So you did. My apologies. But back to the point I was making, it is one thing for women in non-combat roles to be attacked and must defend themselves. Thankfully, they will likely be surrounded by able bodied men to protect them. But nobody can look at any of the studies and say it is a good idea to put women in combat arms occupations. Meaning a occupation which requires engagement with the enemy (infantry, artillery, tanks). Anyone who objectively looks at the statistics and supports putting women in combat roles are doing so in spite of the security and defense of the nation, and the lives of the woman and those required to protect her. The only exception I would entertain would be a pilot.
There is a philosophical aspect and a physical aspect. I'll speak at this point only of the physical aspect.
The primary physical aspect is that service in the combat arms
on the ground is extremely physically demanding, and those physical demands are also solidly linked to the effectiveness of the group.
These are different from the physical demands of combat as a pilot or a sailor or in support units. Yes, they have their heavy physical demands, too, at certain times and in certain operations.
But ground combat is
characterized by continuous high physical demands, and they are placed on each individual in the group, so the failure of the weaker cannot be shifted to the stronger all the time.
Back in the early 90s, I was in a joint unit with young Marines, sailors, soldiers, and airmen working for me. At lunchtime, several of the young male Marines and soldiers would urge me to go with them on their daily lunchtime run. They ran a very fast twenty-minute three-miler. I'd always decline. Years before I'd given up running as my primary cardio exercise in favor of road cycling...for the sake of my knees and hips (note: I'd been a sergeant literally longer than these young men had been alive).
One day, though, I decided to show them that the old man could still hang, so I went on the run with them. And, yes, I kept up with them.
The next day at lunch, they came back to my desk, "Come and run with us again, Top!"
I told them, "No, I've got something here I've got to do."
The Army sergeant beside me--not quite as old as I was--chuckled and said, "Yeah...mend." And he was right. Maybe I could do that kind of thing once a month, but not every single day like those young guys.
The Army has had women in some of these positions for quite a long time, even back to the early 90s. There is actually quite a lot of data, and it's points to a consistent fact: By virtue of their high testosterone and grown hormone levels, young men can take the constant heavy, daily, physical grind of ground combat in a way that women--even strong women--and older men cannot. There are women who can handle it briefly, but the Army data show that they wind up suffering the same kind of chronic debilitation as an older man would.
