In response to:

Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

rreid Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:51 PM
Female infantry in a home defense setting is a completely different animal than a deployed infantry living and fighting in a battle field!
RGR28 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:56 PM
Probably true. But beside the point.
Tinsldr2 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 2:29 PM
No it is EXACTLY the Point.

When it comes to a scenario of leaving a base camp for a day or two then returning, usually with vehicles etc, there is no problem for women in units that do that.

When a unit goes for ane xtended period into the field, with no tents, showers, privacy, and possibly no vehicles armored or otherwise, that is a different situation.

Women already serve in the first type unit above, They do so admirably.

They can not serve in the second type unit without a serious degradation of capability, extraordinary logistic challenges and command and control issues.
Mother of 4 -- the original Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 2:36 PM
No, that IS the point.

Women fighting in desperate defense of their homes in the face of an invasion is an entirely different matter than women fighting as part of the regular, ground troops.

Last Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other U.S. military leaders lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. I, for one, think this is a great idea and have a few modest proposals, if the brass inside the beltway is open to suggestions, on how they should deploy the dames (and whom they should deploy).

First off, if you truly want to eviscerate the enemy—namely Muslims—then I propose sending the most nerve grating and foul women Hollywood has to offer straight into hot zones as our forward armies. I’m a thinkin’ starting off with Roseanne Barr, Joy...