It has been commented before that changes in opinion rarely happen in the debates themselves but upon reflection on the debates.  In my case, having read the posts made by several here, I am more troubled by the women in (ground) combat roles proposal than I was.

While I still find the side arguments unpersuasive (hygiene, close quarters, assumptions about gender squeemishness, harrassment, etceteras), the military guys here made a good case that the need for brute strength for trigger pullers is much more unavoidable than I had considered.  The argument made below that, "On patrol if you can't keep up you go from an asset to a liability." is pretty scary when you look at the huge discrepency in standards for the 2 genders.  Those differences seem quite acceptable to me - unless the  team's survival is dependent on the ability to collectively hump everything in they need, as FLVOL is doing right now.  If you can't carry a hundred pounds up mountains day after day or carry a wounded teammate from danger, your gender is irrelevant if that is what is needed.   And I don't know how many ground combat units can be assured that they won't see action where collective brute strength will be needed.  It seems to me that any unit that is not assured to be moving around in large numbers and with trucks must be composed of really strong people and nothing but really strong people. 

I therefore agree with CO's conclusion that having different standards for roles that may require great strength doesn't make sense.  I still don't agree with withholding the opportunity, but the reality is that few if any women who want to be in combat anyway will be able to qualify for those physically demanding jobs if the specs are written appropriately.  IMO,that doesn't mean we shouldn't have different PT standards for the 2 genders.  A woman in great physical condition is not the same as a guy in marginal physical condition even if they do the same number of pushups.  Just not for combat jobs that are going to be backbreakers.

Which brings me to another point that was made with which I now agree.  The application of this new policy is unlikely to be made realistically.  Note that the adminstration specifically mentioned commandos in its announcement.  The one field guaranteed to need maximum strength.  My bet is that the pressure to insure that women are included in these roles will trump the unwavering standards that have defined them.

To be clear, I am still in favor of equal opportunity for every role and don't believe the military should be excluded.  I believe that 30 years from now people won't think whatever we did was such a big deal.  But you guys made some good points.

As you might guess, the topic has been a hot one here lately. Hell, we have a ton of time to talk about stuff, so of course its came up a million times.

There has been several bigoted comments made, I wont deny that, but when all is said and done it only comes down to completing the mission. This mentality is the drive behind everything we do. I mean everything.

Nothing against any other job that's in the Army, everyone has their place and we all work towards one thing: victory. With that said, its well know that the infantrymen takes things a little more serious than most do. We never overlook any detail, we hammer them home. We take all of our training as seriously as possible and make it as tough as we can. I can say that Ive had several training events that have been harder than any real life patrol Ive ever done.

Why do I say all this? To preface what my sister platoon had to do very early this morning. As they were cresting a mountain, one of their guys went down for dehydration. No problem, they stopped and the medic gave him an IV and got him back on his feet. He did fine for another hill, but he went down again.

My good friend is the platoon sergeant of this platoon, and he was faced with a harsh decision. He knew that the guy couldn't go any further after being a two-time heat injury and he couldn't turn around and go back because it's always "mission first". The only logical solution is to MEDEVAC him (medical evacuation by helicopter).

This is risky for the whole platoon for many reasons. Given the terrain, anything but a hoist extraction was out of the question. Security has to be established and the mission is now paused. It was dark as #badword#, making things tough to do even in otherwise perfect conditions. Probably the biggest risk is the fact that a helicopter is hovering over your head for a few minutes, so the stealth factor you have operating at night is now null and void.

The decision is made to do the MEDEVAC. As they were waiting for the helicopter, all of the gear he was carrying was distributed throughout the platoon, making everyone's rucks even heavier and increased the chance of others becoming heat casualties.

Not more than a minute after the aircraft picked the guy up and it departed, they took contact from the two different directions. It might have been three, but it was too hard for them to see though. Fortunately, none of their guys were hurt and our mortars were on point.

Because they expended a lot of ammo just after the MEDEVAC, they had to cut the patrol short and go back to the base with heavier rucks. They had lost the element of surprise, so the risk vs. reward just wasn't there anymore.

After they got back, they found two empty energy drink can in his room, the local one that have a ton of #badword# in them. Although their platoon has a policy stating no drinking energy drinks 2 day prior to a patrol (so that means never), he drank them anyway and fell out because of it. Like I said, little details. His Team Leader got fired this morning because he failed to do his job.

true story.

It's not that I hate women. Anyone that knows me knows that I treat my wife like gold. Ask Lyn,I think she's seen it. It's all about mission accomplishment to me. In this environment, and in this profession, there is a very fine line between asset and liability, so we train like hell to stay on the right side of the line.