In response to:

Women in Combat Spells Trouble

uhohshortsonthehighway Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 5:03 AM
Women deserve the chance to serve honorably, but putting them in combat units, especially elite units like the Rangers is really tricky. Oftentimes these elite forces operate in small cohesive units in isolated areas. Resources are limited-privacy being non-existent in many cases. And Ms. Chavez is right-the pregnancies were also a big problem in Desert Storm-very short conflict but many, many pregnancies from all services happended in a short time.
Mr Difar Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 7:55 AM
It is not 'tricky"... it is insane. No amount of discussion can excuse it. Women in combat units require the standards of the unit be degraded. Women in combat units will get US warriors killed and turn elite fighting units into losers. That is what Obama wants. It is what Panetta wants. One more nail...
redneck8 Wrote: Jan 25, 2013 5:22 PM
Why must standards be lowered? Women can do anything a man can do.
With little discussion or fanfare, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women in combat that has been in effect for as long as there has been a U.S. military. Feminists and some women serving in the military are applauding the move as a victory for equal rights. They claim that justice requires nothing short of opening all positions to females, regardless of the consequences to combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, or military readiness, factors whose importance they minimize in any event.

What is perhaps most striking about Secretary Panetta's action is that it reverses the combat exclusion policy that...