Women in Combat? They're Already There… (2)

Over at the Volokh Conspiracy, they are continuing their debate on women in combat. This time they have a retired O6, Rosemary Mariner, on the “pro” women in combat arms argument:

My central premise is that military effectiveness is enhanced by the inclusion of the best qualified individuals in a gender integrated force, including combat roles. Participation should be predicated on individual performance and not presumed group traits. Women are neither inferior nor superior to men; we are all individuals first and foremost, accountable for our actions.

I found the comments to the post quite interesting:

To provide context as to my point of view, I served as a Sergeant with the 307th Engineers, 82d Airborne and later as an infantry platoon leader with the 1/7 Infantry attached to the 1st Armored during the Persian Gulf War.

Based on your position above, are you advocating that women seeking to serve in the combat arms meet the same requirements as the men in my infantry platoon in stark contrast to the present lowered standards? We are talking about the informal requirements for infantry, which are far higher than the minimum requirements for male soldiers as a whole.

If this is the case, I doubt a fraction of one percent of the women currently serving could make the cut.

If this is not the case, then you are lowering standards for the combat arms and will get soldiers killed.

The number of women who can meet the standard is going to be a lot closer to 2.5% than 25%.

…

I think it is going to be a lot closer to zero percent. My army service was in a military police unit where most women were unable to mount the M-60, and none of them could mount the M2HB or Mk19. Likewise only a few could change ammo or charge the weapons.

Also, they could not wear body armor and their equipment and move any distance either in the field or the MOUT trainer, after PT training and many tries.

I think lots of people get hung up on the PT Test argument, but there are lots of intangibles in an infantry unit that are difficult to import into this argument if you have not experienced them. However, having served in a deployed environment next to a mixed-gender unit, I found this comment the best:

The problem with women in combat are the men in combat. It’s simply not possible to mix young men and women with hormones in high gear in remote, stressful situations and not expect there will be sex involved. Not that there’s a problem with the sex itself. The problem comes when people pair up. Then the jealousy begins, favoritism, courting, and breakups. It’s just a distraction at a time and place that doesn’t need it. Yes, the military attempts to train these reactions out of soldiers. But that training in and of itself is a waste that wouldn’t be needed without a coed force, and the idea that young men can be trained to ignore the sex of a woman is laughable anyway.

As I said before:

“Not only are they “in” combat, but there are useful roles for units on the battlefield for women. Conducting searches of local national females at checkpoints is a very useful role for females, it quells fear of “abuse” by locals of their women by soldiers.”

Despite this debate about TOTAL integration of line units, I haven’t seen a huge Army-wide push to do this. Women are on the battlefield now, serving honorably in dangerous conditions, and I think this debate on”women in combat” is overcome by events. Again, I haven’t seen a full-throated pitch to put women in maneuver battalions, so this argument remains academic.