Israel had data about the co-ed units in combat, and it didn’t support the concept; while women could fight (the Uzi and Ephod vest could accommodate smaller/weaker soldiers), the effect on the male soldiers when females would get shot up was extremely damaging psychologically.
She seems to have a very realistic approach; the differences can’t be ignored without putting troops and missions in jeopardy. A super-strong woman may do well, but only because she is able to do the same tasks as the men with whom she must be interchangeable; that doesn’t happen with lowered standards for all women.
The new type of warfare fought from behind computer screens and within vehicles may be more “female-friendly”, but it doesn’t win wars; boots on the ground with rifles do that (as the Taliban just showed us).
Yes. I have heard it said much more often these days that (seriously) that “warfare is different today, technology makes up for [INSERT SOME PHYSICAL COMPONENT HERE] and women can do this as well as men...”
Yeah. Such as a mechanized lifter for hoisting shells or something like that, and in battle, the thing gets hit by a mortar or breaks down because the supply chain has been interrupted. Or the battery runs down. Then a human being has to do hump work, and missions, battles, wars, and ultimately, lives depend on it being done.
There are a million things like that. And it still will, in the end, come down to a human doing them with their own physical brawn.
“while women could fight”
I heard one major issue was that when Arab’s found out they were losing to women they would fight to the last man rather than surrender.