In 1948, the US civil rights movement received support from an unlikely quarter. Then president Harry Truman issued Executive Order No. 9981, which abolished racial segregation in the US military, thereby putting all Americans, regardless of race, on a level playing field within the defense establishment. For the first time in US history, members of a segment of society, through official policy, were to be treated equally.
Why did this sudden shift of policy come about?
It was not because of an enlightened and socially progressive policy of egalitarianism developed by Truman. To the contrary, it was merely the result of careful analysis and practical common sense. As the Cold War shifted into high gear and the US examined the lessons it had learned from World War II, it became clear that major changes in the defense establishment were necessary to ensure that the US military maintained its technological and organizational edge.
The US government studied the various lessons it had learned from World War II and thereby created the National Security Act of 1947, which completely rearranged the structure of the US defense establishment. One later component of the military transformation was Executive Order No. 9981, ordering immediate desegregation of the US military.
Much to the discredit of the US, military desegregation was met with howls of dismay by many white servicemen. Many white officers took it for granted that blacks, Latinos and Asians simply could not fight. The arguments were numerous, and all of them were grounded in what seemed to be common sense. Racially mixed units would mutiny, some said, or be consumed by inter-racial bickering. Non-whites were temperamentally unsuited for the stresses of combat, others said. The common wisdom ran that no white man would ever take orders from a black, or an Asian, or a Latino.
Fortunately, the US gained a wealth of experience during World War II which proved all of these protests to be mere smoke and mirrors, occluding the truth -- regardless of race, any soldier could fight as well as the next given the proper training. The US Navy had even begun limited integration of ships' crews prior to the end of the war.
The truth was not that white servicemen were afraid of diluting the effectiveness of the military, but rather that they feared a long-held and cherished myth would vanish like the mist on a morning battlefield.
They were afraid that their notions of racial superiority would be proven once and for all to be completely fictitious.
The debate over the number of slots allocated to women in Taiwan's military colleges has been marked by an astounding degree of similar irrationality.
The issue received a great deal of publicity after three outstanding high school graduates applied for the two slots available to women at the National Defense Management College. Eventually, one candidate, Lei Chia-chia (雷家佳), gave up her place so that Chang Ying-hua (張穎華) could attend the school.
In response to the natural outcry over this state of affairs, defense officials attempted to rationalize the quota system by offering a number of figures and statistics to support the Ministry of National Defense's policy. Most women just get pregnant after they start their tours of duty, they said. It's a fact, others added, that women always have to ask for help to get anything done.
Underlying all of these beliefs is the basic assumption that no woman could ever be the equal of a man.
So we are forced to ask the question -- is this true? Are women somehow unfit for the rigors of military service? Unable to lead soldiers into combat?
The answer to both questions is no, and there is a huge amount of empirical data to prove it. The US military has conducted numerous studies on the subject of women's suitability for combat. Although the results have been divided about hand-to-hand combat, one thing is clear: in many specialties present in a modern military force, women make just as effective service members as do men. In any event, we can only hope that Taiwan's defense policy is not based on the assumption that proficiency in hand-to-hand combat techniques will be the determining factor in the event of a war.
Obviously, there are physiological differences between men and women. But there are usually physiological differences between two different men, just as there are between two different women. In judging physical abilities, one must concede that the judgment should be made on an individual basis.
As far as leadership abilities go, the US Marines recognize 14 leadership traits: justice, judg-ment, decisiveness, integrity, dependability, tact, initiative, enthusiasm, bearing, unselfishness, courage, knowledge, loyalty, and endurance. The pedantic will note that neither brute physical strength nor gender are among these traits.
The real point is not whether women are capable of doing the job. It is whether or not the defense schools are allowing the most highly-qualified individuals to attend their programs. Are the armed forces receiving an officer corps which is comprised of qualified and motivated individuals?
It is disingenuous to offer inanities about the possibility that a woman could get pregnant during her tour of duty, or point out that the nation has a higher ratio of active-duty servicewomen than Japan (hardly a bastion of military or social progressiveness). All such claims reek of intellectual dishonesty. It sounds as though these officials fear something else altogether, just as the white US servicemen did in 1948.
They are afraid they might be forced to give up cherished prejudices, long-held.
They fear having to someday admit that a woman could do their job just as well, or even better, than they can.
We could also talk about the Confucian characteristics of hierarchical Chinese societies and the subsequent inferior role allocated to women, or point to the traditional subjugation of women throughout much of Asia, but that is unnecessary, because the issue is not about women's rights.
The real issue is a military one, and therefore a practical one: it is whether or not the individual assigned to fill a billet is the best available candidate.
If a military organization can- not grasp this basic concept of utilizing its assets to their fullest potential, then that organization is ineffective. And a military that is ineffective is worse than useless.
No effective modern military blatantly marginalizes the possible contributions of women to its war-fighting ability. Even countries -- such as the US and Britain -- which have areas of specialization closed to women (generally front-line combat units) are quickly expanding the number of available roles for servicewomen. The basic assumption behind this is that anyone who can do a job well has earned the right to perform his or her duty.
The defense of the nation is dependent upon the competency and effectiveness of its military -- especially its officer corps. Anyone willing to overlook a bright and motivated candidate simply because of outdated and intellectually dishonest prejudices does a disservice to the nation's security.
The fact that politicians and defense officials would try to offer such pathetic and illogical arguments to defend the quota system is a sign not only of endemic misogyny, but also of gross negligence and incompetence. It is nothing short of pathetic.
The debate should not be about achieving an abstract ratio of men to women in the defense colleges. It ought to be about equipping the armed forces with the most efficacious tools available. Gender has nothing to do with it.
The quota system should be abolished, even if that means admitting 16 women to the National Defense Management College one year and 16 men the next. The target is to provide skilled and effective military officers. And the quota system is a policy which hits wildly off the mark.
This issue has nothing to do with social progress or the advancement of women's rights. It is a practical calculation as clear and as simple as the trajectory of a 5.56mm round. And, even as with firing a rifle, you either hit the target -- or you don't.
Mac William Bishop, a former US Marine, is a political commentator based in Taipei.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath