One key objective of this book is to understand how myths and stereotypes shape debates on the combat exclusion. The previous chapters have largely relied on media articles, opinion pieces, public opinion polls, and public policy debates. Although these resources are useful, they provide a limited window into wider public opinions on the combat exclusion. Polls merely assess individual responses to set questions, leaving no room for the public to frame the issue in their own terms. For example, although a poll might indicate that 60 percent of Americans were in favor of removing the combat exclusion, it tells us little about what reasons they have for supporting or opposing the policy change. As a result, it is worthwhile to draw from more diverse sources of public discourse for a richer understanding of public opinions on women and combat.

This chapter provides an analysis of online comments written in response to three online articles on the combat exclusion for women. It addresses three central questions. How can we analyze online discussions and use them as a source of discourse? What are the dominant reasons users commenting in these discussions offer with regard to their support or opposition to the combat exclusion? Do these reasons reflect the themes in the literature, and do they relate to the band of brothers myth? In answering these questions, this chapter has three objectives. The first is to present a methodology for analyzing a vast quantity of online comments. The second is to determine the main arguments online contributors offered in support or opposition to the combat exclusion and assess whether these reasons reflect official political discourse on the topic. The third is to consider whether tropes, messages, and narratives linked to the band of brothers myth are evident in online discussions related to women in combat.

Online mediums are often perceived as attracting unrepresentative contributors and exchanges and therefore are treated as if they do not provide an accurate picture of political discourse.

The combat exclusion, like other domestic and foreign policies, tends to be presented as a product of rational decision making based on evidence, experience, and public welfare. This perception leaves little space for thinking about the role of emotion in the making of military policy. This chapter addresses this “emotional gap,” by focusing on the role of emotion within debates on women in combat. I argue that much of the logic used to resist or oppose women in combat has been based either partially or completely on emotion. For example, in the quotation that leads this chapter, General McPeak acknowledges his “gut-based hang-up” regarding women in combat and the possible irrationality of his position. Such reactions raise several questions, including the following: What impact does such visceral, emotional opposition have on military culture, on the debates surrounding women in combat, and eventually, on the process of further integrating women into the US military? What role does the band of brothers myth play in inspiring inherent, inexplicable, or visceral emotional reactions to women in combat? This chapter addresses these questions by exploring the relationship between emotional responses and policies directed toward women in combat.

The chapter does not treat emotion as a problem with regard to policy. Rather, it is argued that overlooking the role of emotion in policy debates obscures a large part of how policies are made, and why they are supported. Emotion matters in the discussion on women in combat for several reasons. First, emotional reactions are common and consistent elements of the debates both leading up to the removal of the combat exclusion and in the aftermath of the policy change.

The band of brothers myth is an enticing and destructive story. The romantic tale of men uniting to promote freedom, defend their nation, protect the weak, and enhance security is intoxicating. It is no wonder that countless war movies reproduce this myth. Watching men form bonds, make sacrifices for one another, and overcome extreme odds in defending their comrades and the nation makes for fantastic entertainment. However, these stories of war and soldiers must not be treated as accurate depictions of the “real” wars and violence being waged across the globe today. This leads to the destructive potential of the band of brothers myth. It is destructive in that it projects an idealistic image of war, “real” soldiers, combat operations, and the role of violence in achieving political objectives.

The band of brothers myth is so powerful that it influences military policy and shapes public perceptions of and emotional responses to war. Women have been excluded from combat within the US military largely because of this story. They have also been excluded because of a widely accepted set of emotional responses that loosely declare “women just don't belong.” Imagine – a mythical story and gut reactions have been the accepted foundation of a major military policy that impacts military operations and women's career opportunities.

Reviewing the main arguments used to keep women from combat roles, it becomes clear that these debates have little to do with research, national security, or women's capabilities. Fears that menstruating women will attract sharks, claims that lesbians make the best soldiers because they don't fraternize and attract men, and conclusions that God would not have wanted women to serve in combat are simply ludicrous. Yet such arguments are regularly expressed by policy makers, military leaders, and the public. Moreover, such ridiculous claims are linked, or harnessed, to seemingly more objective claims about women's physical or social inability to serve in combat roles.

This chapter provides some context for the combat exclusion policy within the USA. It is not a comprehensive overview of the inclusion or exclusion of women in the US military throughout history. Instead, there are three specific goals of this chapter. First is to demonstrate that the combat exclusion is a trope, made up of a fluid set of rules and stories, not a concrete policy that has restricted women from combat. Second is to show that policies designed to keep women from combat were designed arbitrarily – in the form of either political compromises, or reactions to political and historical events – rather than in response to evidence that women could not do the job. Third is to argue that the definition of combat itself is illusive: both “combat” and “the combat exclusion” are, in fact, constructed. This chapter illustrates that the ever-changing combat exclusion has reflected gender stereotypes, evolving political pressures, and historical events. Moreover, the combat exclusion itself is a story and a trope that has always been defined and constructed in relation to the band of brothers myth and the fantasy of the all-male unit.

In order to accomplish these goals, the chapter examines the evolving policies and regulations related to women in combat. Beginning with World War II and covering the time period up until the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the following provides a context to the evolution of the combat exclusion. It maps the various iterations of policies associated with the combat exclusion in order to demonstrate that there has never been a singular, clear, and enforceable combat exclusion policy. In addition to an overview of the political history of the combat exclusion, there is a discussion of various related court cases.

One of the most common arguments used to justify the combat exclusion in the US and elsewhere has been that women undermine the types of bonding necessary for combat troops to operate effectively. This ‘cohesion hypothesis’ presumes a positive relationship between group cohesion and soldier performance, and a negative relationship between the inclusion of women and the rates of bonding and trust necessary for such cohesion. In other words, all-male combat units are more cohesive, and therefore more effective, than mixed-gender units. This became the dominant rationale for excluding women from US combat operations in the two decades leading up to the policy change, and it remains the primary justification for sustaining combat exclusions in several militaries across the world. Erin Solaro summarizes the significance of the cohesion hypothesis: “The single biggest issue in integrating women into the military, much less into the combat arms, has been held to be cohesion: the emotional bonds between members of a unit … In the military mind, cohesion had become more than just a contributor to combat effectiveness. It was now synonymous with it.”

The link between cohesion and troop performance was perhaps most clearly articulated in policy terms in the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women, which was established to review the combat exclusion. The commission recommended that the combat exclusion be sustained, citing that although “[t]here are no military studies concerning mixed-gender combat unit cohesion … some research indicates that unit cohesion could be affected by the introduction of women.” The commission identified several factors that could impact cohesion, including the “real or perceived inability of women to carry their weight without male assistance, a ‘zero privacy’ environment on the battlefield, interference with male bonding, cultural values, the desire of men to protect women, inappropriate male/female relationships, and pregnancy – particularly when perceived as a way to escape from combat duty.”

The male combat unit lies at the heart of American military identity. The story of a group of men risking their lives to violently defend the United States has been a consistent national narrative. “Bands of brothers,” “comrades in arms,” and “a few good men” are examples of well-worn tropes that signal men's unique connection to one another and their ability to overcome extreme odds to protect the nation. According to military historian Martin van Creveld, war is “the highest proof of manhood” and combat is “the supreme assertion of masculinity.” In his Afghanistan war memoir, US Army Infantry Officer Andrew Exum described the infantry as “one of the last places where that most endangered of species, the alpha male, can feel at home.” These accounts of soldiering depict male troops as the natural and rightful protectors of society.

In contrast, women are often seen as potential spoilers to military culture. There are fears that the integration of women into the military – particularly into combat roles – “feminizes” and weakens the military. Stephanie Gutmann explains, “I do not think we could have a capable integrated combat arms without real androgyny, without real suppression of male and female qualities.” Such portrayals of the military imply that restricting women from the front lines of war is essential to national security. This rationale was at the heart of the combat exclusion – a US military policy designed to keep women from combat units.

The argument that women simply cannot “make the cut” and compete physically with men has consistently been the most prominent argument for keeping them out of combat units. Stephanie Gutmann summarizes this position: “When butts drop onto seats, and feet grope for foot pedals, and girls of five feet one (not an uncommon height in the ranks) put on great bowl-like Kevlar helmets over a full head of long hair done up in a French braid, there are problems of fit – and those picayune fit problems ripple outward, eventually affecting performance, morale, and readiness.” This chapter argues that these physical arguments are not as objective and straightforward as they appear. Physical capabilities seem to be easy to measure and evaluate – particularly in comparison to subjective qualities such as bravery, or complex concepts such as cohesion. Moreover, the main argument associated with women and physical standards appears to be quite simple – women are described as weaker than men, and therefore less able to do the types of activities required by infantry soldiers. Assessing the validity of this physical argument should also be relatively straightforward. Evidence indicates that there are clear differences in physical qualities between men and women and that, on average, women are indeed weaker than men.

However, if we go beyond this initial position, the arguments associated with physical standards are more complex. It is quite a large leap from the assertion that women are weaker than men, to the argument that this weakness necessarily renders women incapable of fulfilling combat roles. There are two key assumptions inherent in this argument. The first is that the physical difference between men and women is insurmountable. In other words, biology is destiny, even with training or adapting tasks. The second assumption is that combat requires unique physical skills not needed for other military roles, and that women lack these particular physical skills.