WHILE some in the military have dismissed the move by the UK’s Ministry of Defence on Friday towards allowing women soldiers to fight in combat roles as a political move, when it happens it will not represent such a big change for the troops on the ground. British soldiers have already served alongside women in combat roles — just not alongside British ones.

In Afghanistan, British infantry worked alongside women soldiers from Denmark, a country that has already lifted the ban on women in combat roles. They shared the risks from sniper fire, mortar attacks and hidden explosive devices.

But the ban on British women serving in ground combat roles has still to be lifted. Former defence secretary, Philip Hammond, hinted in the spring that the ban would be abolished after a review.

That review was published on Friday but it amounts only to an interim one. A decision has been pushed back to 2016 when the present defence secretary, Michael Fallon, expressed hope that women would finally be allowed to form part of what the MoD refers to as the spearhead of the armed forces.

Other countries have allowed women to serve in combat zones for decades, but the MoD says the definition is not fully clear

The reality is that women have been in combat zones for decades. With recent wars not between disciplined forces with clear-cut front lines, women in the military forces have been sharing the risks with men.

The US-based Center for Military Readiness has published a list of US women military who have been killed in action . It makes for a sobering read. British women are already serving on the front line on the ground as medics, sharing the same risks as men.

The British appear to be extremely conservative on the combat issue compared with other countries. The exclusion ban has been lifted by the US, Australia, Canada, France and, one of the first from the modern armies to do so, Israel.

But the MoD argues that all is not quite as it seems. Some countries that talk about having lifted the ban on combat are talking about women being engaged as pilots, firing artillery, being on submarines and other roles but not in positions where they might end up on missions that require humping huge packs over mountainous or desert terrain and potentially involve hand-to-hand combat.

Britain already has female fighter pilots and submariners.

Although the US announced in January it was lifting the ban, it has been cautious about implementing it.

The British interim review defines close ground combat as “those roles that are primarily intended and designed with the purpose of requiring individuals on the ground, to close with and kill the enemy”.

It elaborates on this: “When dismounted, this includes the requirement to deploy on foot over difficult terrain, carrying substantial weight, to engage in close quarter fighting, recuperate in the field and then do the same again repeatedly over an extended period.”

The main reason cited for delay is physiological, whether women are as capable as men of carrying heavy packs and equipment over long periods. Further tests are to be carried out. It is a reasonable point but again it harks back to earlier debates about equality. A few decades ago, it was argued that women could not be as good mountaineers as men because they lacked the same physical strength, not an argument heard much these days in climbing circles.

But the main reason for resistance, one not fully addressed in the review, is cultural and psychological, a resistance in society to the idea of women being engaged in close combat with a male enemy. Firing a shot is one thing, being engaged in a knife fight is another.

Former British officers argue that women simply do not share the aggression and killer instinct that is more common in men. That is the debate still to be had.

In the end, the number of women who will pass the physical test — and who want to serve in combat — will be relatively small, probably only a few hundred. It is mainly a matter of principle.

—By arrangement with the Guardian

Published in Dawn, December 21st, 2014