Whould women be allowed in combat type MOS's within the US Armed Forces

As we all know, there is no longer a designated frontline that protects a soldier from being in combat. The days of a battle front in a war are over. When a service man or woman is checking vehicles in Afghanistan, and the vehicle explodes due to a car bomb, that soldier is killed in combat. When female soldiers are the first ones to knock on doors in a neighborhood in Afghanistan due to cultural restrictions, they are essentially at the point-woman of a potential fire mission. We no longer have a choice but to recognize that female soldiers are in the battlefield and leading missions in nontraditional combat zones. This is a matter of fact given that fifteen percent of the military is comprised of women. Over 200,000 women have dedicated their lives to serve the United States and 20,000 of whom served in Iraq and Afghanistan. Where in these countries does the theater of operations begin or end. My opponent states "that the average male is physically superior to the average female. There are certain things that females cannot be expected to do, due to limitations in strength." It is not reasonable to assume that the "average" women can operate at the same capacity, and perform the same tasks, as men when in a combat environment. The woman who have proven capable of operating in such an environment have demonstrated a superior capacity than their "average" male counterpart. As my opponent correctly indicated, the average male is stronger than the average female. However, according to Marine Lt. Gen. Robert Milstead, deputy commandant for manpower and reserve affairs, none of the standards males have traditionally been required to meet have been lowered for woman[1]. No lower bar has been set for female recruits, yet, select females have exceeded their own gender based standard and met and/or exceeded the higher standard set for men. This is what justifies and merits a combat role for women who met the requirements. If it"s good enough for an average male, it is certainly good enough for a superior female. My opponent summarizes his argument of male physical superiority over females by stating, "Although the PT is grueling, it is in no way a testament to ones ability to perform a combat role. Therefor, ones ability to pass this course is not a point that should be considered in allowing females to serve in combat.[sic]" I would like to challenge this statement. If it is not based on physical ability, what "point" should be considered allowing females to serve in combat? Military analysts agree the debate over whether women should serve in infantry and other direct ground combat roles has come to this: Are they physically strong enough? The U.S. military services have launched an extensive effort to verify the specific physical requirements needed to succeed in each of dozens of fields that had been closed to women. As previously stated, the military will not need to lower its physical standards as it opens direct combat jobs to women.[2] The second point my opponent makes is accommodating privacy for female combatants in the field. While this is a valid point of contention " the truth is, it is not as relevant or as big a problem as it sounds. In Iraq, most combat patrols began in the green zone in the early morning dawn and ended at evening. There were specialized combat roles at night for specific raids, but these patrols operated out of an established base where both combatants and non-combatants slept. In the event a female combatant needed to sleep in the field or improvise a latrine for use, it is not unreasonable to expect the female to perform this duty the same way males do. All combatants give up any reasonable expectation of their privacy in the field. I do not see how this would be any different for females. Additionally, it would not be difficult for the chain of command to ensure both the males and females respected certain aspects of the other genders daily rituals. Provisioning this would not be difficult for a leader. My opponent further stated "Like it or not the number one priority in the armed forces is mission accomplishment, and after that comes troop welfare." I will agree with my opponent with this assertion. Accordingly, due to cultural sensitivities in Middle Eastern theaters of operation, female soldiers are being taken on combat missions to search village women. According to Pfc, Adalina Roman, a 19 year-old supply specialist, B Co., 307th FSB. The Afghan women are sensitive about being seen by people who are not members of their family. They are sometimes upset when even female soldiers try to search them. "They"re really scared; one woman was so upset she lost control of her bowels when asked to stand up." Women are not the only ones who get emotional when searched. Brady mentioned one man who became hysterical, started crying and choking when he saw his wife being searched. This prompted all the women to start crying and Brady had to get the already very busy interpreter to help calm them all down. [3] Can you imagine how dangerous and difficult this task would be if US service members were searching Middle Eastern woman for explosives. It would enrage the traditional patriarch society. Modern warfare involves many tactics and strategies, today"s modern battlefield is as much "hearts and minds" as it is physical combat. In a conflict where hearts and minds are important delicate handling of local people is required in order gain their support. In these conflicts, women are often better suited to intelligence gathering, medical assistance, policing and mediation than men. They are often perceived as less threatening and more understanding.[4] In addition, they would be better placed to deal with women in the local population. My opponent finalizes his position by basically stating "Now I am not claiming that this is WWII and the threat is around every corner, so we need to fix bayonets and eat our Wheaties every morning just in case. What I am saying is it [hand-to-hand combat] still happens. And when it does happen it is not with a female, it is with a male opponent. I like my chances knowing that I have a stronger and faster individual watching my back." As previously indicated a modern battlefield does have combat and on rare occasion, involves hand to hand combat. This is the exception to the rule and certainly not the norm. When small arms are the primary means of defense and offense, size and speed is irrelevant. Since the end of the Cold war, wars have become "less frequent and less deadly". In the past, wars were often fought between large armies with heavy weaponry, but many modern conflicts are L.I.C.s (low intensity conflicts), involving small terrorist groups with guerilla tactics. [5] Women have shown great courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield, contributed in unprecedented ways to the military's mission and proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles. Women have always fought and died in America's wars. As of 2010, over 600 women have died in operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've led men in battle, been prisoners of war, fired lethal weapons, and operated our most sophisticated systems. They fly combat aircraft, serve on combat ships and have killed the enemy. Women meet the military's physical and mental standards, are technically proficient, and are highly trained war fighters and leaders. It is for these reasons I maintain woman should fill combat roles in today's military. [1] USA Today HYPERLINK http://www.usatoday.com... [2] USA Today http://www.usatoday.com... [3] Defend America Web Article http://www.defendamerica.mil... [4] Sisters In Arms Web Article http://sistersinarms.ca... [5] Global Security: Fundamentals of Low Intensity Conflict