Combat Carve-out Ploy Advances “Draft Our Daughters”

By Elaine Donnelly
President, Center for Military Readiness
STARRS Board of Advisors

Members of the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) repeatedly have tried to impose Selective Service obligations on young women, usually with surprise “Draft Our Daughters” legislation sprung behind closed doors. Now comes a highly misleading new version in the National Defense Act (NDAA) for FY 2025, which is still unacceptable and strongly opposed.

The probable sponsor, SASC Chairman Jack Reed (D-RI), followed the House NDAA’s call for automatic registration of men, expanding it to include all persons of draft age (18-26) living in the United States and subject to Selective Service law.  (Report on S. 4638, Sec. 598-598D)

Then the Committee tried to “sweeten” the anti-women proposal with an apparent trade-off to gain more votes.  Sec. 529B of the SASC bill purports to exempt female draftees from being “compelled to join combat roles that were closed to women prior to December 3, 2015 . . .”

This was a false promise that should have fooled no one, but three Republican Senators, Dan Sullivan (AK), Tommy Tuberville (AL), and Markwayne Mullin (OK) seemed to have bought it anyway, contributing to the 16-9 vote to register “persons” with Selective Service.  (CMR has requested explanations for the senators’ votes and will post responses if received.)

Why a Combat Carve-Out for Women Is Not Credible

If Congress wants to exempt women from assignments in direct ground combat (DGC) units, which attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action, they should do so across the board instead of pretending to do so in a ruse to include women in Selective Service registration.

• December 3, 2015, is significant.  On that day, Obama Defense Secretary Ashton Carter summarily denied a formal request from then-Marine Commandant Gen. Joe Dunford asking that some direct ground combat MOSs, such as the infantry, remain all-male.  Instead, Carter announced there would be no exceptions anywhere.

• Despite many FOIAs and litigation, Pentagon officials have refused to reveal the full text of Gen. Dunford’s request, which was backed by three years of scientific research.  CMR is not aware of any similar request for exceptions from the Army, Navy, or Special Forces, so it is not clear what occupations the NDAA legislation is referring to.

Pentagon officials quickly promised that “gender-neutral” standards would be identical for men and women.  Accordingly, in 2018 the Army announced a six-event Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT) to replace the Army Physical Fitness Test (APFT).  The longstanding APFT was gender-normed to accommodate physical differences between male and female trainees.

• Reality set in when initial ACFT trials reported an 84% failure rate among female trainees, compared to 30% among the men.  The Army attempted several adjustments in test requirements and scoring systems and success rates improved somewhat, but in March 2022, promises to make the ACFT sex-neutral were abandoned.  RAND data showed that only 52% of the women could pass the test, compared to 92% of the men.

• Several times in recent years, Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AK) and Rep. Mike Waltz (R-FL) have sponsored legislation directing the Army to toughen ACFT requirements for trainees headed for ground combat occupations and units.  One measure passed in 2022, but Army Secretary Christine Wormuth dissembled and denied the need for change.

• Because the Army keeps pretending that men and women are interchangeable in all ground combat MOSs, such as the infantry and Special Operations Forces, training requirements have been “adjusted” downward and gender-normed, reducing challenges for male trainees so that women can “succeed.”

• Officials who have shown themselves unable to define what a woman is cannot be trusted to define what “combat” is, especially in a time of chaotic national emergency when the greatest need for casualty replacements would be in the combat arms.

An NDAA combat carve-out ploy changes nothing.  Women forced to join the military in a time of national emergency would have to serve where they are ordered to go – just like the men.

The Purpose of Selective Service Registration

A Selective Service System that registers women but not for “combat” would change the purpose of Selective Service without any serious, open debate, much less public demand.

The Heritage Foundation has made a good case for abolishing the Selective Service System all together and concentrating instead on other ways to increase young people’s propensity and abilities to serve.  Right now, however, Selective Service is a low-cost insurance policy ($26 million/year) to back up the All-Volunteer Force (AVF).  It does not exist to advance “sex equity” for less than compelling reasons.

• The idea that women must register and could be drafted but excused from close combat is oxymoronic, since the whole purpose of the draft is to rapidly supply combat replacements in a war that threatens the very existence of the United States.

• In the event of a national call-up for military service, most men would meet physical requirements while most women would not.  Drafting equal numbers of women and then carving them out of the combat replacement pool for legal or physical reasons would increase administrative demands and jam the system at the worst possible time.

• Instead of being activated only during a time of catastrophic national emergency, Selective Service would grow into a very expensive government bureaucracy empowered to enforce national service duties for all.

• The Senate bill would continue to register undocumented non-citizens, adding women, but not visitors on student or work visas.  Agencies that track birthdates, such as Social Security, could identify people who entered the country illegally for purposes of voting.  Expect the argument to be made: If male and female illegal residents are registered with Selective Service, why shouldn’t they be allowed to vote?

The Presumption of National Service – to the Government

In 2016, then-SASC Chairman Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) sponsored a surprise “Draft Our Daughters” proposal, and the House Armed Services Committee approved a similar surprise measure.  As a trade-off in Conference, Congress authorized what Sen. McCain really wanted: a $45 million-dollar 3-year National Commission on Military, National, and Public Service.  

The National Commission’s Report called for inclusion of women in Selective Service for the lamest of reasons: “the time is right.” (p. 122)  This vacuous, unsupported recommendation ignored inconvenient facts that did not support the Commission’s pre-conceived social agenda.

• In its landmark Rostker v. Goldberg decision (1981) the Supreme Court respected Congress’ judgement that women and men were not “similarly situated” in terms of physical strength and endurance that is required in deadly combat environments.  Decades later, three years of scientific Marine Corps research (2013-2015) confirmed that major sex-related differences exist in physical strength, speed, and endurance.

• A four-page Research Summary of field tests reported that units composed of average-ability men outperformed mixed-sex teams with highly qualified women in 69% of evaluated tasks, including hiking under load and other tasks simulating close combat.

• Some exceptional women may be able to meet minimal standards, but extensive research has shown that most women cannot meet combat arms standards while most men can.  There is no justification for ordering all draft age women to register.

The commission lumped together military conscription and “national service,” as if young people could avoid the former by accepting the latter.  (pp. 22-25)

The National Commission also called for a permanent, interagency Council on Military, National & Public Service.  This would be an expensive Big Government agency that would grant millions to well-funded organizations coordinating mandatory national service activities of the government’s choice.  Once people get accustomed to automatic registration, this powerful bureaucracy would use both “carrots and sticks” to commandeer the lives of young people for reasons other than national security.

A major question remains unanswered: Where in the U.S. Constitution is there authorization for the federal government to run the lives of young people for less than compelling reasons? 

• The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of conscription for military service, primarily because the Constitution authorizes Congress’ power to raise armies.  However, Art. 1, Sec. 8 of the Constitution does not empower Congress to conscript anyone for “good causes” like the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, the “Do Good Institute” or any other government-approved organization.

• Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has designated “climate change” as a primary concern of the DoD.  Should young “national servants” be drafted to monitor Americans’ use of gas stoves and lawn mowers?  The prospect is not far-fetched if officials are empowered to control young peoples’ lives for reasons other than military national defense.

• Requiring all 18-year-olds to involuntarily serve in any capacity ignores the guarantees of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness that serve as bedrock principles for our republic.  Congress should not replace Americans’ Presumption of Freedom under our Constitution with a Presumption of Service and government-tracked “social credits.”

Combat Realities Do Not Change

Women have been serving in many non-traditional MOSs, but physical differences between men and women, which are critically important in the combat arms, remain the same.  The SASC-approved bill pretending that all “persons” should register with Selective Service would harm women and weaken military readiness, not strengthen it:

• As Law Professor Emeritus William A. Woodruff has explained in a detailed analysis, if Selective Service called up women and men ages 18-26 in roughly equal numbers, the administrative burden of finding the theoretical one-in-four woman who might be qualified would make it more difficult to find and quickly mobilize American forces.

• Research has found that servicewomen are far more likely to be injured and to suffer chronic pain.  Women also suffer health problems such as infertility and higher risks of suicide.  Female attrition rates in combat arms units have been twice those of men.

• Involuntary conscription of women would make combat arms units less strong, less fast, more vulnerable to debilitating injuries, less ready for deployment on short notice, and less accurate with offensive weapons during combat operations.
  

“Draft Our Daughters” Is An Affront and Women Are Opposed

Women have always volunteered to serve in times of national emergency, and it is an affront to suggest they would not do so again.  Opportunities are wide-open for women in the All-Volunteer Force, but there is no evidence that military women want to be forced into the combat arms on the same involuntary basis as men.

A recent Rasmussen national survey found that 58% of female respondents were “somewhat” or “strongly opposed” to drafting women.  (22% and 36%, respectively)

Consequential legislation such as this should be publicly debated in advance, not dropped like a surprise package wrapped in deceptive packaging and approved behind closed doors.  “Draft Our Daughters” is unwarranted, unacceptable, and it must not be enacted in law.

* * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness submitted to the Senate Armed Services Committee in 2021.  CMR is an independent, non-partisan public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues: www.cmrlink.org. To make a tax-deductible contribution to CMR, please click here.