Women in combat...not a good idea....

Here's a good column on Town Hall by Kathleen Parker on women in the military. I have no problem with women having desk jobs, but they should not be in combat. By the way, that is the exact position of the Israelis - no women in combat.

Here's the problem, as explained to me by Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness: When boys and girls join the Army, they must be transformed from what they are into soldiers, a process that requires concentration and focus. Recall the purpose of a soldier is to kill people and break things.

Not that most of us need reminding, but boys and girls tend to be distractions for one another. The Marines understand this, which is why they separate males and females during basic training. And the Army knows it, as evidenced by its own research, but chooses to ignore the facts in deference, apparently, to feminist goals.

As long as men and women are seen as interchangeable, then feminist theory survives - even if some of our "soldiers" don't. Never mind that coed training was found to be "not efficient" according to a 2002 "Gender Integrated Training" report presented to the secretary of the Army. The briefing also reported that coed training negatively affected "rigor" and "standards" (translation: women couldn't keep up with men), and that women suffered a disproportionate number of injuries, especially stress fractures to the shins and feet.

Nevertheless, the Army concluded that coed training was "effective" because women were accepted more readily, and men and women "shared" training experience. In other words, the Army defines military "effectiveness" in sociological terms of acceptance and sharing.

If we could break for a moment from roasting s'mores and singing "Kumbaya," we might focus on the contradiction that it is "not efficient" but "effective."