Who Gets to Call Themselves a Combat Veteran? Women Vets as Political Candidates

Transition

Welcome to The Bridge, a regular column from Andrea N. Goldstein on the experience and challenges of transitioning from the military to civilian life.


Recent reports that the service records of female veterans running for elected office are facing attacks from their male political rivals stirred up some bad memories.

A few years ago, as we walked near campus after a class in graduate school, we talked about why women veterans seemed more reticent to talk about their military service than men. The two of us, both Navy veterans, were both proud of our service but reflected that even when we were serving, our service was often treated as if it was less valuable than that of the men we served next to, devalued only because we happened to serve while female. We’ve both been asked the same frustrating question: “You didn’t go in harm’s way, did you?

Often accusatory or dismissive in tone, the question assumes that women are appendages to the “real” military. But historically, this has never been the case. The military is dangerous work and women have fought and died alongside male service members in the line of duty since the earliest years of the U.S. armed forces. Even well before they could officially join the military as nurses, women disguised themselves as men to fight, or served in roles like intelligence or logistics, that are now military occupational specialties. Some, like Deborah Sampson, who was wounded in battle during the Revolutionary War, actually went on to receive a pension.

Related: The American Women Who Served In Combat Before You Were Born »

The U.S. government, however, has often minimized the role of women because of fear of political and public opinion backlash.  Even the definition of “combat” itself is sticky.  According to the Internal Revenue Service, a service member is eligible to receive Combat Pay (a.k.a. Imminent Danger Pay) if they served in a Department of Defense or Executive Order designated combat zone, which includes both landmasses, air spaces, and bodies of water.  

The U.S. government has changed the definition of what constitutes combat over a half dozen times since 1948, the year women were first accepted as active duty servicemembers. Even after lifting the ban on women flying in combat missions in 1993, the Pentagon took great care to state that women were excluded from “engaging in direct combat on the ground.” The real reason for changing the definition of “combat” was simple: to say that women weren’t in it. Combat — whatever it meant — was a protected space. As one of us recently wrote, combat “is often deliberately paired with defining masculinity: combat is where the men are; men are defined by combat, and combat service is privileged.” Ironically, as long as women were excluded, “combat” was a so-called “safe space” to prove masculinity.

In Operations Iraqi Freedom and Enduring Freedom, women served “in support of” but directly alongside special operations units as members of “Cultural Support” and “Female Engagement” Teams. Nevermind that these women were specially trained alongside their male counterparts and deployed to the exact same dangerous areas. Words matter, and as long as we didn’t say women were serving in combat, they weren’t there. Combat becomes a moving target: if your foot doesn’t physically kick in a door, it’s not combat, right?

Once we take the oath of enlistment or commissioning, we serve based on the needs of the military. We go where were are sent. Whether that is on a ship in the Western Pacific, a hospital in a combat zone, or a plane patrolling a no-fly zone, we are all putting our lives at risk and answering the call of service, regardless of gender. Plenty of male veterans have not directly served in the line of fire, but very rarely is their service ever questioned. They are assumed to have served in combat.

The fractious conflicts that have taken place post-9/11 have made it very clear that there is no such thing as “front lines”: an attack can take place at any place, and any time. Beyond that, military service is inherently dangerous: more service members are killed in accidents than in combat. Moreover, the shamefully high rate of sexual assault in the U.S. military means a woman is more likely to be attacked by her own teammates than the enemy.

Just as words matter in shaping and defining roles in the military, they matter on the political battlefield. According to the political opponents of Senator Joni Ernst, and more recently, Congressional candidates Maura Sullivan and Lynne Blankenbecker, combat is not a term they are authorized to use when discussing their military service. But why? Opponents claim that if they do not have combat decorations such as the Combat Action Badge and Combat Action Ribbon, they do not qualify as combat veterans.

It is absolutely important for veterans seeking to continue serving their country in elected office to ensure that they are honestly portraying their military experience to their voters and constituents, most of whom have very little first-hand knowledge of military life.  Veterans Campaign, a non-partisan non-profit organization committed to preparing veterans for a “Second Service” in civic leadership, teaches a signature workshop module titled “Bulletproofing Your Service Record,” to help veterans understand how to genuinely and unpretentiously communicate their background to voters in a way that they can understand and relate to.  

None of the candidates we’ve discussed claim to have served in missions or operations where they did not, nor are they claiming to have awards they did not receive. At what point do we say “enough is enough” and stop debating the minutia of what combat is and who was there? Attacking another veteran’s service in this manner,  is “blue falcon” behavior, petty, backstabbing, and antithetical to being part of the military community. We are on the same team, deeply committed to our country. Service is about giving what you have to give to your country and a community, and these women are trying to do just that. That should be enough.

U.S. Marine Corps photo
(DoD photo by Claudett Roulo.)

Former Navy SEAL Eric Greitens, who resigned in disgrace as governor of Missouri last year, is putting his uniform back on — just not as a Navy SEAL.

Greitens, who stepped down in May 2018 amid criminal charges related to an alleged extramarital affair, has become a reserve naval officer with Navy Operational Support Center — St. Louis, a spokeswoman for Navy Recruiting Command confirmed to Task & Purpose. The Kansas City Star first reported the news.

Read More Show Less

NAVAL BASE SAN DIEGO — Three members of the defense team for Navy SEAL Chief Edward "Eddie" Gallagher were revealed on Wednesday to have close ties to the Trump administration amid reports the president is considering the veteran Navy SEAL for a pardon on Memorial Day.

President Donald Trump's personal attorney, Marc Mukasey, 51, and longtime Trump associate Bernard Kerik, 63, a former New York City police commissioner, have joined Gallagher's defense team in recent months, both men told Task & Purpose on Wednesday.

Meanwhile, in response to a question from a reporter after a motions hearing, lead defense attorney Tim Parlatore confirmed that he had previously represented Pete Hegseth, the conservative Fox News personality who has been privately lobbying Trump since January to pardon Gallagher, according to The Daily Beast.

Read More Show Less
(Associated Press photo)

(Reuters) - John Walker Lindh, the American captured in Afghanistan in 2001 fighting for the Taliban, was released early from federal prison on Thursday, the Washington Post reported, citing Lindh's lawyer.

Lindh, who was 20 years old when he was captured, left prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, on probation after serving 17 years of a 20-year sentence, the newspaper said.

Now 38, Lindh is among dozens of prisoners to be released over the next few years after being captured in Iraq and Afghanistan and convicted of terrorism-related crimes following the attacks on the United States by al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001.

Read More Show Less
(U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 1st Class Brian M. Wilbur.)

Defense officials will brief President Donald Trump's national security team on a plan that involves sending 5,000 more troops to the Middle East to deter Iran, Task & Purpose has learned.

So far, no decisions have been made about whether to send the reinforcements to the region, unnamed U.S. officials told CNN's Barbara Starr.

"The military capabilities being discussed include sending additional ballistic missile defense systems, Tomahawk cruise missiles on submarines, and surface ships with land attack capabilities for striking at a long range," CNN reports. "Specific weapons systems and units have not been identified."

Read More Show Less

Dashcam footage from a freeway commuter shows the moment a pilot ejected from an F-16 military jet last week, releasing a parachute before the aircraft slammed into a Riverside County, California warehouse.

Read More Show Less