Women in Combat Arms

Alright, here's the deal armchair generals like me have with women & combat arms. If I'm a military commander, I don't want just women or men in combat arms, I want the best. And I don't care who or even what that is; what age, race, color, or gender, computer robot or not a computer robot, doesn't make any difference to me, but when I go to war, I go to win. And I'm taking the best darn, most invincible soldiers ever with me. Now having said that, I'm forced to reconcile with facts that show that men (and all male units) make the best infantry soldiers. 1) Men are generally physically superior to women, and have more athletic potential. (Scientific fact) 2) Most males are overwhelming stronger than their female counterparts (http://www.unz.com...) 3) The most elite female athletes are barely stronger than your average males (http://www.unz.com...) 4) Male bodies are generally less prone to injury, have more endurance, stronger skeletal frames, have more muscle mass, and have thicker bone densities. 5) Men can't become pregnant. Mixed units can cause distractions. 6) Men and women are perceived & treated differently both in American society and in the military. 7) The military -and especially ground combat- has traditionally been an all male endeavor, making hopes of successful integration difficult. Which leads us to make the following contentions: #1 Admitting women is a bad idea and risks lowering military standards. The general rule here is this; most women are weaker then men, infantry standards were originally designed with men in mind, and so if these tests are too difficult for most women, then they're probably are. Political pressure from feminists and political action groups will therefore renew pressure on the military to ultimately change their infantry standards to make them more fair to women. Resulting in more women, less men, and weaker soldiers overall. Known as "The Dempsey Rule" (named after Gen. Dempsey's controversial remarks on fairness & standards; http://tinyurl.com...), the scenario looks like this: Future inquires will happen. Congress will ask, how many women are in these units? Why so few? How many are applying? Are these tests unfair to women? Should we change the tests? Military sets a quota. New quota + Special tests = Less qualified applicants to fill quota. Which (more than theoretical) has been the case with nearly all affirmative action cases in the military since the 1970s and is still happening now: http://tinyurl.com... #2 National Security is no place to be running large-scale social experiments The military is no place to be running large scale social experiments of any kind, especially when social engineering could impact fitness standards and risk operational effectiveness in combat. American women (as a gender) have not proven themselves in direct-action combat roles or extensive combat training, and society itself has not confirmed its ready for women casualties. To date, women do not even participate alongside men in professional sports, register for the draft, wear the same style of clothes, or share a restroom. Women are also disproportionately victimized and sexually assaulted, and treated/viewed differently in many areas of work and employment. Therefore, before we even begin to think about jeopardizing soldiers lives with integration, we should make absolutely sure that women, men, and the country are in fact ready. #3 Unit Cohesion & Problems with Mixed Units In a recent Marine Corps survey, 2 out of every 3 male marines were opposed to serving alongside women in combat (including 72% of junior officers). The survey also found that 1 out of every 3 female marines were also opposed to the idea. And despite the hypocrisy of the latter statistic, the Marine Corps is now being forced to undergo mandatory "unconscious bias training" towards women: http://tinyurl.com... In a similar opinions survey, the Rand Corporation found that 85% of the special forces community were also opposed to integrating women: http://www.defenseone.com... With statistics like these, morale and unit cohesion in our ground combat units certainly spells disaster. And this goes without saying the out of control rape and sexual assault cases that the DoD still hasn't been able to solve (affecting 1 out of every 3 women) (http://www.arlingtonwestsantamonica.org...) #4 Military Standards should be raised Contrary to popular belief, the tests that the military requires for its fighting units only represents a minimum standard. Just because you passed your college exams with a C average doesn't mean you've actually excelled, and all biological evidence for that matter, shows that women do not have the same fighting potential as men. For all the women recruits who can pass Rangers school and carry their own weight at an infantry course, a majority of men will always score higher, and at top of the graduating class will always be a man. Normally this wouldn't matter, but soldiering on the front lines is not a normal occupation. The nation is putting you in harms way and commanders have a duty to ensure that their soldiers can make it out alive. Infantry units are weaker when women and less qualified soldiers are involved, and recent research done by the USMC proves it: http://tinyurl.com... Which is why I'm prepared to argue that the military should consider raising its infantry/fitness standards, and one of the best ways to do that is to have an all-male infantry force. All things considered, including less qualified soldiers in combat arms is never a good idea, and military issues should not be politicized. Back over to Con.