This kind of "I beg your pardon" really has to stop. It is an acknowledgement that you consent to an absurd position of opposition to be taken even though there is not a well-founded basis for the opposition.
This kind of thing encourages the opposition and softens the point one is making---where what is needed is for the opponents to be treated as adults so they can recognize the facts.
I didn't see it that way; I did expect to get an argument, and this was my way of acknowledging my position would take fire.
There is another name for soldiers who can not "hack" it. They're called casualties.
After reading the entire thread again, I see no valid posts to convince me women belong in close combat, if it can be avoided.
It must be acknowledged, all people who serve in our military will be exposed to situations/dangers not entirely in our control.
A leader must accept the fact, there will be casualties; it ain't a video game, there is no replay button.
One of the responsibilities of military leadership, in times of conflict, is to avoid unnecessary casualties, emphasis on unnecessary. Many reasons for this, but the single biggest reason is, casualties weaken the ability of the unit to accomplish the mission.
Placing individuals in the unit who do not have the physical or mental ability to cope with the requirements of ground combat is just plain stupid.