[this_ol_patriot]

I would be the last person to deny a woman the right to do her duty for our country.
That is a role to be admired.

Let's leave up to the military to assign roles for military purposes which is the whole point I think. Leave politics out of it, leave agendas out of it and leave feelings out of it. The service is about killing better and faster than the other guy and should forever remain that way and whatever is needed to do that should be done.

I'm not a military man but I assume there are many roles available to women in the service other than combat which are rewarding, satisifying and very important. Besides in my old fogieness I think a woman should be saving lives rather than taking them but that's me.

I'm willing to abide with what's thought best for the military by our generals and our leaders when it's used for the purpose of defending our nation and not for social experiements.

[walden]

I have no problem with what either of you are saying. And, I am no expert on the various roles in the military, the requirements of each role, etc. so I am not arguing or advocating that women should be in particular positions or not be in others. I do know that mobilizing a large force halfway around the world is a massive undertaking, with probably hundreds of different job descriptions. I just don't know enough about it to pick and choose, and it's a silly argument anyway. The military has experience now of women in a variety of positions and based on real performance data, rational decisions can be made about how to best deploy all of our young men and women to win this war.

I would say, though, that it is a crime to put anyone, male or female, into a job that they're not properly trained for and physically capable of performing. Performance standards should never be compromised for any reason-- and truly, performance is the only criteria that should matter.