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

Unfortunately, I realize that I mistakenly pressed the "W" as opposed to the "S" when I was posting this debate, so I do apologize. I agree, in today's progressive society, it is not a question of if we will ever allow females to operate in MOS's that have the capability and possibility of engaging the enemy in small arms fire, or hand to hand combat. No, the question we must ask ourselves as an elite military force in the world is "Should we allow women to participate in combat?" Now before I go any further let me make my topic clear. This is a debate about whether or not women should be given a rifle, and operate in the same manner as men do in today's modern age of combat. I am against this topic, and my opponent is for this topic. 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. My first point is 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. Although some females may be able to push through the pain of a "furious, 20-kilometer, full-pack hike", it is not a true testament to what it takes to get through combat. These courses that men go through, such as School of Infantry, are not "proving grounds" where the weak are weeded out, they are just another course, that teaches men how to operate in a combat environment. 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. Let us also consider the simplicity that comes with having all male combat units. A platoon commander need not worry about separate sleeping arrangements, where each gender will use the head, where each gender will get dressed, whether or not the interactions between the two genders will result in sexual or even emotionally charged tension, but rather he can focus his attention on the mission at hand. Like it or not the number one priority in the armed forces is mission accomplishment, and after that comes troop welfare. Now this means that more often than not troop welfare will suffer in order for mission accomplishment. This means there are going to be times where one of them are just going to have to "suck it up" per se, because that specific unit neither has the time, nor the ability to offer such accommodations. You can imagine the chaos that can come out of these scenarios, everything from pregnancy while deployed, to emotional instability due to riffs in relationships, to the feeling of being treated unfairly, or being uncomfortable due to lack of privacy, these are all things that should not, but unfortunately would be, running through the minds of the troops, whose focus should be elsewhere. Now whether it is accepted by the masses or not, the boots on the ground today are still engaging in lethal hand to hand combat on a regular enough basis, that it is still in the curriculum of the schools we have previously mentioned. The guy who wins the struggle is going to be the one who is stronger. 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 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. The simple fact is this. Combat is not a place for women. It is not about equality or human rights. It is about which candidate is better tasked for the job. And when the job is saving lives and taking lives that is a pretty important question to ask.