Opinion Section

I am a 17 year old female. I have not had the experience in any sort of military nor am I in ROTC. I've thought about joining the air force when I get out of high school, but I probably won't, I don't want to. I am not dedicated enough to wake up early and train, but I am not ignorant. I don't know how the world works let alone military, but I do know the difference between men and women. I live with the differences every day, and even though I am only 17 I work with males and females who are much older, and I work with every type of person. For everyday jobs, yes, women can be as good as men, some can be better, and some can't. That's the way things work. BUT, when it comes to combat, women should not interfere. Men have done a great job since before any of us were born.

Granted, some women can handle it. Fine. But we have physical downs. Women are not as strong as men, I wouldn't want to be, and we weren't meant to be. For the most part women can't cut it, not like most men at least. Women voting, women teachers, women scientist, explorers, police, archeologist, construction workers. Fine, that's great, but that doesn't make women soldiers. Let women be pilots, let them go through training, but don't let them in combat. WOMEN ARE NOT AS PHYSICALLY CAPABLE AS MEN!

Finally, even for the women who can "hack it" What about the rest of society? Are they ready to have their women sent into combat? Are the men ready to trust women in combat with them? And, are men and women sexually able to go into combat together? NO. Whether they should be or not, the answer is NO. It doesn't matter why they're not, nothing of that sort matters. No one can explain why society is the way it is, and for those of you who say, "Well that's not true, I'm not like that!" face it, many people are. Some women are not incapable, and some women may be better, but in combat it is not the more capable person who survives. It is the more suited, more prepared, and more united the unit is, and if a women is thrown on the unit it becomes chaos. "It's don't trust the women, and hey maybe I can get her in bed," type of attitude

I am a 17 year old who is currently in the National Guard. I am the only female in my Aviation battalion, but I get along with all of the males like they were my brothers. In my opinion, women should be allowed to participate in combat alongside men. Granted, the two sexes would need to go through extra training in order to handle the strengths and weaknesses of each other. There is another side to the coin though. I was in a debate recently with a fellow soldier about this topic, and we both agreed that if you put a male and a female in, lets say, a fighter squadron together, chances are that in a combat situation, if the enemy goes after the female, the man's first reaction is to protect the woman- it's human nature. But, with adequate training and exposure, I seriously believe that men and women together in combat would strengthen and streamline our military.

I am 15 years old and am a junior in high school. I'm all for women's rights, and women in the military, but I think that women should definitely not be fighting in combat. First of all, if women were able to fight in combat, then they would also be eligible for the draft. Then who's left at home with the family? Women are naturally more attached to their children than the father, and women are also usually the ones keeping house. From my

observations, at least half the men in husband/wife/children families don't even know how to cook, let alone take care of an entire family. Also, as has been mentioned before, men are brought up being taught about not hitting girls, and protecting them when they're in trouble. These values have been taught for so long that they're practically inborn now. You can't just throw something like that out of mind at the drop of a dime. Next, how would women be treated by the enemies? Sexual harassment is already a large issue in our own infantries and such. And, we've all heard about how people are tortured by the enemies during a war. What happens when a woman is captured? She would be abused in every way possible, and probably be raped and abused in other fashions like that. When things like rape happen in society today, they can already ruin someone's life. Put that on top of all the hardships and experiences and abuse taking place during the war and you'll get somebody who is not all together, mentally (or sometimes physically). I have numerous other reasons supporting my opinion, but I have an essay on this very issue that I need to write.

I used to something of a feminist in high school but as I've gotten older I've come to understand more and more why the world works a certain way (i.e., for women in combat or other highly physical jobs). I'm female myself so I'm no misogynist, but the fact is, my butt is on the line every breath our military takes. What I mean by that of course is they're there to protect the American people, and there should never be compromises or risks to that because of some PC thinking. Yeah, women in combat could work out great, but what if it didn't? Let's say it caused problems. Then what? We screw up in battle, lose people, maybe lose a war, put the security of the nation on the line? I don't want one person to ever die or be injured, ever, for the sake of equal opportunity feminism. Does that sound bad? Maybe, but I believe human life and security are more important than some ideals. I don't want a female firefighter to be unable to lift a fire victim and drop him down the stairs. I have no problem with women in the police or fire dept., provided they meet the exact same physical standards as men. Women in the military don't have to (except Marines I think?) and it's fine if they won't ever have to fight. But I for one don't want any risks taken when my life and other American lives are on the line with every tiny decision or choice our military makes. I say we leave combat female-free, at least for now, until we can truly prove it would work out through some other means. That's my 2 cents for what it's worth!

destruction, who wants to die?" Get over it ladies. I think it's funny combat arms as a "career path." You to should have the same opportunity to die a quick and violent death just like us or a chance to think about the grunt on the other side waiting to kill you. Please don't tell me any of you women swallowed that Demi Moore "G.I. Jane" crap! I hope you do get the chance to volunteer for combat, just don't complain when somebody

Posted: 1 Oct 99: "Women in Combat Roles" In response to the 24 Apr 98 post responding to the 29 Dec 97 post '500 NEW RECRUITS'"

Either the male recruits within the aforesaid course are medical subjects of some kind or this female is the ONLY female to achieve the level of physical fitness described. Please do not misread this. I am not intentionally attempting to debunk any possibility of male/female physical equality; it is just that being there first hand [reg force mind you] it is difficult to understand how this is possible. Of course there is the push-ups on the knee thing, but I am sure there is more to the story than is described here.

I find it enormously funny that the majority of opinions expressed on this page are exactly the same things being said when they wanted to integrate women into the military in the first place. Women should be drafted and in combat. Doesn't it irritate you men that women are getting paid for doing less than you do. As for the infantry, if it's so elite why is it that when a man fails at anything in the army, he is automatically reclassified to the infantry? This isn't based on his ability to do the job, just on his inability to do another job. As for sex, come on, the last thing you are thinking about when the bullets are flying is that you want to get laid. There is a reason for discipline in the military, it's so you react not think. As for airborne, there are plenty of men who fail the school, as well as the air assault school. As for the breakdown of unit integrity, it's not the fault of women but the leaders who are supposed to be guiding them. Put the blame where it belongs. Anybody who joins the military in this day and age and thinks there is a front line has absolutely no idea of battle strategy. Because of the smart weapons there is no safe place. Why do you think they train women for combat now. Do you even know what CTT's are? These are basic combat skills that are taught to all whether you are a man or a woman. Women have the skills now, they're just not allowed to use them. As far as these high school kids who think they know all the research, when's the last time you've actually talked to someone on active duty? Your research comes from eggheads nine times out of ten, that have no idea what the military is really like. Whether you like it or not, women are already in combat as proven through Granada, Panama, and the Gulf War. The face of warfare is changing and to make it in the military now, you have to realize that. It's no

There is no reason why women shouldn't be allowed in combat, the reason why women are traditionally viewed as less capable in these situations is simply a matter of training and socialization. Men have for years been raised to be 'good little soldiers' and women to be 'nurturers', the are "roles" similar to whites as "masters' and blacks as "slaves". Everyone needs to be given the opportunity in a free and democratic society to prove their entire worth as a human, regardless of which role, or roles they might choose. If they do not , our constitution is...a joke. The problems brought up such as sexual attraction, harassment or diversity in 'gender culture' that may complicate things because the military structure has been built on a patriarchal model, but that is out-dated, and does not serve our needs for a healthy society. Men and women will never understand each other if they continue to be raised in completely different cultural situations. There is no biological reason for any of this, everyone is different. Stereotypes only increase anger and loss of identity within a society. An entire nation of adults all willing to fight for our freedoms would be a united front. We could learn to take the burdens off each other to do "one job only" and begin to support each other fully. Men are also hurt by patriarchy and have come home from wars to feel alienated because their life partners-their girlfriends-their wives do not understand them because they have not been able to be their partners in fighting, just as the men have missed out on domestic events. Our lives are at stake here, and just as everyone (finally) has the right to vote, we all inherently deserve the right to fight.

First of all I would like to say that I am not in the military nor do I desire to be in it. I leave that up to the people who are able to do it. But I am a seventeen year old male whom on my eighteenth birthday will have to register for the military draft, which I have no problem doing. If my country wants to call upon me to defend our views and way of life I have no problem. The problem is that women do not have to sign up. So when a large war

I know that there are many males and females out there that think women are not strong enough to fight on the front lines. Well let me say something to those people, No one has been to the front lines and come back the same person! It's a scary place for any human being to be. It's kill or be killed. My father still wakes up in the middle of the night screaming at the top of his lungs. No one should ever have to endure that kind of torture! But if it has to be done there shouldn't be a restriction based on what kind of hormone is produce in that person's body.

Testosterone flows too freely when the job is left to male soldiers, says a historian of women in the military

DAG HAMMARSKJOLD, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and second secretary-general of the United Nations, once said ``peacekeeping is too important to be undertaken by soldiers.''

Because peacekeeping can be violent, combat training is essential. But the peacekeeper must also be conciliatory and patient.

Few male military personnel combine the qualities of soldier and social worker essential to the job. As a result, U.N. operations have been marred by aggressive behaviour that exacerbates tensions.

Soldiers win wars, but they also occasionally commit atrocities when aggression rages out of control, as the behaviour of the Canadian airborne regiment in Somalia demonstrates.

Last month, experts from around the world were brought to Uppsala University in Sweden for a workshop titled ``Mainstreaming Gender in Multilateral Peacekeeping Operations.''

The U.N. wants to explore whether a greater proportion of women in peacekeeping operations might improve their chances of success, and whether member states can be persuaded to deploy more women. A further intensive study will take place over the next six months. By spring, concrete recommendations are expected.

The contradictions between peacekeeping and conventional soldiering are profound.

In most militaries, training accentuates essentially male characteristics. The recruit is encouraged to develop strength and aggression, while ridding himself of stereotypical female attributes like sensitivity and compassion. The well- trained soldier is hungry for battle because it is in battle that he asserts his dominance.

Yet, the peacekeeper is supposed to keep aggression in check and to pursue the path of conciliation. In peacekeeping, violence signifies failure.

Central to this issue is whether men are inherently more violent than women. Circumstantial evidence suggests they are. The vast majority of violent crimes are committed by men. Barroom brawls and soccer riots seldom include women.

In the past, military training has attempted to develop and channel this male capacity for violence. But controlling it has proved enormously difficult. Soldiers win wars, but they also occasionally commit atrocities when aggression rages out of control, as the behaviour of the Canadian airborne regiment in Somalia demonstrates.

The exclusion of women from combat has in the past been based on a belief that they are not capable of the aggression needed to win wars. Yet, in times of dire need many nations have been forced to call upon women to fight. Thus, in World War II, the Soviet Union deployed women in almost every combat capacity, from infantry to fighter pilots. These women performed as well as men, yet their contribution was quickly forgotten after the war, in part because no nation likes to admit it has had to rely on women for its defence.

The idea of women in combat also conflicts with deeply held beliefs that the female role is to give life, not to take it. The Russian experience nevertheless demonstrates that women can be trained to be aggressive. But the operative word is ``trained.''

Women, it seems, are not naturally inclined toward violence. When they are violent, they tend to use it in a purposeful fashion, for instance to protect themselves or their children.

Their aggression seldom rages out of control. Whether this behaviour is the result of social conditioning or biological determinism remains a matter for intense dispute. But this pragmatic, highly controlled violence has obvious applications in the military context. If women can be trained to exercise aggression, they can presumably also be trained to control their aggression - perhaps more effectively than men.

The U.N. is, in truth, not very interested in nature vs. nurture arguments pertaining to gender and violence. It assumes a more pragmatic approach, which starts from the assumption that, in a crisis, men and women, for whatever reason, seem to act differently. Men sometimes jeopardize operations because they act like stereotypical men.

If women tend to act more peaceful and are prone to seek conciliation, then they might be of value to the U.N. Essential to this issue is the question of perception. The presence of a man in a tense situation can be provocative, even if that man has no intention to provoke. On the other hand, the woman tends to calm stressful situations because she is expected to be peaceful.

Various studies have, for instance, shown men react differently to confrontations with male and female police officers. The female officer tends to calm an aggressive male, while the male officer challenges him. The situation often escalates into a contest of male dominance.

Anecdotal evidence presented at the Uppsala conference told a similar story with regard to peacekeeping operations. Male violence might not be instinctive. Instead of men being controlled by the testosterone coursing through their veins, perhaps they are the slaves of cultural conditioning. If military training can teach women to be aggressive, it might also be able to teach men to be more peaceful and controlled. The problem with male peacekeepers on U.N. operations is that they often lack the training for the function they are called upon to perform. In other words, disasters are understandable if the U.N. persists in throwing combat soldiers into unfamiliar peacekeeping situations. To date, Canada is one of the few countries in which soldiers are given intensive training in peace support.

But the U.N.'s dilemma goes beyond the problem of appropriate training. Male soldiers are also prone to sexual violence against civilians. No army is immune to this problem, as recent Canadian experience in Bosnia and Somalia has shown.

Rape is a weapon of war. Some 20,000 women were raped in Nanking in 1937, 110,000 in Berlin in 1945, and perhaps as many as 50,000 in Bosnia. Rape allows the soldier to deface the culture of his opponent by, in effect, colonizing the bodies of its female citizens.

But rape by soldiers remains high even in times of peace. Thus, within the American military community in Japan, its incidence is three times higher than in a similarly sized group at home.

This sort of behaviour has marred U.N. peacekeeping operations. During the Somalia operation, U.N. soldiers frequently raped local women who ventured outside the refugee camps to collect firewood. Unable to control the soldiers' behaviour, the U.N. instead provided the women with stoves that did not burn wood.

The U.N. has, until recently, been a male-dominated organization, rather like the military. As late as 1994, women occupied only 13 per cent of decision-making positions within the U.N. Secretariat. In the Department of Peacekeeping Operations they constituted just 4 per cent. It is no wonder, then, that at the point where the functions of the U.N. and of the military intersect, namely on the ground in the world's crisis spots, women have largely been absent.

Between 1989 and 1993, just 1.7 per cent of military peacekeepers deployed by the U.N. were female. Yet, in almost any conflict, 80 per cent of the refugees are women and children.

In Somalia, a marked difference in behaviour was apparent between combat and support units of the U.S. army. According to a 1995 article in Armed Forces And Society, support groups exhibited a strong inclination to understand the problems facing the host society, while combat groups quickly developed a hostile attitude, particularly when the political situation deteriorated.

A desire to apply force, even for mild offences, and to assert dominance was evident. It is perhaps no surprise that the combat groups contained no women. The support groups were still predominantly male. This raises an interesting point, namely that female participation does not have to be large to have a positive effect. In other words, male soldiers are less inclined to assert their dominance if female soldiers are present.

Women seem to calm stressful situations. The most notable U.N. successes of late - in Guatemala and South Africa, for instance - had a greater-than-normal female presence. In both operations, the proportion of females was just under 50 per cent.

There is no evidence that women make better peacekeepers, but a great deal of evidence to suggest that the presence of women improves an operation's chances of success.

A better gender balance means the operation more closely resembles civilian society. Its members are therefore more likely to observe social conventions that define civilized behaviour.

The U.N. operation in South Africa revealed an added benefit of female participation. Local women seem to have been inspired by the presence of female peacekeepers as role models and, as a result, were empowered to play a larger part in the politics of their community.

This had a profound effect, with more ``feminine'' qualities like conciliation and non-violence characterizing the political process.

Though U.N. officials are clearly serious about this investigation, it remains to be seen whether good intentions are smothered by bureaucratic inertia or by the refusal of member states to supply a sufficient number of women. As one official recently admitted ``Though the U.N. should be pushing for more women, we're begging, borrowing and stealing to get any troops at all.''

Only a few states are able to provide appropriately trained women, among them Canada, the U.S. and the Nordic countries.

The U.N. cannot, however, afford to have its operations dominated by Western militaries. But even in Canada, where the number of women in the forces is around 12 per cent, their level of participation in peacekeeping units has consistently been lower than that figure because combat units (in which gender integration is least profound) are usually sent.

A recent British army recruitment ad shows a woman cowering in the corner of a bombed building. As the film runs, a caption reads ``She's just been raped by soldiers. The same soldiers murdered her husband. The last thing she wants to see is another soldier. Unless that soldier is a woman.''

The ad plays upon gender stereotypes that have many British feminists tearing their hair. Indeed, the recent integration of women into combat in many Western militaries has been based on the assumption that stereotypes have no validity, that women can be turned into ruthless killers. But the U.N. feels peacekeeping is a practical problem in which gender theory has no place. If women are, for whatever reason, calmer and more conciliatory than men, then they have an important role to play.

Dr. Gerard J. DeGroot is chairman of the modern history department at the University of St. Andrews, in Scotland. He was a delegate at the recent U.N. conference in Uppsala and is editor of a two-volume study of women in the military to be published later this year.

Submitted to this site by T. Prudori, Radio Thunder Bay News, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada, work e-mail: Tprudori@radiotb.com

Having been a grunt and in combat for thirteen months straight (Vietnam), women do not belong there. I am not against women in the services. However, when young people, male & females, are in very close contact things tend to happen, sexually. Closeness in the same fighting hole/position will lead to emotional closeness (love or lust) and problems will arise. If the woman is against the advances of the man, more problems arise---SEXUAL HARASSMENT. Being in the business of killing is a stressful job, add to that sexual problems pregnancy, unwanted advances, etc. and you have a situation where morale will collapse and people will die because the unit is not functioning properly. If one of the people must disrobe for any purpose, what will be the results? Folks do take their clothes off in combat areas. Example You are in positions forming a unit perimeter, one of you needs to check for leaches in the crotch. How will this go with a woman checking a mans ass area and crotch? Yes, it most certainly does occur. The woman must change her tampon, etc. and she has no place to do it except with her male counterpart present. Men and women do respond, sexually, to such incidents. What will happen to the unit morale? Fire fights are usually sudden, swift and fierce. If the combat efficiency is down due to troops being faced with harassment charges, a lot of people will die for that lack of efficiency. Regarding upper body strength, most women cannot do it. We normally carried a full pack (set of clothing,socks,heat tabs, 2 c-ration meals, C-4 explosives), poncho, several hand grenades, four canteens, eleven full magazines (one in the weapon), one 60mm mortar round each (for the company mortars), flack jacket and helmet. In some cases each man in the company carried extra belted ammo for the machine guns. Put all that on your back and assault the bad guys when they hit you with an ambush. Or....die because you have no energy to close with and kill them. Been there.

I think that women should be able to be in combat. Yes, maybe women don't have the upper body strength like the men, but this isn't a contest. The military was for people who had a love for their country and to preserve peace and freedom (which last time I checked wasn't restricted to men only). I am sure that many men here that don't want women in combat with them, wouldn't mind having us there so much if they needed someone to try and save them from dying out there. People always say that if they were out there and they needed a female to save them we wouldn't be able to carry you, maybe that is true in some cases, but you know what? If I saw one of my fellow countryman that needed help, I'd risk my life to try and help them as much I can, or else die trying. Don't you think it would be better to have MORE bodies out on the fields to ensure virather then LESS? Abled bodied women who meet the requirements should have the option if they want to go into combat. Who do you think took over BUILDING planes for the pilots during WWII? Women. so people shouldn't use the excuse we can't do things as well as men. And to the men here who act like being in combat is for men only, this isn't a mens club, it's the US military, so get over it.

I have read all the postings here and would like to present some arguments that nobody here has yet mentioned. But first an aside. This is a heated debate, and while we are stating our opinions for or against women in combat, I think we ought to question the degree to which combat is glorified. Combat is not "action" -- it is one of the most hellish experiences people can go through. Everyone is brutalized and wounded by combat. Soldiers and civilians on both sides. I admire people who survive for their ability to face danger and for the fact that they go through hell and remain emotionally intact -- I admire all people who have gone through dangerous and tough experiences and retained their sanity -- but I don't think that personally pulling a trigger makes you a hero. I do believe that women should be allowed in combat, as long as there is combat to be had, because being equal means taking on all the responsibilities of a society, but I think that we as a society should stop glorifying the idea of combat. It's a dirty dehumanizing job.

Now, my main point. I want to challenge the notion that women are physically less capable than men. This is itself a deeply sexist notion.

Yes, it's true that in spite of the VAST overlap between the physical attributes of men and women (this overlap is disguised by our society and its enforcement of gender roles)...despite the overlap, male and female bodies are a little different. It's true that male bodies, on the average have a little more muscle mass (though, among men and women who train regularly the difference is only about 10%). But why stop at muscle mass? What about the greater percentage of body fat that women have, which gives us more long-term endurance? What about the fact that women, being on the average smaller, have quicker reflexes? What about the fact that we make smaller targets? What about our greater tolerance for pain? What about our better balance due to our lower center of gravity? What about the fact that women are more flexible and the flexibility helps us avoid injuries? Of course these are generalizations too, but my point is, women's bodies are not inferior, they are slightly different.

If our society did not have a deep-seated belief that women are inherently unequal to men, we would ask ourselves how the physical differences of female bodies are advantageous to women and to the society as a whole. Get real. Half of a species does not develop in a certain way if this development does not help that half and the species as a whole survive. And make no mistake, women have to be physically robust to live in this world. Think about it. Among mammals it is females who are most directly responsible for the well-being of offspring (children) and therefore for the survival of the species.

When danger comes along males (in our case men) may well be dead or absent, or just apathetic. So, it makes sense that females would be well equipped to take care of themselves and those close to them physically.

Perhaps females don't have as much muscle mass because they don't need it, because that extra muscle mass is a luxury which female bodies did not develop because other attributes were more important. Clearly, women have quite enough physical strength to carry out most of the hard physical labor around the world. This is just statistically true. And, more directly applicable to the issue of combat, what about all the female nurses who have carried all kinds of soldiers out of harm's way?

But, again, why stop at muscle mass? I practice a form of kung fu called Wing Chun. This martial art was invented by a (small) woman some 300 years ago. It is known as one of the most effective fighting arts. Part of the reason for its success is that it recognizes that each body type has its own advantages and disadvantages. A small light person and a large muscular person each have assets that can be used to their advantage in a fight (as well as in the rest of life). Every physical attribute carries with it a plus and a minus. The trick is knowing how to use the plusses while minimizing the minuses (so to speak).

The problem with our society is most fighting styles and sports were developed by men for men (either explicitly or by default). So they benefit "typical" male bodies. To the extent that a person differs from the body type for which the sport or fighting art were designed, they are at a disadvantage.

I can't disagree more with people who say that the military is not a social experiment. All of society is a social experiment. If the military were really smart and if it were really free of assumptions that there is something inadequate about women, they would realize that they have a whole population here with an equal (but slightly different) set of skills and that this can only be to their benefit. Yes, of course, it's true that many women can meet the standards set up for men, but why should those be the only standards worth setting? Why assume that the women (and men) who can't meet those particular standards are any less physically capable? Why not just assume that they have a slightly different skill set, find that skill set and use it? Think outside the box! Nuf said.

I have read with interest many of the comments on this topic - especially in relation to the stamina required for combat duties. I'd like to point out to the sceptics that many women were in constant combat during WWII - and were not lacking in courage when it came to carrying out operations for underground organizations in German occupied countries - e.g., Nancy Wake, Violette Szabo, and Odette Churchill. There were certainly many others, and these women were subject to torture when caught. As an ex-servicewoman, I wonder how many people in general, could have endured what they experienced. Janette, Australia.

There's quite a difference of opinions on this page. I am a strong supporter that women should have the chance to fight for their country. The statistics and "facts" that women are physically less able than men is based on the average of woman in the military, but perhaps their are those few, and I know there are, who have that will and determination, and the strength to fight for what's right. Men go out there because they can and they are "allowed" to. Women want to go out there to fight for what's right, and each day a determined woman is restricted from her will and beliefs, is one more day that she becomes more eager to change the world, and she'll do it. Now the issue concerning sexual harassment if a man (and I'm going to use Marines, because that's what I am (almost, as soon as I graduate HS)) a man is NOT a Marine if he can't control his temptations. He lacks all Leadership Traits and characteristics, most importantly "Integrity". Not only is a man not a Marine if he gets his kicks by harassing women, but he is not even worthy of being entitled a person. It is a low and immoral excuse for a human being, and by no means is it the fault of a woman. Now if the woman is going to complain about being harassed about her female curvatures, she should be worried about more important things than that of how she is perceived through the eyes of a wastrel.

A Marine is a Marine, male or female. This game between the sexes "Women are smarter...." "Men are better physically..." is a waste of time that can be well spent on other things, such as TRAINING women to better themselves physically and training men and women together so that they are more accepting. The intellect of any person should be based on an individual basis. But this making up excuses as to why women should or shouldn't fight combat is a lack of self confidence of the accuser. She will do her job just as well, and I'll do my job even better.

I'd read that a woman completed BUD/S in the early 1980's, an O-3 or O-4, from the fleet who wanted to see if she could make it--she had to sign a waiver prior to training to guarantee she wouldn't seek an operational slot if she graduated--and she made it through with 25-30% of guys, none of whom were scarred for life, and none of whom felt any less SEAL-ish because of her presence? Can anyone corroborate? Seems that, if true, this definitely puts to rest the argument that a woman just isn't strong enough to hack it.

I am a Mobile Support Equipment Operator in the Canadian Air Reserves. I was a Field Engineer in the Militia and I have to say that I enjoyed both experiences. I was one of four females to graduate from Basic and one of two females in my QL3 MSE OP course. I'm hoping to eventually get into the Regular force and make a career out of it. My veiw of women in combat arm rolls is simply that they have to want to be there, like everything else you do in life. If you want it bad enough you will succeed!

I wanted to comment on a posting from a woman dated 24 Sept 98. She said that women were going through Ranger school, and PASSING, with lower attrition rates than men. This is all a LIE!! Women have NEVER been allowed to attend Ranger School. Period. I don't know where she's getting her info, but it creates serious doubt on the rest of her arguments, and so on the argument in general that women should be allowed in combat roles. In MY Officer's Handbook, the most important characteristic is INTEGRITY. If this PERSON can't even be straight on a matter that is so easily proven wrong, how can we believe anything else she says?? I personally believe that women will be serving in combat roles in the U S Army. Not today, probably not 5 or 10 years from now, but sometime in the next century. You can check my posts on the matter @ www.enlisted.com/boards/women . My string starts April 12, 1999 under Richard (that's me). Unfortunately, it's women like the one with the 24 Sept post and all of her lies that creates a lot of these problems. Whoever you are, stop acting the troll and let the serious discussion continue. Signed, a US Army Infantry Major (Reserves).

I have been reading the various opinions in these pages for a while, and I can see that the question is still open. I'd like, for what it's worth, to add my own thoughts on that. I'm a 26 years old Frenchman and, as such, had to wear a uniform for ten month, because France is one of the countries where Military Service is still compulsory. I was 21 at the time, and hated every second of it, because I don't like being ordered around, among other reasons. I was in the Navy, working as a paper-pusher in a ASW Patrol Craft squadron assigned to the Mediteranean. Was I glad when I finally got out of there... Don't take me wrong on the whole, I admire and respect soldiers and sailors. They do a job that is dangerous, demanding, and unfortunately necessary. It's just that, personnally, I know I'm not cut out for it. I had lousy grades on PT, hated life in dorms, sucked at military etiquette, and couldn't resist the temptation of telling various Petty Officers how I, my fellow draftees, the rest of the squadron, and indeed the rest of the world, were so much smarter than they could ever hope to be. I always avoided the brig, but scraped the johns so often I could still draw then with my eyes closed now. When I was released, I was still a lowly Seaman, Second Class.

All this to say, well, not every man is capable of fitting in the military. But of course, no one actually ignores that fact. So why, in that case, do I see so many opinions here, that deal with "Women can...", "women cannot...", "women are...", "men aren't..."? Why on Earth consider always the whole gender? Might it not be a good idea to consider individuals? Women, as a whole, are less physically apt at combat roles than men. Okay, that's a fact. But we don't consider the problem for women as a whole it's only those individual women that apply that are in question. Hmm?

All right. I won't go over the whole subject in detail; more qualified people have done it before. Let's consider a few things - sexual harassment and assault many people state that it's a good reason to keep women out of combat duty. What I don't understand is why those people don't rather question the fact that MEN harass or assault those women (or would do if they were in combat units). Why, they're basically saying that if soldiers, who are supposed to defend their country, their folk, their laws and their culture, assault their womenfolk, break their laws, go against the spirit of their culture, and dishonor their country, it's the women's fault?? Err... Excuse me? Isn't that taking the problem from the wrong end??

- sexual harassment 2 I don't consider sexually explicit jokes, or 'mild' cat calls, as being sexual harassment. Fondling, unceasing attentions, pinching, one on one sessions of dirty speeches, yes. But if a woman can't take a little verbal abuse, she's unlikely to take a lot of enemy fire either... Besides, that kind of abuse has to be taken by some men too, although it's rather less often sexual...

- Women's rights fighting to allow women in support units was a Women's Rights thing. Allowing them in combat units has nothing to do with that. It has been stated quite often, in these pages and in the American Constitution, if I'm not mistaken, that a certain number of civil rights stopped where the army began. The military is a job where failure means death. No one has the right to jeopardize the lives of soldiers to advance a political or social cause. Even if it's a good cause like Women's Rights.

- PT requirements the same for everybody. As a continuation of last paragraph, it is necessary that all soldiers, regardless of gender, be able to perform as asked. Or else, some will die unnecessarily. Unfortunately, if you lower requirements to have more successful female candidates, you'll have more female soldiers and, come war, more DEAD soldiers, including female dead soldiers. It doesn't strike me as the most sensible course of action towards the advancement of Women's Rights...

- the Draft everyone on it, dammit!!! That's a particularly sore point to me, because I was drafted. Yeah, okay, not for a war, my apologies to all vets among you. It's just that while some feminists in France scream for equal rights in every aspect of society, I haven't heard a single one of them ever mention the problem of military service... From what I gathered, it's pretty much the same thing in the US... When I had to leave for that godforsaken base 400 miles from home, dressed up in that ridiculous uniform with the red fluffy bobble on the hat, I got some very, very stinging comments from feminist activists, who were quite happy with the current state of equality in military affairs... Equality has to go both sides. If all men are potential draftees, then all women must be. I'm in favor of that, personnally. After all, if a man isn't suited for combat roles (too weak, bad eyesight...), he's not going to be sent to the Legion Etrangere, mmh? So why would a woman should either? She'll be inconvenienced for a time, will do support jobs, and serve her time. And if she's suited for combat... Tough luck lady, but it IS the nineties, after all...

- Pregnancy what if they use pregnancy to avoid the draft? Or what about the lowering of combat readiness from pregnancy leave? Well, I'm not directly concerned by that, being neither a woman nor a father. But the way I see it, if a woman's sent to a combat unit, she should immediately be given chemical contraceptives (I'm sorry, I don't know if it's the right term in English), pills or injections, I've heard about a product that only has to be given once a month, was it BS or is it true? Anyway, doctors could check on them. If the drugs used are likely to endanger their lives? Well, like bad eyesight, or heart problems, it's a medical state of affairs that forbids them from entering combat units. Too bad. It's a violation of their individual rights? See further up. Contraception is frowned upon by the Bible, the Coran, the Torah, Ron Hubbard, or whatever religion is considered? Well, isn't killing rather frowned upon too? What has religion to do with that, anyway? (can you tell I'm an atheist?). And if they get pregnant before to avoid the draft, for example? Well, there are always people who find ways out. It's not fair that women have such a way of avoiding it, one closed to men, but whoever said life was fair? Besides, if the war is long and murderous, the next generation won't be so small, as someone earlier feared... (cynical? Me?)

- the protective instinct mmh... that's the one thing I'm not sure about. As a rather courteous man towards the graceful half of the population, I know I'd probably have that kind of instincts towards a wounded woman. However, that is only if I wasn't rooted in place by fear, or running for cover (survival instinct is usually very strong too...). And of course, I haven't been trained for a combat role. Isn't this training supposed to eliminate that kind of instincts, and replace them with programmed automatic responses? I also wonder how the same persons who admit that women would probably be harrassed or assaulted by their male counterparts in combat units can be worried about those same males all running to her side at their own risks as soon as she hits the ground...

The Israeli experience of 1948/49 has been used a lot as a counter-example. What I'd like to know is what was the level of training of the Israeli army at that time, right after the creation of Israel? They were veterans of a long guerilla war against the British, but what about unit training? Even if it failed, one failure does not mean the idea is flawed, if others have shown the opposite russian troops in WWII, for example. Or Swedish detachments in UN Forces. From what I remember, the first experiments with tanks, during WWI, weren't exactly a brillant success. M1s, Leopard 2s or Leclercs are a good example of what perseverance can bring...

I'll stop here with my ramblings. All in all, I'm for the opening of combat roles to women, be it in the US or in France. Frankly, I don't think they'd be any less effective than men, given the right training (the SAME training), and if they were recruited as individuals, not representatives of one gender. I might be wrong, of course. Who can tell for sure?

I am a 18 year old female who is interested in the military, but if I go I want to be eligible for any program, not just the wimpy ones. I am especially interested in Special Operations Engineering, which is only open to men. I know that many people believe that women should not be eligible for combat, but I do not agree. I do agree that men are stonger than women for the most part, but they should still be able to try and pass the test. If they don't pass the test because they didn't have the strength or skills, then they don't get in. Women deserve a fair shot at the job. Men have the chance to try and pass the test, but women are not even allowed the chance. People defend this by saying that women would never measure up, but how do they know? Women need to be able to have the same opportunity as men. The program should be based on who can do the job, not who is doing the job. If they have the skills, what difference does it make?

On average, if a woman who decides that she may want to go into combat she is probably going to be more dedicated than the men. The reasoning behind this argument is that the woman has to go against more odds than the man to do this and is dedicated. As for the argument of asymmetry in the ranks, there is one reason for this. If women are being discouraged from fighting in wars there will be less of them. Once it is accepted that women should be allowed to fight along with the men there will be more and more women in the ranks. Once this happens women will be an accepted part of military forces and the problem of mixed sexes will be greatly decreased. It needs to be accepted as a part of the military before it is accepted by the individual soldiers. We will know how to deal with problems of sexual misconduct and so forth because there will be experience with it. We will not know how to fix the problem until we address it and deal with it, and the only way that will happen is if we let women into the areas of military that they desire to enter and fix the problems when they occur. This issue will not go away until that happens.

The first thing I want to bring up seems to be one of the sole arguments behind why or why not women should be in combat. We all know that women are not physically made the same as men...everyone knows this and we are not denying that women aren't as strong as men in general, but what we are saying is that there are some women who actually are as strong as the average man. In fact, after my years in the Army, I know quite a few who could even out perform most of the men in my units. I don't think PT tests shouldn't be changed to make for a more PC environment because we all know that the average female isn't as strong as men, no denying that. Most people continue to think of the combat jobs that are restricted to women as just the line-units, but some of the other jobs include submarine duty, which is biologically more suitable for females purely because of our smaller statures and body compositions (unfortunately I don't have the facts on hand to back this up or elaborate, but I'm sure one of you can find it). One thing everyone seems to have correct is the fact that men can't seem to get over their emotions enough to let people do the jobs they want, so women won't be able to work with the average grunt in the field, but specialized units would be a good solution. Just like we had the Buffalo Soldiers years ago because men couldn't over-come ignorance, we could have combat units comprised of purely women who are physically capable of combat duties. In one particular Asian nation, women have combat roles, but they make up the entire units in which they work. Personally, I feel making female-devoted combat units would be taking a step further back, but then at least some of these patriotic women would finally be allowed to serve their country how they want to and not how someone else tells them just because they aren't the correct sex. For the one who basically compared the SF to criminals in saying that they are a danger to society if they weren't in those units, you obviously have been watching too many movies to come up with your idea of the mentality of the SF and SEALS. I've worked with men from both groups and knew a friend before he went Ranger and they weren't anything like the people you portrayed them as. I think any man from those units would be offended by making that comparison. To the point that he tried to make in that comparison, those women who want to be in combat units are tough and won't run away crying at the thought of having to shoot someone. These people (both men and women) aren't mentally disturbed, they just have a strong sense of duty and they know they can get the job done, so it's time we let them do their job in one way or another...maybe we can figure out how soon.

I am a high school senior and I am doing a major project on women in the military. After much research and thought on the subject, my conclusion is that women shouldn't be in combat. People in modern society are blindly concerned with being politically correct and not offending anybody, so the truth seems to get lost. The bottam line is that women ARE NOT as physically capable as men.

There are a multitude of studies out there for you to take a look at if you have ANY wish to learn the truth. I am sure there are a few women out there who won't get past that first paragraph, or will read on, but they go into 'offended mode' and won't actually listen to me. Don't let emotion cloud what you are thinking, look at the facts. The facts are that men are on average 30%-50% stronger than women. That is a big difference. There are those who might say that despite the statistics, there could be ONE single women in all of the world who is ready, willing and physically cut out to excel even in elite groups like SF or SEAL. But think about that. These guys are not nice people, they don't care about descrimination or politics. If they weren't in those groups they could be violent and possibly disruptive members of society.

It has been found that in countries like Eritrea in Africa, where service is mandatory for both men and women, things work out, even in combat. This is because of the high ratio of women to men. When having females next to you is commonplace, nobody notices. But when having a women fighting next to you is rare, and you add to this the different standards for her to get there, people become uncomfortable. For some, this discomfort manifests in harssment or distrust or posting mean letters on the Internet.

I'm not a biggot, racist, femminist, chauvanist or any type of prejudiced person. I'm just a normal guy who's done some research. I would love to say "If a woman wants to, and she is able, let her do it". The problem is that if that one (or that few) woman goes into combat, she promotes disharmony among the majority (the men). We just can't afford mistrust among our soldiers, as far as I know unit cohesion is a very important part of the military. An all women unit may solve that problem, but it doesn't seem like that's going to happen.

My question is "What about the draft?" If men and women are to be equal in everything, shouldn't women be required to sign up for drafting when that becomes necessary? I don't doubt that there are some women that are up to the task and can handle it, but I don't want to. Feminists are trying to level the differences between men and women, and in doing that are getting rid of protections for women. An example is the Equal Rights Amendment, which, fortunately, was not ratified. In attempting to equalize men and women, it would have struck down laws protecting women--like requiring husbands to support their wives financially. There's a lot of talk about men and women being equal, but they are not the same and should not be treated as such.

I am a female student in high school and I have at times pertained to the idea of equal rights. I strongly believe that if women continue to complain of their struggle with the status quo and the "glass ceiling" then they need to consider the idea of Draft registration. Women scream with envy to be like a man, yet when the actual thought of patriotic responsibility comes to thought many shy away. Death, pain, and sorrow are three main feelings that flows through the heads of women, and risk with these feelings are hard to understand let alone accept. I agree with women leadership in military services yet I think a discussion needs to be made of women's duty to the country as a draft register.

In response to some of the opinions I read. I was a Sergeant in the Army and was stationed in a few different tactical units during my time in the military. I'll admit that I never had hopes or dreams of getting into the infantry, Rangers, SF or any other direct combat related job, but I think many people are missing the point on whether or not women should be allowed in front-line jobs. Yes, there are plenty of women out there who could not hack it in a line unit, but there are also plenty of men who could not also. In my job, there were plenty of men who re-classed into my field because the line units were too tough for them and I've known a few who didn't even last through training before they got themselves discharged. Now, to get into the more specialized jobs (not sure how infantry works), such as SF, you must pass some physical tests. For those of you worried about "wasting money" on training women who won't be able to make it, most would be weeded out in the tests and the others would be making the same fighting chance that the men would be put through. I've known many females in different units that out performed half of the men in those same units. These are the women who can make it in line units and they are usually the ones who want to do the job. Some of these women were more than maxing their PT tests, while some of my male friends were struggling to pass with a minimum score. We don't need to lower tests requirements to get into specialized combat jobs, but those women who can make it, should be allowed to prove they can. One person wrote about how he believes no woman will be able to carry an injured man to safety in combat....what about all those firefighters who are women? This a tough job, requiring them to carry people out of burning buildings with little to no visibility, under all sorts of adverse environments and women do it. What about the police and the EMT's? Women do all sorts of hazardous and tough jobs on the civilian sector and even in some foreign military combat units (there are entire combat units devoted to females in certain countries), why should they be restricted from doing the job they want and can do in our military? While I was in tactical units, we went out to the field every few weeks and had no problem sleeping next to each other, changing in front of each other and doing whatever had to be done in the presence of the opposite sex. Hygiene was not a problem, we got used to not having the comforts of showers or even a port-a-potty at some points. We adapt and over-come. If anything, the men would sometimes be childish, but they would get over it and we would go on with our jobs. Ok, after all my rambling, it comes down to this; both men and women can make or break it in combat roles, let the women who can make it give it their chance. Not many women would even want to go into a line unit, but there are those out there who want to be given that chance.

Women in combat, it raises many questions and concerns both out of the military and in. I have read most of the replies and have found many to be uneducated and half-truths about the military. That is not the topic of discussion though. As a PFC in a support unit on Ft. Bragg I am in daily contact with many females in the enlisted ranks. As to their combat readiness and willingness to do the same amount of physical work as any male soldier, it seriously lacks. Let me explain. On a day to day basis I constantly see most, if not all, of the females I see fall out of many runs, and marches. They constanly get profiles because their bodies are not built to take the same amout of physical stress as a males. Now this is a generalization, But on the whole women cannot do it. As for being Ranger, SF, SEAL, Recon, I know that their bodies could not meet the physical demands. I know this from first hand experience. I am a graduate from the US army Airborne School. I personally was part of a class that started with over 20 females and graduated 3. Now tell me does this sound like a worthwhile way to spend gov't. money on schooling? Sure give 'em a chance so they can feel equal, I mean they are only required to do less than half of what a man their age has to do. And then we can all feel bad for them whan they come on CNN saying they were discriminated against. Well if they were, the military has a double standard when dealing with women. But I know that I would rather have a person at my back in the fighting position that has gone through the same standard that I have and has not been discriminated against or held back by the system.

The military does not give females the chance to do the same as a man but if they were held to the same standard today most of the females would be forced out of the military because they could not uphold the same standard. So yes the system holds women back but most could hack it if it did not.

Many people on here talking about a subject on which they have no experience, and are ignorant. There are scores of reasons why women in infantry combat would be a disaster. Here's just one that most people wouldn't think of, unless they have combat experience In almost every fire fight there are people wounded who have to be pulled out of the line of fire. Some 19 or 20 year old infantryman has to run out, exposed to fire, drag the wounded man by a leg, arm, pick him up, whatever, and get him to safety. FAST. If he can't do it, the wounded man dies. If he's too slow, they both die. The great majority of women lack the strength to accomplish this basic, commonplace combat task. Their inability would cause other people to DIE. This happens all the time in combat, and if any of you think it's going to be different in the next century, just because we have high tech weapons, you don't know what you're talking about.

That's just one example; I could give lots more, as could most combat veterans. The infantry is not a social sciences experiment. It does not exist to offer "equal opportunity" or career advantages for women. It exists for one reason to fight and win our wars. We cannot afford to weaken it.

This will probably not get posted because as I read through the posts I find that hardly one expressed an opinion against women in combat. I am a U. S. Marine. I served four years active duty as a motor transport operator. I served with a female corporal with a combat "V" Many women don't realize that we are different. Yeah, no one wants to hear that but we are, and what's wrong with that? Why are we obsessed in becoming as much like men as we can? We seem to forget the simple things. Now, I don't know what infantry is like in the other branches, but in the Marine Corps life for the infantry is damn hard. There is no privacy when using the bathroom, they dig a long trench and all go together. They sleep two men to a shelter half if not out under the stars. I know some women claim that they don't care, that they'd pull their pants down and do their business in front of a fellow Marine or soldier, or seamen, or airmen. But come on, this is my point. Men and women, for the most part, are attracted to each other. It's nature. And I know from experience that sometimes you can't help falling for someone in your battalion or even your platoon. And then what? Either you get married or break up. Sometimes break ups are painful or bitter. Would you want that person watching your back? It's not just about equality. Studies have found that it is harder for men to get over dead female bodies than male bodies on the battle field. Why? Because those are sisters, wives, mothers, the people in their lives that have shown them tender loving care. Women are said to be the "weaker" sex. We're not weaker, we're far more complex than any man. We produce life. A woman in a previous post stated that she weighed 117 pounds and carried a 200 pound man piggy back up a hill. Maybe so, but what if he was a 200 pound man with a 80 pound pack laying limp on the ground? How would you carry him then? Not piggy back style. Would you leave his pack and weapon for the enemy to pick up and put to good use?

If women want to be in combat so be it, but this is different ladies. We can't get it by screaming and yelling and ranting and raving. There will be no sexual discrimination cases or special treatment. You will have to use the fox holes along side the other guys, put up with the foul language, girlie magazines, and bad smells. These are men, they are loud, gross, tacky, dense, and rude. No, if you want to see combat you will have to pick up your weapons and march silently along, proving yourself with your actions and not legislation. I for one am proud to be a woman. My training to become a Marine was every bit as awful as my husband's was. If not worse. Maybe the male gender treats us as unequal and discriminates against us because we lift them on to such a high pedestal, because we

keep showing them that they have what we want. That being a woman isn't good enough. Yeah, maybe it is some man out there pulling the trigger and getting his keister blown off, but I guarantee he won't win that war without my help.

On the subject of women wanting to be in the infantry. I am a 16 year old female and have every intention of joining the military. I have dreamed about being a Navy SEAL or Airborne Ranger or the such since I was a small kid. Yes, of course there are a lot of issues and controversies over this but I am willing to do anything, ANYTHING, to achieve my ambitions. I don't know many females who have this tomboy-crazed dream, and therefore I don't think it would be very resourceful to have an all female infantry division, and I believe women should be integrated with men. Yes, sexual encounters are very possible, but sometimes a little self-control and discipline can go a long way.

I am a Chemical Corps Officer in an Air Defense Artillery battalion in the 82D Airborne Division. I have a good working knowledge of tactics, NBC operations, and ADA operations. This is my job. These are all combat and direct combat support tasks. I have recently become jumpmaster qualified and am one of the battalions leaders in fitness. I am 5'2" and 117 lb., my size does not prevent me from being able to carry a 200 lb soldier (piggybacked one uphill last week). I love being a soldier, and I am ready to lead any of my soldiers anywhere, or as a staff asset, help us to fight and win in an NBC environment on the battlefield. I would be a good candidate for ranger school with a little more work, however I am the wrong gender. We are now sending substandard men forward due to their gender. Put the soldier where they benefit the missions, not where society feels comfortable.

I was just having a discussion on this topic with a friend of mine the other day; we agreed on the issue. To me, that's rather interesting; he's a corporal in the US Army, and I had just returned from an interview with a US Army National Guard Recruiter.

See, it's the whole equality issue. I'm a student at a women's college, and we're conditioned to expect equality. I figure that, if it's going to be equal, it's got to be equal the whole way around.

What I mean is this. If a women can maintain the physical standard required for frontline duty, fine, let them fight. If not, don't. On the same level, if a man can't meet the standard, don't allow him to go into battle either.

If someone substandard is permitted to fight on the frontlines, it endangers how many other lives at the same time.

Honestly, I don't feel that men and women should have different standards for entrance into the military to begin with.

My thought is this: each job should have a standard necessary for its performance. If an individual is unable to conform to the requirements, then the individual should not be permitted to hold that position. Man or woman.

It is no different for a woman who is under-qualified to be on the frontlines in a battle than it is for a man who is under-qualified.

In addition to physical standards, there are emotional/mental characteristics necessary to perform the duties required in battle.

I believe that individuals should be required to meet standards of physical and mental nature in order to perform any duties in the military.

It doesn't make sense to allow an unqualified individual into a position where incapability could jeopardize the entire operation.

It shouldn't be a male/female issue. It should be a matter of ability to get the job done--well.

The decision to allow women in close combat is a Congressional decision. The military has always abided (for the most part) by the regulations and mandates formed by Congress. If Congress does allow women in close combat, so be it. I am really tired of the implication that the military won't allow it. I really don't have a problem with it. I work in an MOS closed to women, and see the introduction of women in my branch as just another leadership challenge.

Forcing women in close combat would force the US Military to reprogram the way men and women are socialized. As fair as it seems, American society does not want women in combat, or specifically, they don't want to see women ravaged in war or combat. As unfair as it sounds, women still suffer from genderizing. Women are socialized differently than men. Expectations, requirements, social etiquette, etc are all taught differently to men.

Furthermore, the women's movement has failed in the last 30 years in attempting to equalize men and women. Their best attempts have been congressional mandates for hiring quotas or bastardizing the ACLU. I believe in women and all the abilities they can bring to any organization, but women's groups are satisfied with the current state of how women are treated. IF they weren't, we would have seen more talk out against politicians who abuse or mistreat women (that is politically incorrect). Women's groups would fight for complete equality, as well as fight to accomplish all those tasks that women have not been socialized to do.

I am a female PFC in the National Guard and have been reading the comments of the females in File # 3 and I do not agree that women should be in combat. I am assigned to a maintenance section, and there is a total of four females in my unit, me included. I have found that yes, the men do end up doing the hard work and I have a hard time believing that in a combat situation there would be much difference. I think that the men would be more prone to protect a female who was in less danger than to protect the male who was in more danger.

I am sure that some women are capable of going to war but I am also sure that they are few and far between. I have to wonder If it would be worth training 100 women in the hopes that a handful would pass the training. Then if you did that you have to look at the fact that there would be only a few females to a thousand men in combat. And in my experience of being one of four females in my unit the men do tend to flirt and try to impress the "prettier" females.

I must say that many of these posts rather surprise me. First off I don't think many people give the youth of today any credit. Please refrain from reducing all of us to mere hormones! The idea that I would be attracted to anyone in my ROTC unit is appalling, and if I was the fact that it would get in the way of me fulfilling my duty is equally rejected as distasteful. I am an Army Cadet, and my training is almost solely in military bearing, how to be an officer, and FM7-8. The Army uses this book (Infantry Rifle Platoon and Squad) to evaluate its

leaders. Every cadet learns light infantry tactics because they are the basis for the Army and they are the most stressful so it is easy to see how a cadet would react under pressure. So in order to facilitate this infantry environment I have found myself spending many days in the woods with everything I need contained in a 60+ pound ruck sack that I must carry for miles and intermittently lead my platoon or squad in operations or STX lanes. I also ate with, slept with, and went to the bathroom with my M16. These FTX's and miniFTX's have shown me that if nothing else that I don't crack under pressure or fire, that I can carry all I need in my own rucksack, and that I don't need a man's help to do any of it. I pose to the men and women represented here the question of what is the true problem? The fact that boys will be boys? I say leave the boys at home - if they are going to die for their country then they sure as hell should be mature enough to be able to function and work without bringing sex into it. And if they can't then guess what...they're the problem not me! But if the Army or Marines feels so strongly that its people can not function together when the sexes are mixed in the field (even though it happens in ADA, FA, Aviation, and some combat support units) then create separate female infantry units and see what happens. Light infantry is the cheapest of the types to outfit, train, and maintain so the Army would not be loosing as much as everyone thinks by this great experiment. However I say again...what is the real problem? I refuse to believe that what ever it is: sex, physical strength, or prejudice that it can not be surmounted. I believe that the ladies cut out for the infantry would greatly surprise the males. The Army would not admit incompetent females so that argument can be put to rest. I say do an experiment...or are we too scared that the females will have show a favorable return?

I have served in the Army for 12 years, both in the Guard and Active and both as an infantryman and in the Military Intelligence field. There are women in the military who try and succeed in doing a good job for the military. However, these women are the exception rather than the rule and they are handicapped both biologically and mentally from the start and this keeps them from ever performing any better than the AVERAGE male soldier. Keep in mind this is the BEST of the women barely keeping pace with an average soldier. We cannot change the hand that nature deals us.

To comment on women POWs I find it odd that the press and women's groups only reporting the initial findings of the case involving Maj. Cornum. The Army initially reported that she was treated the same as the male POWs, but the truth is that she was "violated manually, vaginally, and rectally." This did not seem to make headlines when the information was released, I wonder why? Yes, this could happen to a man, but I challenge you to find me a case of this happening.

was a half mile away and she "bravely" exited her jeep to allow a male MP to drive it through the gate. As for the EPW, a civilian who showed up to check on the dogs after the aforementioned "fire-fight." Why was this not reported? Why don't all the women's groups who only want fairness unfairly leave these details out when they invoke the heroic efforts of women in combat? Why is there no mention of the 2 female truck drivers who refused to drive there assigned vehicles to a combat area with a load of US Rangers, having to be replaced by male drivers? Why were they not prosecuted for cowardice under fire as similarly situated male soldiers would have been? Why? I thought the truth was important here.

I know my sarcasm shines through, but I believe deeply in these things. We are not debating some benign social issue here where no one gets hurt and only fundamental fairness comes through. We are speaking of life and death. The life and death of American servicemen and women. I watch as units in the Army are less than 100% strength because of pregnancy and other female related problems and I know that they can't replace them and for that reason they must be shorthanded. I watch as myself and other male soldiers go on countless

deployments to places where female soldiers can't and do not go. Even if they were allowed they always can become pregnant. Don't tell me that it doesn't happen. I watch as our "leaders" try to change a biological and mental disposition that has been in place for thousands of years. Worse, I see my on military leaders who fought so long to keep the military a male environment now make claims about how great the gender integrated military is going. Politics? Probably. God help us the day I am proven right in a combat situation, it will be to late then.

Opinion Section

"Women in Combat"