Women have been flying military aircraft since 1942. The WASPs, or Women's Airforce Service Pilots, ferried 12,650 fighter and bomber planes all over the US, Canada and overseas when needed. They also instructed Air Corps pilots and towed practice targets for combat pilots.
However, women were limited to noncombat roles.
Over the course of time, the nature of warfare has changed. Women have become an integral part of the armed forces.
The Persian Gulf War, in 1990-1991, demonstrated how integral women had become to U.S. airpower. Female pilots flew various helicopters, reconnaissance, refueling and supply aircraft deep into Iraqi airspace. They loaded weapons onto fighters and directed Air Force pilots from AWACS planes.
But the final frontier for female aviators was to fly the coveted combat fighter jets and bombers.
In December of 1991, Congress removed the ban on women in combat aircraft with the passage of Public Law 102-190, but the Department of Defense policy still prohibited women from taking combat aircraft assignments.
However, on April 28, 1993, the policy ban was finally lifted by then-Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin. Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Frank B. Kelso was the first to act on this order, placing the Navy ahead of the other services, and opening up opportunities to women who wanted to fly fighters and live their dreams of military careers out on the leading edge.
When the combat exclusion clause was lifted that prohibited women from flying, I was at the top of my flight school class and fully qualified and positioned to go fly fighters. I was one of the first women to become a United States Navy combat pilot assigned to fly the venerable F-14A Tomcat on and off of aircraft carriers.
Little did I know at that time that by 'choosing combat jets' I was giving up my rights to privacy and the right to defend my reputation.
When I tried to defend myself against false allegations made against me, the D.C. Circuit court held that when I became one of the first female combat pilots in the United States Navy, I assumed the risk of public scrutiny and therefore became a 'voluntary limited-purpose public figure' under defamation law. In our country's history, only a handful of military officers have been denied their right to privacy due to their military service. I am one of them.
This issue takes on even greater importance today as our military is again considering expanding women's role, this time by inclusion in front-line ground combat forces. Recently, the United States Marine Corps announced that women will be permitted for the first time to attend its Infantry Officer Course in Quantico, VA.
There will be those who will work tirelessly to see these women fail. There will be 'haters.' Although unfortunate, that is to be expected; it's one of the many prices to pay for being a pioneer. But there will be women falsely maligned by those who wish they had not succeeded, and these soldiers will have virtually no legal recourse. They will not be permitted to maintain the rights to privacy enjoyed by the men serving on their left and right, and they will not be able to legally and publicly defend their reputations because they will be legally labeled as Limited Purpose Public Figures. We owe it to our courageous servicewomen to educate them on just what serving their country may cost them.
Being one of the first women to fly a combat fighter aircraft, I learned to recognize the difference between effective leadership and poor leadership. Strong leaders do not permit witch hunts, react emotionally to problems that surface in the media or "slow-roll" policy implementation. What makes policy changes successful is strong leadership. If there is to be a formal policy change permitting women to serve in new military capacities, it will be incumbent upon senior military leaders to ensure that policy is implemented successfully and with minimal disruption. I believe they are more than up to the task.
Major policy changes are where the most critical senior leadership challenges begin. This is especially true when a policy change significantly alters the military's social norm, as was the case in the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, and as will be the case when women are permitted to serve in front-line ground combat forces. The coming years will reveal the strength of today's senior military leadership as they navigate the choppy waters of implementing these policy changes, while protecting the young pioneers who are bravely volunteering to blaze a trail in the service our country.
Follow Carey D. Lohrenz on Twitter: www.twitter.com/CareyLohrenz
Sometimes to win in court requires framing the issue in such a way that our fundamental sense of justice, of right and wrong, is engaged. It's hard to tell from the opinion, but that may not have happened here. That's not intended as criticism; there are all those sayings about hindsight and Monday morning quarter-backing, etc.
Personally I've never had a problem with the idea of women in combat. You probably know about Lilya Litvak, who was a pilot in the all-female fighter regiment in the Red Air Force during WW2. She had 12 kills, and I don't think she was the only ace in that outfit.
I'm sure you know this, but not many of us civilians do. Of all the men trained as fighter pilots in WW2, only a very small percentage ever even shot down a single enemy aircraft. On this basis, is gender really a relevant issue?
Good luck and thanks for your service!
By suggesting that people "run down to the VA" then implying that men are lounging VA hospital beds - you give them an excellent example of false perspective. It highlights the point of the article relating to privacy. Certainly Sir John Fastolf would have preferred to have kept his own privacy rather than being lampooned and immortalized so shabbily for his own unfortunate survival by a regrettably ungrateful nation. It parallels the dismissive remarks made by Rep. Joe Walsh about his opponent, Iraq war veteran Tammy Duckworth, in a Politico interview “...she sacrificed her body for this country,” said Walsh, simultaneously lowering his voice as he leaned forward before pausing for dramatic effect. “Ehhh. Now let’s move on.What else has she done? Female, wounded veteran … ehhh,”
On a final note, I encourage people to support Rep. Jackie Speier's HR 3435 - to effectively address sexual assault and rape in the military by addressing issues of reporting, oversight, and investigation by creating an independent, third party, body. It has proven to be very successful in other countries. Help put an end to the discharge of our servicewomen on grounds of pre-existing mental health issues for reporting rape in the military and put an effective end to criminals, with silent complicity of their commanders, besmirching the honor of the US military.
http://speier.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=205&Itemid=47
"Limited Purpose Public Figures" a ridiculous term to negate one's civil rights.
And who knows who came up with the headline? Privacy is not something many vets get - unless of course they're medically retired & forgotten.
The issue is the burden of proof in the defamation action she filed, and the ruling is that a person can be a public figure under NYT v Sullivan for the limited purpose of whatever public impact or symbol they may be.
All of which is odd - because it leaves many unanswered questions. It sounds like the gravamen of her complaint is political chicanery within the Navy, started by a private person Donnelly. I would suppose defamation is the best they thought they could prove, and I'm puzzled why the action was dismissed, since it appears there was no basis for the allegations, and repeating false rumors wouldn't seem to meet the Sullivan test anyway.
She personally will be fine in any case. She'll do like many Navy pilots, double her pay flying for private airlines. The larger problem is in private people interfering in the Navy for political purposes - which could easily include selling garbage in defense contracts.
She was deemed a "limited public figure" because she was the first woman to become a fighter pilot.
The women who have done so in the subsequent 15 years would not be, and evidently, have not been given that same designation.
It's unfortunate what happened to Lohrenz, but the idea that it is SOP is incorrect.
The Right Wing attacking her was normal for the course as they attack any woman trying to advance beyond the kitchen. We laughed it off as just more of their typical nonsense.
It was the findings of the Court and the response of the Military that I thought was shocking.
The Right constantly criticizes the military for social engineering then goes on trying to discriminate against women even more.
I had the opportunity to fly with several female pilots and I found that some were great, some not so much, just like the male pilots.
Just as an aside, strictly from a physiological standpoint, women are physically better suited for combat aircraft then men.
Yes, those are the issues that need to be addressed here. The article has big gaps, possibly due to editing.
So why does the GOP continue to deny women equal rights? Equal pay for the same job. Equal opportunities, including combat roles in the military if women so choose.
Better yet. GOP and Tea Party folks are Second Amendment enthusiasts, with respect to gun ownership. Drop on into a shooting range where there are women shooters and ask them if they need a man's protection. Ask them if they feel helpless. The answer will surprise some of you GOP dinosaurs.
Women can do most anything a man can. Conversely, men can do most everything women can....granted women can give birth to babies, so the literal definition must be taken in gender context. I recall the movie scene from Courage Under Fire.....
Captain Karen Emma Walden: [to Monfriez, after she's been shot in the abdomen] I gave birth to a nine-pound baby, a$%hole. I think I can handle it.
Hey GOP. Welcome to the 21st century. Ask women if they want equal opportunity. Don't give them less because you think they can't handle it.
Taking part in attacks on poorly-armed people in those other countries is hardly respecting those folks' privacy, so I don't see why yours should be respected, Ms. Lohrenz. Moreover, the more the U.S. killitary alienates potential recruits or actual members, be they women, gays, Muslims, or whatever, the better it is for the world.
There are just as many stories from the American military about even worse behavior towards women in the military. Imagine the courage, perserverence and patriotism it takes for women to join the military.
Thanks for bringing the issue to public attention.
A- public record
B- super relevant to the story.
Also, I suspect she's legally incorrect...I say suspect because giant pieces of this story are missing.