I have no doubt that there is a small minority of women who could physically meet the requirements, both physical and mental. So from that point of view as long as the requirements for access to those positions do not change, I would think it would be OK.
However, I'm not sure I fully understand how this might work in combat situations where a soldier has to make a split second decision where the lives of his team are on the line. In those situations, I think a man's initial instinct is to help the female team member first, and in some situations this would be the wrong thing to do. I guess what I'm getting at is how significant would be training need to be to train the male soldiers NOT to be deferential to the safety of the female soldiers in their unit? I suppose it could be done, but it would require a significant amount of training to do.
Another question I have is what happens when a female soldier is captured, and the enemy begins using the female soldier for either propaganda recruitment purposes or just to "F" with us. Showing videos of her getting tortured, or her being sexually abused, etc. Would the U.S. take absolutely no special steps in response to this that they would not initially do for a male soldier? And if so, what if there was significant backlash at home regarding that, would it affect the judgment of the military leaders on the ground? I don't know, I just wonder.
Lastly, lets assume that we can do all the necessary testing to find the small number of women who can meet all the physical and emotional standards/tests, and we can do all the male training to ensure the integration of the female soldiers does not affect readiness, performance, etc. If having a small number of female soldiers in the units doesn't hurt performance, but doesn't really help it or improve performance, is it really worth all the effort?
I guess I'm wondering what is the benefit of the integration if there are significant costs of doing so, and at best the resultant units aren't any better, but aren't any worse? Just a political benefit, so we can all pat ourselves on the back and say we're not sexists? Just wondering. I don't have strong feelings on this, but it seems like political considerations seem to be what's driving this, rather than actual military effectiveness.
BTW, I sympathize with female officers. I know that you'll never get to the highest echelons of the military leadership structure without combat leadership experience, so this policy likely does create a glass ceiling for the female officers. I don't want to belittle that because it's a big deal to them and it would piss me off if I were in the position. But ultimately being a soldier is not about what YOU get out of it, but it's about service to your country. And if the best thing for a female officer to do is to provide leadership in support positions, then you should do so with pride, as you're playing an important role in the entire force's success.
