Seriously? Do we really think women are just now on the verge of entering combat roles?

I don't think the debate is about women entering combat roles because history has shown that they've filled those roles. It's fact, no discussion there. From what I see/read in the news and have been a part of discussion/debate is whether or not women should be allowed to serve in Combat Arms MOS's.

There have been multiple legitimate (non-ignorant/sexist) arguments made about why women should not serve in Combat Arms MOS's. The most common ones share a similar theme, moral decision-making. I can say (and I'm only speaking for myself here) that I would have a difficult time being an infantry leader with a female subordinate that I was responsible for. As a natural protector of women i would more than likely focus on maintaining her safety and that may or may not take away from the mission objectives, other soldiers, etc. The byproduct of this could manifest itself into resentment or other distention within the ranks that may place the entire group at risk since the objectives are not the 100% focus. I could not describe (in words) how I would be affected if a female subordinate was hurt/maimed/killed while under my responsibility. As a father, I would not want my daughter to serve in a Combat Arms MOS.

There are also cultural differences based on where/how we were raised. In combat environments, adrenaline levels spike considerably and emotions run very high (especially when the fecal matter has hit the rotary oscillator and bullets are flying in all directions).

It can be argued about logistics and hygiene issues; I mean you can't exactly call "Time out" during a firefight because someone is "spotting"....I think it's universally accepted that if s man is "spotting" it's probably because he's been shot somewhere.

Again, these are arguments that I've heard commonly. I'm neither for or against the idea but I can see the potential for negatives to outweigh the positives as a whole. As much as I'd like to say that men and women are equal, the reality is that we aren't. Equal rights, protections, fair treatments? Yes; however psychologically we are different and physiologically we are different as well. Both sexes have strengths and weaknesses as well as varying strengths/weaknesses within the same sexes.

I will be fair and acknowledge that there are exceptions to every rule and it's those exceptions that often prove the rule. In order for the military to function properly, all aspects need to operate in synergy. Women and men in supporting roles (especially within the SOCOM units) are just as important as the operators and their involvement in the mission and its success is just as vital.

Women have served the country since it's being founded. The conflicts we have been engaged in recently show us that ALL service members can be targeted and ALL of them need to have a warrior mentality and be able to employ small arms in their defense. There is a completely different set of skills and requirements for someone doing convoy and base security and someone who rucks up for days on end, patrols out and kicks in doors loking for the bad guys.

In both the Army and Air Force women have been serving in Law Enforcement units (Military Police & Security Forces) for a very long time. Both MP's and SF have a function where more often than not, they get put where the shooting is. While serving in both, I don't ever recall having our females stand down just because we where going in harms way. They were expected to do the job that they trained for. This whole women in combat thing is being way overblown. Women soldiers have been dying right along side the men for quite a while.

Why not ?? The lines have been blurred for years. Warfare has changed since Vietnam. There is NO front line anymore.

Women who are in Iraq and Afghanistan already in combat roles every time they on convoy missions.

It depends on who you ask...

To serve is to serve, it makes no difference what your branch, MOS, or gender is, while deployed you stand a chance of being wounded or killed

First off if you served in the military and you meet the requirements you are a veteran. Second if you served in the AO designated by the Secretary of Defense you served in that operation. You may not have been in Iraq or Afgan but you were in direct support to those in combat I would say you are a OIF/OEF Veteran. Now the question to me is who is classified as a Combat Veteran? Anyone in Iraq or Afgan or only if you saw direct or maybe even indirect action?

I agree with you that it is hard to put down my words on how I feel and what I understand about this subject. It creates more questions than answer for myself to look at. Like what today is construed as combat? Is it direct action where you have direct and indirect contact with the enemy on a daily basis with it being your job or is it any contact with the enemy? Is being hit by an IED combat or is it wrong place and wrong time? How far down does this go? I remember when infantry (Grunt) was the only true combat MOS everything else was support where you may get shot at or hit a booby trap? I don't know, does anyone else?

Excellent post and topic. Thanks for sharing.