Women make up about 14 percent of the active duty military. Subtract out nurses and administrative personnel serving primarily in the US (and whose duties could be taken up by civilians) and the actual impact of removing all women from all deployable units would be very small, and quickly replaceable by increased recruiting of men.
Meanwhile, the PC atmosphere that women in the military create, and the cost of accommodating them, decrease readiness.
I agree to some extent but disagree in others. Patriotic women volunteering their service in non-combat but none the less very important roles in areas like the medical corps, procurement, engineering, IT, data analysis, administration and the like, means that physically able bodied men don’t have to fill all those roles, roles that in some cases women are very good at, if not better than some men at doing.
And I disagree about delegating all those roles to “civilians”. Outsourcing too many military jobs to civilian contractors has been a disaster in some cases IMO.
Women serving in the US military or otherwise supporting our men in combat zones, have a long and proud history of service to our country and that shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
I do agree with your point about the PC BS. And many of the women I know who have served in the military would agree.
We're in somewhat agreement. As far as the non-combat slots, the military women filling them get expensive training, yet are not really deployable into combat.
In WW2, the men holding administrative posts were deployable to combat, being replaced behind the desk by women. This made a lot of sense. But a woman army clerk would NOT be similarly deployable to combat if needed. This reduces reserve combat capability.