Combat Exclusion Policy: A Philosophical and Biblical Analysis

This essay critically examines the U.S. Army's Combat Exclusion Policy (AR 600-13), which bars female soldiers from direct combat roles, through the lens of Biblical philosophy. The paper investigates whether this policy violates the Biblical equality principle, which emphasizes that all individuals are equal before God. The essay delves into arguments from feminist legal theory, which contends that such exclusion constitutes gender discrimination, and contrasts these views with perspectives that emphasize biological differences between men and women and the need to protect women from the inherent dangers of combat. The author analyzes relevant literature, including court cases and scholarly articles, to argue that the policy, while seemingly discriminatory, can be justified by considering biological differences, morality, and the concept of fairness. The conclusion supports the view that the Combat Exclusion Policy does not violate the Biblical principle of equality, as it aims to protect women and acknowledges their biological differences, which are essential for their safety and well-being.

Running head: COMBAT EXCLUSION POLICY AND BIBLICAL PHILOSOPHY
Combat Exclusion Policy and Biblical Philosophy
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

1COMBAT EXCLUSION POLICY AND BIBLICAL PHILOSOPHY
Gender discrimination is a global issue which implies that men are preferred over
women in most cases, especially in terms of employment and privileges. Discrimination
against women is marked as an offence in most modern countries, while some countries
provide additional benefits and reservations for women, in order to bridge the biological gap
or physical differences between men and women (Lakoff 2017). Women are usually barred
from being recruited for direct combats in the army in most civilised countries in the world,
to which the United States is no exception. It is not that women are completely barred from
being recruited in the army; there are many departments that require female army personnel
like an officer in the army, in the enlisted specialty or in certain other departments.
Nevertheless, the Army Regulation 600-13 of the U.S. bars female soldiers from being
engaged in direct combat. Therefore, it is often speculated that the AR 600-13 violates the
Biblical equality Principle for discriminating against the female soldiers (Harrell et al. 2007).
This paper shall, therefore, critically discuss the speculation mentioned above.
American jurisprudence has always placed the principle of gender equality at an
important pedestal, for it has been a sensitive issue giving rise to several theories of feminism
and feminist revolutions in the United States (MacKenzie 2012). It has been argued over the
years as to why women would not be allowed to cast their vote in the election or why they
should not be recruited in the US army and then subsequently why female soldiers not to be
engaged in direct combat. In regard to different kind of justifications, the most convincing of
all is that: laws that are made in order to respect the physical differences between men and
women should be welcomed unquestionably, instead of doubting them as a discrimination of
gender and violation of gender inequality. The Army Regulation 600-13 was passed in 1992,
with effective from April 27, 1992 that had barred the recruitment of female soldiers in units
or sub-units that involves direct combat missions (MacKenzie 2012). The regulation strived
to keep female soldiers away from the risk of exposure to direct combat, in order to safeguard

2COMBAT EXCLUSION POLICY AND BIBLICAL PHILOSOPHY
them from hostile fire or capture by the enemy at the battle ground. This policy provides
guidance in terms of the positions, specialities and units where female soldiers are posted;
however, it does not constrain the ability of the female soldiers to operate in their assigned
position. Except for the units and sub-units that routinely engages in direct combat, the AR
600-13 and few other army policies have opened new avenues and positions for female
soldiers in the army like maneuver brigade headquarters, chemical reconnaissance and smoke
platoons, division military police companies, et cetera (Harrell e al. 2007). Thereby, it shows
that there is no room for discrimination against female soldiers, but only a little concern for
the difference of physical strength between men and women and their level of endurance to
capture and torture by the enemy, which are two vital factors associated with routinely direct
combat.
However, such a differentiation between male and female soldier is often held as a
violation of the Biblical equality principle that says “For the Lord, your God is the God of
gods and Lord of Lords, who shows no partiality” (Deuteronomy 10:17) (James et al. 1979).
The concept or principle of equality according to the holy Bible is that all men and women
are equal before the Lord, hence no distinction should be drawn between the two (Lakoff
2017). The bible says that although God has given different abilities to different people,
which includes physical differences between men and women, yet no privileges should be
favoured to a particular class (James et al. 1979). With the support of the Biblical Equality
principle, the feminist legal theorists claim that feminism does not only talk about pulling
women down in the society, but it also claims that women should be put at par with men and
should be given equal opportunity in the society, which includes equal right to employment.
Thus, it could be argued that disallowing women from involving in frontline direct combat in
the U.S. army is a discrimination and violative of the Biblical equality principle.

3COMBAT EXCLUSION POLICY AND BIBLICAL PHILOSOPHY
However, Lynne Marie Kohm, in his article “A Christian Perspective on Gender
Equality” says that a Christian does not need to be a feminist for following the equality
principle of the bible (Kohm 2008). The gospel is pro-women in itself, and therefore, one
who is a Christian, is a feminist in itself. The bible, even through it speaks for equality for
women, nevertheless, it is protective of women along with keeping their status high in the
society (James et al. 1979). It has put women to test of morality and tough situations, yet has
never subjected women to be engaged in warfare (O'Brien 2014). Therefore, it could be
argued that although the bible talks about impartiality and equality between men and women,
however, it understands the biological distinction that makes women different from men, in
terms of physical strength and endurance to torture (Kohm 2008). It therefore does not hold a
person guilty if his actions are in favour of protecting a woman from external harm, even
though in that course the woman is stopped from being an equal part to an event. Thus, the
approach of the AR 600-13 could also be interpreted in a similar way (Putko 2008).
As the Army Regulation 600-13 does not allow female soldiers in units that engages
in routinely direct combat, it is often said to be violative of the biblical equality principle that
exclaims that God shows no partiality among men and women. The policy of the Army
Regulation assumes female soldier as a separate class, thereby distinguishing from male
soldiers and keeping them away from involving in direct combat, which is in violation of the
biblical equality principle as it refers to man and woman being equal.
However, it needs to be understood that the regulation strives to protect women from
the harshness of a frontline combat that usually involves the fear of being captured and
subsequently tortured by the enemy (Putko 2008). The U.S. Supreme Court has always been
vigilant about gender equality and discrimination towards women, yet it has nothing to say
about this regulation, not only because it is a military affair, but also as the regulation could
be justified through biological reasoning, morality and the concept of fairness.

4COMBAT EXCLUSION POLICY AND BIBLICAL PHILOSOPHY
It could therefore be concluded that the AR 600-13 is not violative of the biblical
equality principle even though it strictly talks about ‘impartiality’ between men and women.
Although the bible, a staunch feminist, speaks for gender equality and equal opportunity for
women in every sphere of life, however, it recognises the fact that women are biologically
different from men, in terms of their physical strength, physical capacity to endure extreme
violence and torture. Such biological difference puts the women at a disadvantage naturally,
thereby justifying their disbarment from being engaged in direct combat on the U.S. army. In
the light of protectiveness and respect for women, it could be held that exclusion of female
soldiers from direct combat is just and reasonable, and not at all violative of the principle of
equality as professed by the Bible.

5COMBAT EXCLUSION POLICY AND BIBLICAL PHILOSOPHY
References
Harrell, M.C., Castaneda, L.W., Kavanagh, J., Hallmark, B.W. and Schirmer, P., 2007.
Assessing the assignment policy for Army women (Vol. 590). Rand Corporation.
James, K., Wire, N., Bradfield, J.D. and Moore, S., 1979. The Holy Bible (p. 15). World
Publishing Company.
Kohm, L.M., 2008. A Christian perspective on gender equality. Duke J. Gender L. &
Pol'y, 15, p.339.
Lakoff, S.A., 2017. Christianity and equality. In Equality (pp. 115-133). Routledge.
MacKenzie, M.H., 2012. Let Women Fight: Ending the US Military's Female Combat
Ban. Foreign Aff., 91, p.32.
O'Brien, J.M. ed., 2014. The Oxford encyclopedia of the Bible and gender studies. Oxford
University Press, USA.
Putko, M.M., 2008. The combat exclusion policy in the modern security
environment. Women in combat compendium, p.27.