The new debate about women in combat positions is an argument that few seem to be able to think clearly about.  This post will contain some harsh language.  Consider it a part of the selection process  if you are a woman.  If you can’t handle it then you might want to look at another career field because we say a lot worse about each other.

Whenever this topic comes up I hear the same statement from what seems like the vast majority of Americans.  It goes something like this, “Hold them to the same standard and if they can hack it then let them do the job.”  Intellectually I can look at this subject from an abstract standpoint and agree.  Why not let job positions be delegated to soldiers based on their ability to meet the qualifications rather than their gender?  This is probably the correct way to think about this subject, have one high standard which all must meet.

However, I did the job and there are some practical issues that we need to overcome.  Here is one of the ugly ones: the Army just doesn’t have a lot of integrity when it comes to maintaining standards.  They are often lowered for political reasons as commanders are expected to fill quotas or more understandably, units get understrength and need to be plused up on warm bodies.  This is the wrong way to go about the problem because letting sub-standard personnel in causes huge problems down the line ranging from degraded operational capabilities to unit morale.  Special Operations units are no exception to these internal politics I’m afraid.

But that isn’t fair to female soldiers, right?  The problem isn’t women in combat but rather that the institution of the Army needs to get their house in order and stand by their own core values, namely, upholding high standards of combat readiness.  I would agree with that argument as well and would be willing to work with anyone, man or woman, on this issue however I can.  I feel strongly about this and have written about it previously.

The fact of the matter is, standards will be lowered, not just a little but a lot.  There will be tremendous political pressure on commanders to get women in Infantry and Special Operations units, to show positive statistics about women in this new positions, and to demonstrate “success stories” about female soldiers to Congress and to the media.  Standards will plummet along with combat capabilities and unit morale.  Non-official quotas will be mandated.

The ‘ol Strawman argument

However, I think there are a few strawmen arguments that get made on both sides of the debate about women in combat positions.  I’d like to take a moment to discard a few of them.

One of these arguments is that the vagina requires more hours of Preventative Maintenance Checks and Services (PMCS) than a V22-Osprey or F22 Raptor.  So this argument goes that the second a female soldier leaves the wire she will instantly come down with a massive yeast infection and have to be medivacced back to the FOB for treatment when the patrol is halfway to their objective.  This shit just gets silly after a while.  While I’m no expert on the female reproductive systems (which baffles me) it seems that the vagina needs no more maintenance than an uncircumcised dick.  Can we finally toss this antiquated argument out and move on?