I am firmly opposed to allowing females into the ground gaining combat arms and into Special Operations. but I find your post to be gobbledegook. Female soldiers, Marines, and other services have served in combat for over 25 years now. Their role to date has not been ground warrior, but all soldiers must be able to engage in combat when required and women have done so, suffering wounds, death, capture by the enemy, and have been recognized for acts of valor.
The change is that they will be allowed to become full members of infantry, armor, Special Forces units and will be expected to perform all assigned tasks across the full spectrum of combat. This, women cannot do, even including the exceptional physical specimens. This is a political and social engineering stunt and will fall on its face as will do the women convinced to signing up for it.
As for your understanding of what will happen going forward, you have a faulty grasp of the next steps. These women, from several commissioning sources will be commissioned as Second Lieutenants in Armor or Infantry branch subject to meeting physical standard and will be sent to their officer basic branch course. They will then be assigned to a unit as a platoon leader. Second Lieutenants, while the authority of command are not expected to demonstrate proficiency. Teaching them how to do this is the job of their first Platoon Sergeant. Lieutenants are advised to pay attention, learn, and recognize that the Platoon Sergeant is a real soldier and you are only so by Act of Congress.
Those women who fail will end up in some other branch, many of them through no fault of their own, but simply because the job requires physical skills that they will not have. No one in Washington will give a damn what might happen to them.
I’ve made no claim of expertise regarding military training, ranks or procedures nor did I attempt any historical survey of women in the services.
My aim was simply to note that the PR which was clearly the basis for this so called news story is full of contradictions, weasel words and catchphrases typical of the PC Pentagon.
My questioning of the proposed plan is based on the language of the plan itself and/or the PR accompanying same, nothing more. If we are presented with this sort of flannel from the government, we are entitled to reject as such.
FR certainly has a higher than average quotient of military vets who know their stuff but there is an unfortunate marked tendency to cross the line from detail to pedantry.
I make no apologies for my post and my main point stands: integration via segregation in any population is oxymoronic and impossible.