Comments about ‘Letter: Efficacy trumps equality when it comes to the military combat issue’

This argument would make more sense if the letter writer advocated banning women from the military entirely. However since they have been serving honorably for decades, then they deserve the chance to be able to reach the top echelons of the military. The other option would be to allow women to attain the top ranks without the experience of a combat command which would in effect create a protected category for them which would be a disaster. The only way a member rises to the top is by being compared to all other candidates in all phases of military endeavor.

Now let's pass a law that each NBA and NFL team have a designated number of women players. Otherwise, how can women rise to managerial levels in professional sports without actual on the field experience?

Would Roger Tuckett please explain the idea of a win? Cause that has concept has also changed since WWII.
Pretty sure it isn't when you hang up a banner saying "Mission Accomplished."

Also "private" boys club sports comparisons don't really make a good analogy.

I'm opposed to having women in combat but it's not my decision. I'm sure many woman can and do outperform many men on many military tasks. But as a group, woman are better suited for roles other than combat. It is willful ignorance to think that there is not a significant difference between the way woman and men feel, think, and act. But as far as there are many things they can do well, treat them fairly, and by the same standards as the men. Don't lower the standards. That means that males in the military should be rated by higher standards in areas women perform naturally better. That may include many of the higher command functions. Perhaps our national command structure would have better lateral communication, cooperation, and coordination with more female four-stars and fewer territorial "good-old boys."

Our biggest strategic weakness is the breakdown of the traditional family. I would prefer seeing many more women cherish their roles in raising good soldiers instead of becoming good soldiers. As long as the opportunity to serve is there and they want it, let them be treated fairly.our allies.

Women are already serving in combat, and with great distinction and courage. This change in policy just allows them to receive official credit for what they're already doing.

Roger Tuckett thinks "winning" is being the strongest.
He's obviously never served in the military because he thinks brute force wins battles.

Brains have alway won over braun.
Always.
By saying women can not serve, he implies women are stupid.

FYI - The military sets the standards for acceptance to positions.
If a woman can fill the bill, she should not be barred, period.

BTW - It take 3.5 pounds of force to pull the trigger of an M-16.
We don't use clubs and stones anymore.

Some of the best snipers I ever saw were very small, and very petite, woman.
It had everything to do with smooth and controlled movements.

It had more to do with being like ballerinas than Linebackers.

It could reasonably be argued that physical strength is only a portion of what is needed to be a successful modern day soldier. A woman who has sufficient physical strength and more that sufficient mental strength would make an effective soldier.

I think it is okay to have women in combat. But the tests and standards need to be based on reality and without regard to the sexuality of the person being tested.

If that means a smaller portion of women make the cut, then we live with that. If it means more women than men qualify, we live with that. There cannot be ANY other standard than military readiness. Period.

I think it actually think this letter and some of the comments would make sense if we lived in 17th century and still did not understand the full capabilities of women in military roles. Ignoring the reality that this issue has been studied here and other countries and that women already are doing many of if not all these positions here or in other countries does not mean we do not understand the issue.

I'm not sure adding women to combat roles will make the military stronger. But I'm not convinced it won't make it better. Or smarter.

Women make better fighter pilots. On average a womans body can handle more G forces than a mans. The only logical course is to only allow mean to fly transport planes and have women fly fighters.

This is an argument about the absurd. All they are doing is saying that being male or female is no longer a limiter to one being automoatically disqualified from a job. No one is saying they are placing quotas on, or changing the job requirements.

Just as most firedeparments in the states have removed sex and race from their job requirements. You still need to meet the physical requirements of the role... hence you don't see many women firefighters.

A buddy of my dad is at Cherry Point Navel Airstation, responsible for special opps. He is not going to have to take on anyone, or change role requirements, just because they are a female, or hispanic, or black, or anything else. Most males don't make the cut. Removing that limiter does not chenge the job description.

So lets stop worrying about things that have yet to become issues. At one time women were not "smart" enough to vote. Neither were they cut out for the executive suite. In both these cases, "common thought" has been proven wrong.

Let them have the chance to prove themselves. Stop protecting them from themselves... they don't need your protection.