week in the House floor debate on the defense authorization bill. </P>
<P>The gruesome truth remains that war is hell, even as its front lines become
viciously vague. The daily car bombings, suicide atrocities and insurgent raids
show that no area of Iraq, from Humvee patrols to chow halls, is a safe haven
for the occupation troops, male or female. Women have volunteered for the full
range of opportunity and risk implicit in their military careers. They are
proving their valor in Iraq and need no demeaning protections from
Congress.</P></DIV></NYT_TEXT></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>