You have nailed the real problem. Some other posters did too.
Women get 'nervous' during battle conflicts, or overwhelmed by the noise, they say.
Well, so do the guys, to some part.
Women can't get over the wall. Have you watched FEAR FACTOR? Watched women kick several guys asses in different events, and not the ones you would think.
The real problem is that the women have not been an equal part, they get away with going emotional, and they are not being trained the same, or held to the same physical standards.
Make the standards the same, and see what happens.
Humans are pretty good at adapting to requirements when it is necessary. But they, in general, will only go as far as specified by their leaders.
What would be wrong with having about the same number of VERY HEALTHY, VERY STRONG, combat experienced FEMALES coming back out of the military as there are men?
The females I knew in the military that got 'into it' also had a healthy sexual appetite. Usually goes with being more fit.
There would likely be a lot less wife abuse going on.
If you married one, should could kick the neighbor's ass for bringing his dog to your yard to crap all the time.
She can carry the other end of the washing machine when you have to move it.
Out on the town, having your wife say "I've got your back", would so much more believable than the drunk at the bar that thinks your his friend.
Robberies might taper off.
A few less weak, whiny, easily traumatized females in America seem like a good thing.
I afraid I just can't agree. There are some very basic physical differences between men and women. Sports exemplify these differences very well. In the Olympics, they segregate the marathon, shot putting, sprints, skiing, basketball, et al based on sex. These athletes are some of the most physically capable people in the world. They segregate male and female events because females, even the best in the world, can't compete with men physically in the same event. In professional sports such as football and basketball, women don't compete with men. Not because there is a prohibition against it. If a women was actually better than Michael Jordan, if she could actually step on a court and play to the NBA standards better than a man, she would be allowed to play. All anecdotal arguments of predjudice aside, there is not a single person who has suggested that the best female player in the WNBA could compete with the worst male player in the NBA. There are women who play football. Not one has seriously attempted to compete as an NFL player by walking on and trying out. In combat activities such as wrestling and boxing, there is no question of men and women of the same weight competing against one another. These are extreme examples to make a point. At the high end of athletic performance, men are simply physically superior to women. The military has determined that men must meet a minimum physical standard to be in the military and combat ready. This is the weakest that a man is allowed to be and still serve. This standard recognizes that some men are too physically weak to serve and would be a hazard to themselves and others if they were in combat. Think of this as the bare minimum standard in an activity where lives hang in the balance. Before women were ever considered for combat, there had to be some standard to guarantee that men who were not physically capable would not be allowed into combat and endanger themselves and others. They have such a standard for men today. The bare minimum standard I speak of above. A standard which the military acknowledges that women can't meet. I can say with certainty from first hand experience that combat situations and violent confrontations do not recognize gender. In the end, they are resolved with force. The stronger party prevails.