Replies

The article assumes women will be in direct combat. Less than 10% of our military is involved in combat. There are non-combat jobs even in Special Ops. Back in the 80s I taught shipboard firefighting, most of the women had no problem, those who couldn’t make the cut were dropped along with those who couldn’t pass the other courses.

I think the actual ratio is about seven soldiers to support each combat soldier. But the issues aren't that women are allowed in the military, it's women being allowed IN COMBAT ARMS, which has a much higher percentage of being in combat. Sure, much of today's fight isn't linear like a real war, but combat arms are still the guys tasked with direct engagement of enemy forces. It's one thing to have women in your unit and get attacked, it's another thing entirely when you have women and your primary mission is heavy physical effort for the purpose of engaging the enemy. Not something that's easily done when you don;t have the physical strength or stamina to do nearly as much work. Women also require more hygiene. That means space and weight that could go to more useful things in your ruck, like ammo or water. Women can't deal with poor living conditions as well as men either. And the biggest issue within that is that standards are being dropped in order to facilitate women getting in to these roles. It's not that some women are big and strong enough to do the job, it's that they (mostly) aren't, but are still being pushed up. The two women that 'passed' Ranger school are, I'm sure, pretty badass, but they were definitely not up to the standards of actually being a Ranger. And, conveniently, their records just happen to be the one class, in decades of Ranger school, that is somehow destroyed completely. All this coverup just furthers the idea that they didn't pass like every other guy that did it.