Women in combat, can we stop with the BS and just make it happen?

We are getting there.

CW2 Joseph Evans, standards is why the 75th Ranger Regiment is successful. Everyone has to meet the standards, from the lowest private to the Regimental Commander. No compromise.

It is also the same standard for every MOS. Whether you are an Admin clerk, Intel Specialist, or most lethal of all, Ranger cook, the standards are the same.

Interesting, I didn't know the Air Force had infantry battalions, that's really what this is all about, putting women in infantry battalions. Women serving in combat isn't new, 10's of thousands have and some have even performed satisfactorily or extraordinarily in direct combat, however the shooting is the easy part. I am curious though, which infantry course did you attend?

It isn't my argument, it is the argument of the original poster. He said we just allow women in the combat arms because a woman got got a valor award. The fact that 6 women, 2 Americans and 4 British, have earn their one of their nations' higher honors is no reason to allow women in the Combat Arms.

Yes, women are exposed to combat. They serve honorably and they perform their jobs well. There is a difference though between a woman who is an MP riding in a turret in a convoy and a man who is in the Infantry humping the mountains in Afghanistan on foot.

I use that example because most people who support women often bring up female MPs as an example of how they can do combat operations. The thing is, the Infantry fights mounted AND dismounted. They move long distances, with heavy weight, and they do it over and over again. My personal experiences with women attached to combat arms, the FETs, is they can't keep up. Sure there may a few, a tiny percentage, but that doesn't justify the cost of training to get them into a comabt arms MOS since far more will try than succeed unlike their male counterparts.

Hunter, I just get stirred up about the equality thing. If we truly wanted to treat each soldier equal and open every position in the military to every person regardless of gender than we would remove all distinctions from them. Uniforms should be the same no female dress uniforms or male uniforms just one uniform. No male or female APFT just one APFT. Standard for hight and weight should be the same for male and female. Beginning at enlistment the basic soldier standards should be identical across the board. There should be no distinction in a soldiers promotion packet. This is true equality.
However, I don't want to see this happen because I believe there is a clear distinction in the genders. In some ways men are superior (generally speaking of course) to women, and in some ways women are superior to men. My point is that people only want "equality" when it helps them teach their desired goal. Why do we always have to change things. I'm not saying women aren't good enough to be in combat, because there certainly are. I'm just stating the fact that except for some unique exceptions women are not "needed" in combat so there is no reason except for political correctness to bring them into direct (front line) combat rolls. God made us different so let's just leave it at that.