Author Archive E-mail Author Send to a Friend <% dim printurl printurl = Request.ServerVariables("URL")%> Version

August 30, 2002, 9:45 a.m. Dressing for Danger Congress ties the hands of military commanders in Saudi Arabia — and puts American women at risk.

hile Congress has been on August recess, the future safety of American military women stationed in Saudi Arabia has been on hold. And the outlook doesn't look too hopeful.

Congress is in the process of making policy that will affect our troops stationed in Saudi Arabia, and making it based on a delusional premise that guides too much U.S. policy: that Saudi Arabia is a benign ally that would never do us harm.

American congressmen want to make a fashion statement by allowing American servicewomen and other Prince Sultan airbase personnel to go off base without the attire the kingdom of Saudi Arabia requires all women to wear. Sure, it sounds fair and all-American on the surface: freedom to choose whatever you want to wear. No one — well, besides the Saudis and their fellow Wahhabists and other Islamists — wants American women to have to wear the restrictive garb. But there are a few critical factors to consider.

First, the country we're talking about.

In Saudi Arabia, an American woman is risking actual jail time — and who knows what else — when she fails to wear the mandatory abaya.

Congress is poised to buck the Pentagon's recommendation, and actually require that military officials not warn American women of the potential risks involved in walking the streets of Riyadh without the abaya.

The legislation was sponsored by Rep. Heather Wilson — a Republican Air Force Academy graduate from Arizona — and Sen. Bob Smith (R., N.H.). A sometimes-solid conservative, Senator Smith said on the Senate floor, arguing in favor of the abaya restriction: "We are a superpower, and our military is the envy of the world. Our men and women in uniform are proud of their uniforms, and proud of what their uniforms stand for. We should not treat any of them as second-class citizens." Similarly, the conservative legal group the Rutherford Institute is a key advocate for the legislation.

This abaya debate started when Air Force pilot Lt. Col. Martha McSally decided to protest the then-current requirement to wear the abaya, be accompanied by men, and be in the backseat of a vehicle when traveling off base. Sure, the requirements would be ridiculous in Kansas; but Riyadh certainly is no place like home.

In January, Central Command changed the policy to simply encourage but not mandate that women don the abaya off base. McSally, who is no longer stationed in the Kingdom, argues that the abaya requirement constitutes sex discrimination. The military, however, is not forbidden to warn servicemen that running in shorts off base in Riyadh might get them stopped by the not-so-friendly Saudi religious patrol. Depending on the final language they wind up with, the congressional mandate could easily be construed to forbid women from getting any warning whatsoever.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, has been the foremost critic of the congressional abaya action. She warns: A "servicewoman drives a vehicle off base, not wearing the abaya, and is hassled by religious police known as the mutawa. The hapless woman resists and is thrown into a miserable jail for trumped-up reasons, and belatedly discovers that she has no rights whatsoever. This is because there is no Status of Forces Agreement with Saudi Arabia."

The American servicewoman hypothetically thrown in a Saudi jail, in fact, would have no more rights than the daughters of Pat Roush and other American-born daughters who were taken from their American mother by their Saudi father. The State Department claims to be able to do nothing for them. Elaine Donnelly worries that American hands would be tied in a case of trumped-up charges against an abaya-less American servicewoman.

In an odd twist in the whole debate — that should be carefully considered before the congressional deed is done — when the Senate Armed Services Committee was debating the legislation, a Pentagon letter imploring Congress to retreat arrived too late, an hour after the committee voted. The letter, from William Haynes, the Defense Department's general counsel, says that the legislation "would unreasonably limit commanders' ability and authority to act in their best judgment to protect the men and women under their command."

The letter cautions:

At all times, but especially in time of war, commanders have a continuing duty to assess the security situation in their areas of responsibility and to determine appropriate protective measures for those under their command based upon their best military judgment. This is true even in areas away from the front lines.

Actually, it would seem appropriate to consider the country from which 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists hailed a frontline in the war on terror. Playing with American lives by unnecessarily silencing American military commanders on this relatively minor matter is unnecessary and irresponsible. As Haynes continues in his letter to Carl Levin, chairman of the Armed Services Committee: "Any abaya, in some circumstances, may be the most effective and practical measure to permit a female service member the freedom to move safely about outside a military installation. Frequently American female service members choose to wear the abaya when not in uniform and off a military installation, as do other Western women when they are outside their housing compounds."

The abaya bill passed both houses of Congress unanimously. A conference committee promises to seal the abaya deal once Congress gets back to the Hill after Labor Day. Odds are they're going to tell women to go abaya-less — without warning of the risk they face in doing so. But they are doing a disservice to the women serving their country over there — women who, remember, never asked to go specifically to Saudi Arabia. They're not necessarily familiar with the country and its customs — and its dangers. To prohibit American officials from cautioning them is a careless policy.

It's not too late, however. The Pentagon letter that the Armed Services Committee never got to consider should be item #1 when the conference committee takes up the abaya issue. What congressmen probably thought was a pro-woman, pro-freedom no-brainer of a vote (If Sen. Smith wins his primary on Sept. 10, by the way, he will face a woman for reelection.) is one that could put lives in danger, especially as things continue to heat up in that part of the world, and between the U.S. and the Saudis in particular. The Saudis are not as friendly as folks in Foggy Bottom — and friendly photos from Crawford — let on. Let an American servicewoman not be the reason we finally concede that.