Not at all. You've presented nothing that would prove what I said wrong, that a better choice of men leads to a higher quality of men, which saves lives.
Here's another clue-ALL soldiers go on field exercises,...
So?
...even so called "push-button" jobs (you still haven't given me an example of what that might be BTW).
Fork lift driver, truck driver, cook, machine operator,...
I've specifically addressed your "main point" at least twice now. The number of females in the service has absolutely no bearing on how many males (or the relative quality of those males) are in the infantry or other "frontline" positions.
No, but by having females do the less-demanding jobs, there are more men available to the pool to fill the more-demanding jobs. More choice leads to better men.
When you join you choose the job that you like.
OK, I join and I choose to be a general.
Only males can join the infantry, Armor, Artillery and a few other MOS's, and so the choices come form ONLY MALES. We might have to spend more to recruit more males to fill those "push-button" jobs, but we would save MILLIONS, maybe even BILLIONS on health care costs from females.
Nah, the costs to recruitment and then the lost battles due to a less-quality of men due to less choice would wipe out those gains. Not to mention the higher casualty rate and you can't put a price on lives.
You walk into a recruiter's office and you tell them what kind of job you want (not your rank-idiot). If you are a male and you want a combat position, no problem, if you want a "push-button" job-also no problem. the recruiter will tell you how long the training is, how long you have to enlist for and what bonuses are available. If you're a female the recruiter will tell you that you are ineligible for combat duty.
Regardless we are going to have as many infantrymen or artillerists are we do now, because we are already getting that number from only the males who are already coming in. They are choosing the jobs they want and aren't ineligible for whatever they choose. If they want to be a mail clerk (they go to the field too) they can as much choose to do that as be in the infantry.
Now, what you do is you take that $2.2 billion dollars that you've saved and you give everyone a $1000 raise. Then you take the $700 million (effectively adding 40% to the recruiting budget-or to put that in terms you can understand-about 40 NASCAR sponsorships) you have left and you go to those males who haven't joined and you say "We've got all these 'push-button' jobs-we've got plenty of infantry, thanks-and we're paying a lot more than we were before. I'd say that would overcome the "law of diminishing returns" you keep talking about.
Of course, since those same males who go into combat arms now are still going to be there regardless, it will not make any difference in terms of lives saved at the front if we replace the females in the "push button" jobs at the "rear", but it might save a few lives when those "push-button" types discover that they aren't always confined to the "rear".
SMACK, SMACK, SMACK.
But, there is no "pool" to choose from. The individual decides the job that he wants when he visits the recruiter (when he goes to MEPS really, but the choice is still his). A guy goes in and looks over his choices (he isn't ineligible for any military job so long as he meets some basic requirements-MPs have to be so tall for instance). He can say "Infantry-now that might be fun or exciting" or he can say "Water purification specialist-that sounds like one of them 'push-button' jobs-that's for me". The military then has to make do with whatever the individual decides. It's not as if an infantry officer is hiding behind a two-way mirror and says "That's a big, strapping lad. He wants to be a dental assistant, but we're going to make him become a machine gunner". The quality and quantity that you get have to come from the decisions that the individual make-not the military.