<p>"The lifeblood of our combat soldiers is the brotherhood that exists between them. Bringing women into the fold could very well destroy this unique bond."</p>
<p>I am sure those exact sentiments were expressed the first time a minority joined a heretofor whites only club, the first time women were admitted into the service academies, the first time a women climbed into the cockpit of a warplane on a combat mission, etc etc etc. The bond that exists between soldiers is exactly that--between soldiers---don't let the fact that they have been traditionally and selectively all male get you confused between the bond of a soldier and "male bonding". </p>
<p>As far as strength--lets take it one step further. Let's make strength the determinant factor, NOT gender. The average girl on the street is not as strong as the average guy on the street but a girl who has trained certainly can hold her own in terms of both leadership, endurance, and poise under pressure. My daughter whooped the boys in her squad in pushups, two mile run, 300 yd shuttle run, and situps. In short, with regard to endurance she wiped the floor with them. They had the upperhand on her in the standing broad jump. If strenth and endurance is what counts sign her up and send those boys back to the supply train. Next thing Im sure we'll here is that girls at service academies are taking up spots for more qualified boys---don't even go there.
As far as insulating a segment of our society from war I say hogwash! Maybe the more people that see the true face of war the less war we'll have to fight. Having women in combat certainly couldn't kill more human beings or mess up the human condiion any worse than the men have! :)</p>
<p>"Some critics claim that women would be unable to perform adequately in combat because of biological and emotional differences. Admittedly this is true of some women, but it is also true of some men. Experience in World War II indicates that women can take the emotional and physical stresses of combat. Recently the Commander of the Marine Training Base on Parris Island asserted that "there is no reason the female can't fight just like the male."10</p>
<p>While the average woman is both physically smaller and weaker than the average man, it should be noted that warfare has moved away from an emphasis on physical prowess. Modern operations with missiles and aircraft differ greatly from traditional warfare. The superintendent of the Naval Academy told a Congressional hearing in 1974 that he would be hard pressed to find a Navy combat job a woman could not do.11 Or as former Chief of Naval Operations, Admiral Elmo Zumwalt said, " . . . women are able to do the work in any rating, and there is no question but that women will be able to serve in all ships effectively. . . . "12</p>
<p>Critics also note that the idea of women in combat is, in the words of an Air Force general, "an offense against the dignity of women."13 What is more dignified than service to one's country? The rights and responsibilities of citizenship should be extended to all, not only to all, not only to the male half of the population, and soldiering is one of the most important and most basic of these responsibilities. If the U.S. military is to be more than a band of mercenaries, our society must stress citizen responsibility.</p>
<p>Critics express concern over female casualties. Women might be captured by foes who, as in the last two American wars, have treated prisoners with little regard for the rules of war or Western traditions. True. But this concern should be extended to all soldiers, not just women, as should concern for all soldiers killed or wounded. If the thought of women being maimed and killed is repulsive to society, perhaps it will be a welcome incentive to choose carefully the wars we enter. Allowing only highly paid male volunteers to carry war's burden makes war all too easy, which it should not be.</p>
<p>A central concern of many of the critics, however, is the traditional hang-up of sex and sexism. What of toilets and sleeping facilities? How will the military and the country respond to the knowledge that men and women are living in close and stressful proximity for long periods of time? Problems, yes, but should policy be based on problems of this magnitude?</p>
<p>Finally, there is the practical importance for servicewomen of changing this situation. Lifting the combat ban will permit the full utilization of women in the military and open up avenues of promotion and roles now closed. Combat has always been the acme of the military profession. No group banned from combat training and combat service can hope to achieve equality. Combat training and service are symbolic of the military and what the military stands for. Certainly, combat training and service are a major factor in promotion.</p>
<p>Surely there will be problems. The integration of blacks indicates all too clearly the difficulties of implementing an overdue and correct action which was, at the very least, unpopular with numbers of the military and the general public. The same is true with women. But attitudes can be changed. The past performance of women in the military and their present motivation and abilities suggest that women can successfully handle this challenge and opportunity. In the end the measure should be simply equality across the board for all: black, white, rich, poor, young, old, male, female. Military efficiency should come first. The criterion should be simply: Can they do the job? The military and the country, as well as women, stand to gain. "</p>