Obviously, if you are in uniform you are theoretically expected to be able to fight if you are exposed to the enemy if things go wrong. But combat jobs are intended to put the troops into combat on a regular basis.
This is related to the silly notion that this "exposure" is because there are no front lines in war, so what's the difference how they die? In conventional war, there most certainly is a front line. Just because we've fought two counter-insurgency campaigns doesn't mean modern war no longer has front lines. Generals always refight the last war? Oh, please, pundits, look in the mirror when that comes to mind.
Finally, don't forget that there are different components to this debate. It is one thing for women to serve in combat roles in Air Force or Navy roles. Women pilots can do just as well. Operating missile or gun systems on a ship might be just fine, too. The real issue is in ground combat units.
Yes, yes, we're assured that women will have to meet the standards to join ground combat jobs. But tell me with a straight face that you don't believe standards will be relaxed--either just for women or for everyone to disguise the fact that standards are being lowered for women--once it becomes clear that the vast majority of women aren't up to ground combat roles.
And please remember, readers, that I say this as a former Signal Corps combat support soldier who was happy to be a REMF and not someone at the pointy end of the spear. But even in my signal unit, it was the men--even me--rather than the women who simply couldn't, who lugged around and manipulated the heavy stuff. Sure, they did fine once the equipment was up and running, but there is physical labor even in technical positions like mine was. It's one thing to be exposed to the need to have some upper body strength to do the job and doing it all the time as a part of the job.
But what the Hell, the tide of war has been responsibly ended. What could go wrong?
UPDATE: Here's one who is trying to tell us with a straight face that standards "must" be upheld, which will make this fine. I expect better from Peters. "You go girl," indeed.
No plan survives contact with the enemy--especially when the "enemy" is reality of modern politics.
UPDATE: The administration is way ahead of me:
The armed services are now developing gender-neutral standards for all of their jobs, and the Pentagon has vowed that those standards will not be lowered to make it easier for women to join combat units.Note that this doesn't say that male-based standards won't be lowered--just that they won't be lowered "to make it easier for women."
I'm sure there will be ample reasons offered for why the new, lower standards are good enough for everyone.
