Women in Combat

After I posted a link to the NYT's article on women serving in combat to my G+, I was asked for my expanded thoughts. I'm torn on this issue because I can see the argument on both sides and both sides have valid points.

For:

Women are already in combat, they just don't have the training. We don't have a front line anymore and the danger is real to everyone in uniform. Chow halls get blown up and I can assure you that women eat in those halls the same as men. Supply lines are dangerous and women are allowed in transportation and supply positions. All this does is say that women can now receive the training for the infantry and artillery positions they have been previously denied. This also opens them up to the types of advancement that combat positions have access to and which stymies women in the promotion process.

Against:

I've asked many of my friends who have served as dedicated front-line fighters (infantry, artillery, etc) about how they feel about this topic. Their responses, generally, were the same. None of them doubted that the women could do the job and complete the mission. It was the men they were concerned about. In order to kill people on a daily basis, you have to regress to a primal mindset. That mindset is fine when it's just a bunch of men, who might beat the snot out of each other, but nothing more. The concern they all had was inserting women into that environment and what it might mean for their safety. It's easy to say "They should learn to control themselves", but it's not quite so easy to implement. There is also a concern that men would do stupid things to keep their female cohorts safe in crisis, which might not be best for the mission.

As a counter to both, my answer is training. Women will begin to appear in combat training, which should acclimate the men to their presence. The second concern, about men trying to save the women, is one that has been pervasive in the military since they allowed women in at all, so I'm confident that the appropriate training will be able to curb that behavior.

None of the information I've read thus far says if women will be allowed to apply for Special Forces training and units. There also has been no mention of how this will effect the Selective Service, though I maintain that if we are going to have the Selective Service as a contingency plan, we should open it up to every resident of the US between 18 and 25, not just male residents. Of course, I think we should do away with it and instead have a two year mandatory military service, but that's me.

In the end, I think this will prove to be the correct course of action. There will be bumps along the way and I think the three year implementation suggested in the article is a good one since there will be infrastructure issues to address (like training barracks for females on previously male-dominated bases) as well as unit issues. Careful implementation is important, especially to the Army and Marines, who are most effected. In 20 years, I think we will look back and agree that this was the right decision.