Only the most short-sighted denies that women add value to units on the current theaters of operations. A key tenant of COIN is to not create more problems with the civilian populace than you already have, and little pisses them off more than when you have a man searching down a woman. That's a fact of the battlefield, and going against the grain there increases targeting of friendly forces and recruitment of the enemy. But...
Standards should not have a gender, nor should they be lessened to accommodate the fairer sex. Battlefields don't care what's between your legs, and Murphy is an equal opportunity killer of those that are improperly prepared for war fighting. Now I fully believe women are capable of performing on the battlefield, both physically and mentally, provided the standards are equal and all are held accountable when they fail to beet the standards. But that's the real crux of the matter though, the standards are NOT the same. Women require a longer and more vigorous training program to bring them to the level necessary to meet what is expected of males, with only the very rare exception of that norm. These Norwegian ladies went through a year long course, started with 300 and finished with 10, and I'll bet those ten ladies are competent in nearly all aspects as much as the average male soldier. But that's 3% of what they started with...
Then there's that pesky baby factory they have. My son was born right at the end of me completing a full six month work-up, and I left out to Afghanistan when he was six days old only to return seven months later. When a woman gets pregnant, that is all still time served but out of her MOS if she is combat arms from conception to around six months to a year post delivery. Where's the taxpayers' return on investment there? They're getting paid to defend the country, not to pop out children, yet they still get full promotions and also get pretty fine performance marks so it doesn't appear they're being discriminated against. And despite what many like to claim otherwise, a high percentage of women intentionally get pregnant, single or married, just to not have to depart or continue on a deployment. That is a liability to those units and national security as a whole, yet bring up mandatory UID birth control and now their "reproductive rights" are being trampled upon.
Equality is important, I don't deny that, but they want to serve in the roll and not meet the standards. Whether it's different PT tests or reductions in load-out or distance requirements, those all need to be eliminated and they be required to meet every same standard as a man. Women across America lauded the move to allow females into combat rolls, but resist being required to sign up for Selective Service. Out of the nearly 200 million females they have in America, they select one of the most corrupt to represent them in the first serious attempt of a woman to be elected President. They will demand to not be discriminated against for getting pregnant, but in the same breath they demand their employers pay for them to not come to work while they do so. The glass ceiling they keep speaking of is as much self induced as it is male induced. Be fully equal in every way, or get out of the way and quit complaining.
This isn't the 1940s either, the combat load is far heavier today than has ever been seen in the past, namely just PPE today outweighs the typical pack weight of a WWII soldier and rifleman rucks average 70# for extended operations, much more for crew serve weapons or Snipers/Reconnaissance teams. One can fully expect 100# or more of equipment to be the norm, but "going light" still means 50-60# of gear at a minimum.
I'm far from a woman hater, I actually believe women can be an asset to ground combat units and I've always been a heavy supporter of "free a man to fight". However, it must be pursued with the focus on winning battles as the #1 priority, not what their "rights" (most of which are in reality privileges) are, and the enemy has yet to give a shit about a woman not being able to run as fast or carry as heavy of a load because that's just an easier target to them. The mentality of separate standards and identical training must be removed if women and their eventual units are to be truly successful on the battlefield. Infantry training is too short as it is, still stuck in the mentality of cannon fodder of decades gone past, but women attending the same training without being able to really develop their bodies to conform to the rigors is a crime. I fully support giving them what they need, their bones and muscles need the time to build and harden for the breakdown they will see in extended combat, but I feel both our women and America deserve our very best efforts.
