Iraq and Afghanistan End the Debate Over Women in Combat
By Bonnie Erbe, Thomas Jefferson Street blog
There's one easy way to end the ceaseless debate over women in combat—revived most recently by a New York Times series on the topic. The Afghanistan and Iraq wars have placed women into combat a multitude of times, even though Pentagon policy bars them from same. And guess what, they are performing. From Salon.com:
Most of the theoretical arguments against allowing women in combat zones, it seems, are put to rest once women are actually there. Yes, soldiers end up having consensual sex—and occasionally, a pregnant one is shipped out—but birth control is easily available, and romance doesn't seem to be the fatal distraction everyone feared it might be.
There's another argument posed by conservative women: What if women don't want to be in combat? Survey after survey of female soldiers shows they want the opportunity because in the military it's just about the only way to get promoted to high rank.
Physicals are required for all servicemen and women. A gender-neutral physical should be set up and required for all. Some 30 percent of men fail the physical. They are thereby barred from combat (and service). It'd be easy enough for the Pentagon to set up two levels of passing: a higher level of strength for combat, and a lower one qualifying men and women for combat-related, but not combat positions. Problem solved (although I know you readers will poke all kinds of holes in this proposal).
- Check out our political cartoons.
- Become a political insider: Subscribe to U.S. News Weekly, our digital magazine.
- On Facebook? Become a fan of the Thomas Jefferson Street blog.
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (6) | Print
Reader Comments
It IS that!
To It's not that:
We've been at "who cares!" since the late 60's.
It started with Bonnie Erbe and her fellow traveler baby boomer liberals spitting on returning Vietnam veterans.
Oh now let me see
Obviously you've never been in combat. I'd rather have a gal whose a crack shot on patrol with me then some meathead who can bench press 350. My aim is not to get shot in the first place. And the fireman analogy, really weak as well. A bet there are a ton of women who can cut through a door faster than you.
Oh, Now Let Me See.....
I think reality, instead of politically correct, progressive whimsy, should probably be the rule - if not in civilian life - certainly on the battle field.
Let's say you're wounded in the leg. Who do you want to drag you off the battlefield under fire - Popeye or Olive Oil?
Or, you're in a burning building and the hall way is full of debris - Who do you want swingin' that ax to get you out?
I could go on, but I think you get the point - There's a reason women don't play football with men.
Certainly there is a place for female soldiers, cops or firefighters - It just shouldn't be a position that requires strength or solid body mass. If we ignore objective reality, and blindly embrace subjective political correctness... well, people die - and have.
advertisement
