Women are now a large part of the military - like it or not - and they are serving well. They are now performing the missions given to them and severing our nation with our men in most military specialities. They have demonstrated courage, determination, and skill. I give them full credit and recognition for what they're doing. I will honor any person, regardless of gender, in uniform who serves our nation in any capacity.
I've always felt that women are, on average, less suited for combat - specially the type in which infantry troops typically engage - both mentally and physically than, on average, men. I believe they are more difficult to train and condition for the "business" of killing others by force under the extremely stressful conditions of sustained combat.
I'm not implying women are incapable of mental or physical accomplishments equal to men. Certainly I do not consider them inferior to men in totality. I'm not even suggesting they can't or haven't been successful in combat. The young woman recently awarded the Silver Star (along with two males of the same unit) for her part in combat actions with her Military Police unit's engagement and total destruction of a group of about thirty terrorists early this year is a positive example of what women can do. She, by the way, is not the only example in this most recent war. However, I am saying that, on average, the capabilities of males and females, which equal in total, do vary significantly in specific areas. Some of these differences directly impact the ability to transform ordinary people into fierce individual warriors and into fierce fighting units.
As a counterpoint, it's important to note the difference between defensive operations and offensive operations in combat. A person can engage in combat in both cases and the risk of loss of life or limb is very real in both. However, offensive combat operations involve a different level of sustained and intense combat than do defensive combat operations. I take nothing away from the accomplishments of any troops engaged with the enemy. In fact, troops not normally engaged in combat who rise to the occassion when faced with it deserve a bit of special recognition for doing so well. However, I caution all to understand that war can be far more intense than anyone might conclude from some of the actions we've seen in Iraq since the end of the initial ground war.
I'm also very concerned about the change in standards - a lowering of certain physical standards - made to accommodate women in the military. These lower standards have been in force for a while now and they have compromised the entire force standards.
I'm also concerned about the reported tendencies for male troops to become distracted by focusing on "protection" of the women troops in their units verses accomplishing their mission. That may change with time as troops become more accustomed to mixed genders but it has been a "natural" problem for many.
Admittedly, I've not fought with women in war but I've fought against some who were our enemy. We found them very dangerous behind their weapons and with their tactics yet still not a dangerous as their male counterparts.
The goal should remain fighting and winning wars and not creating "equality" for women or any other social goals. God already made the genders "equal" yet different. All persons - male and female, young and old - should support and contribute to the cause in the most effective manner that meets the needs of the cause. We must use all our resources - people and material - in the most effective manner to win the fight.
I'm also add that the nature of most of our recent conflicts have been different that those of days past where there was sustained and intense combat between large equally capable forces. Thus the success we've enjoyed may not be so readily attainable in the next conflict. I worry that we've come to expect certain results we may find much more difficult to reach.
