Exactly my point. It is axiomatic to me that placing women in combat roles will most definitely produce destruction of life and limb and destruction of priority one resources.
Do you disagree?
I do, however, have a way to help the situation. Women have not been expected to compete with men in the annual physical aptitude tests for many years. Why not start there. Not only will it eliminate women not even close to the capacity needed to handle combat positions, but it will send them out of the military for not meeting standards like many men. This can be a slippery slope for women. All military people physically will require the same tests. If they fail at the standards men are using now to be able to stay in and go after jobs, then they will have earned their chance. Just like the men!
You know very well that this will either not work, or won't happen. The political decisions are made first, and the evidence contradicting them will not be permitted to interfere with the political decision.
Either the data won't be compiled, or it will be buried so as not to cause problems.
Problem: I don't know whether it will work or not. I can say that in 32 years of military operations and training for combat, troop and instructor for the military, I have yet to find a woman that can physically handle the requirements needed to make sure the soldier is not a burden on the mission in direct combat scenarios. But the power of the politics can normally overthrow the power of the obvious. As long as the liberals can get the public into a frenzy of correctness, it is going to be done, failed or not. And I can't think of one president in office or after that has been injured or killed downrange in history. Especially one that never served like the current potus. red