In response to:

Women in Combat

SdAufKla Wrote: Feb 06, 2013 11:12 AM
Wrong. This issue is not about WHY we have gone to war in the past or why we might do so again in the future. A military is like a very expensive insurance policy against a possibility that's so horrible that you can't hardly even imagine it, but that if it came to pass, not having some means of protecting yourself would mean total and absolute ruin. Putting women in direct combat units could result in an outcome that is simply too terrible to bare with a price that's too high to pay. The political gains DO NOT outweigh the potential costs.

A senior Defense Department official said the ban on women in combat should be lifted because the military's goal is "to provide a level, gender-neutral playing field." I'd like to think the goal of the military should be to have the toughest, meanest fighting force possible. But let's look at "gender-neutral playing field."

The Army's physical fitness test in basic training is a three-event physical performance test used to assess endurance. The minimum requirement for 17- to 21-year-old males is 35 pushups, 47 situps and a two-mile run in 16 minutes, 36 seconds or less. For females of the same age,...