That’s true...
IMO, there are two types of people who want women to be eligible for combat units: those who want to destroy the military in particular and the country in general, and those who see female combat exclusion as some form of unjustified discrimination against women.
No need to comment on the people using this as a lever to weaken and destroy the Republic. Their assumptions and intentions need no explanation.
But the people who see the exclusion of women from combat units as some form of unjustified discrimination against women range from feminists who want the illusion of equality at all costs to those who don’t know better or have been brainwashed to believe the combat exclusion has no justification, and is no different from a female being denied a position in a corporation because of her sex. Granted, Feminists may be be in either the “destroy America” group or the ignorant group, but in their case, I see them in both.
Regardless, the reason this seems so unjustified to people who might otherwise be rational, is that they don’t understand the role of the military and its structure, and they don’t understand combat.
They assume that combat is just like any other job, and should be treated as such. If that were true, they would be correct in seeing the combat exclusion of women as unjust. But it isn’t true.
First, actual combat at a unit level of any kind is predicated on “the average”. Planning and ongoing administration of combat units leverages the average. When everything is hunky-dory, planning and administration probably isn’t much different at many levels than it would be for many corporate activities. However, when supply chains are restricted or eliminated due to active enemy interdiction and activity, what gets through in any supply activity becomes extremely sparse, as many veterans of campaigns such as Guadalcanal, Battle of The Bulge, and Chosin will attest to.
Everything from what size combat boots the average soldier wears, how many calories the average combat soldier consumes, and how much the average combat soldier drinks (from a supply perspective) to how much supplies and ammo an average individual soldier can carry, and how far and how fast they can carry it. Add to this the advantages of assuming all male from a supply perspective for everything from feminine hygiene products to birth control products. These things are a fusion of logistics and performance.
And there is also the effect of mixed sex units that you reference-the sexual interaction between the two sexes, young people, far from home, isolated, lonely, and in dangerous environments. There are people who completely discount this as if it has no bearing at all. They say there are rules and regulations to keep young men and women from getting involved, they are adults and can be counted on to act professionally, or even more laughably, they think sexual relations are like a genie that can be kept in a bottle. The simple biological fact is that young men and women thrust into this environment are going to expend thought and energy towards that facet of existence. Life finds a way.
But there are a host of other things that go along with it-love triangles, changed behavior to protect or get back at someone of the opposite sex, men who are resentful of women who can’t do the work, women resentful of men, men and women who leverage the entire toxic sexual broth for sexual, personal, or professional gain, the list would go on and on. And the bottom line is that every single behavior imaginable has no positive aspect in a combat environment, but can and will have negative aspects in that environment. In summary, there will be a loss of focus, and only serve to degrade the mission.
And all of this is completely independent of the physical grind of combat that the differences in physical capability would highlight and exacerbate, and the simple loss of capability via increased attrition of women due to physical differences and the increase in recovery time for those removed from conditioning or training due to injury, pregnancy, or simple inactivity. (as highlighted in the article).
Any person who has served in real, extended, life-or-death combat has a uniform response when asked about the physical drain of combat-there is nothing else in the human experience that physically drains a human as much as extended high-level combat. Not football training or even running triathlons or marathons, simply because the psychic drains of combat magnify the physical drains, which forces individuals to fall back on physical reserves.
Combat activities are not corporate activities, and it is astonishing, yet undeniable that there are those who would advocate for women in combat roles who simply do not understand that fundamental truth.
Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm marked the first large-scale combat deployment of women. Estimates are that between 35,000 and 50,000 women were deployed to the combat zone alongside some 550,000 men.3,5–7 Many of their needs were similar to those of men except for gynecological care.
Studies on women in the Persian Gulf War have noted similar findings. In a study of the 1st Cavalry Division’s medical visits, gynecologic disorders were the most common diagnosis recorded in women. Approximately 26% one quarter of the visits, of the 1,792 visits were gynecology related. Women were 6% of total troop strength and found to be three times more likely to have sick call visits than men.
During one stretch, twenty-four pregnancies were encountered in the 458 gynecologic visits. This trend continued throughout the sortie and ultimately more women were sent home due to pregnancies than combat injuries.
In a study made for the secretary of defense by the GAO, listed below, except for officers which is in the ballpark also, graph 5.2 displays the problem:
http://archive.gao.gov/t2pbat5/149552.pdf
This information is not to put a mark on women, but to display the inaccuracies and misfunction of the need for combat use. The need by our politicians is political to get votes, and the need of the military is mission. Apparently two different thought processes.
wy69