And further, my husband didn't join the Army and deploy twice because he thinks the Army is a swell job. And those guys certainly had very little to do with his mission readiness. We can attribute his safe return home both times to the fine training provided to him by experienced NCO' s and the guidance and leadership of his company commanders and battalion commanders. He serves because he loves his country regardless of its leadership.

- I didn't say I don't trust their experience. But I certainly don't think that EVERY decision they make is in the best interest of the men and women on the ground. And I also don't believe that EVERY decision they make they do so objectively and free from political pressure.

-You absolutely cannot equate the black and gay integration with this. Don't even make me explain why that argument is extremely weak. Seriously. I'm so sick of emotional arguments like that. Allowing gays to openly serve is still a very, very touchy subject It is overwhelming evident that you are very far removed from this situation.

-I can reference polls which back up that claim if I wished to spend more time engaging you. Since 1) I am not interested in changing your mind and 2) I am busy preparing for a move to Fort Bragg, I will not do so. But I invite you to come spend some time with my husband and his vast array of combat experience soldier friends, men and women alike, from all aspects of the Army to include, infantry, artillery, Rangers, Special Forces, etc. who overwhelming appreciate the role of women in the service but recognize the limitations they have for certain jobs based on nothing else but physiology.

-Haha! I read what you wrote to my husband, a captain in the Army and future company commander. And by the way, he's 5'5", 160 lbs and smaller than the majority of his peers. He is required to carry the same exact weight for the same exact distance and have the same physical capabilities as the 6'2", 200 lb guy if he wants to do and succeed in THAT particular job (infantry). This isn't a football team we're talking about, this is war. What good does it do the soldier who can't carry his/her share of water and ammunition when he gets separated from his unit and must meet at the rendezvous point three days later?

-Regardless if women can meet the physical standard, like my article mentions, the physical toll on a female body is astoundingly different than on males.

-When my husband went through Ranger School, he was required to shave his head for hygiene. It also provided a sense of uniformity with the other students. Should women be required to do the same? Those guys were out in the field for days without showers, changes of clothes, etc. They went out in the woods to dig a hole to poop in, and then had to get creative about toilet paper. He came home 20 pounds lighter. When units with women included do field exercises, the unit must provide them with showers, portable toilets, and toiletries. Why? Because we women have different hygiene needs then men, and it's not preferential. If a women doesn't keep herself clean, she can get some serious bacterial infections. If we lose too much weight, our menstrual cycle is adversely effected. It's silly to think that just because this war hasn't been like WWII or Vietnam, that future ones won't be.

I've gone on too long already. I will tell you, though, that I place more value on the opinions and policy ideas (even differing ones) of the people who live and work and train in the military than I do

Yes, I've read the Marine Gazette article. It was already linked at the beginning of this TGC post, and in every other conservative article on the subject. I respect that woman's experience, but there are other articles from other experienced female soldiers with similar backgrounds who take a different position on the new policy. There's a good one posted on Tom Ricks' blog.

Even within an all-male combat unit, there are men with differing strengths and weaknesses, and a good leader will assign the work to take advantage of the strengths. If that means the former high school linebacker carries a little more weight and the fast little guy travels light and takes point, that's just a smart use of resources. If there's almost no place to take cover, the little guy might make the smallest target and have the best chance of offering covering fire so another soldier can make an advance. It generally works itself out among the men, so I'm not sure why you would think it wouldn't for the women, assuming they met the qualifications to gain entry to the unit in the first place.

I used push-ups as just one example of tests that may not relate to actual battlefield requirements. As I understand what Gen. Dempsey is saying is that they are going to look at *all* of the various standards to determine whether they actually test for useful things and come up with one, single standard for both men and women. If women can't meet the standards, then fine, but there's no point in barring them from trying.

You claim that "[t]he overwhelming majority of services members, especially those in combat arms, do NOT think the full integration of women into these roles is beneficial." How do you know this? Can you point me to a poll or some other evidence to back this up? Even if you could, the military is not a democracy and the troops didn't want blacks or gays either, but they've mostly gotten over that.

Last, if you don't trust the judgment of the Joint Chiefs, why are you putting your life (or the life of your loved one) in their hands? They are certainly not perfect, but just because one women thinks they have sold their souls doesn't make it true. Again, read the Ricks piece at the Atlantic. He's one of the best military historian/analysts around and his conclusion is that the problem with the generals is that they are not adapting to modern warfare fast enough, not that they are overly eager to make changes.

http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal

A few things:

1) I encourage you to read what this female, combat experienced officer in the USMC has to say. She makes several great points that I haven't heard from other opponents that really cause one to re-think full integration.

2) What military experience do you have? If you have any, then you well know that the PFT (physical fitness test) is the bare minimum testing standard. Let me explain. Just because a person can max the PFT (it includes a run, push-ups, and sit-ups) doesn't mean that person will excel at combat useful exercises. It especially doesn't mean that the person will excel at the physical demands of light infantry units whose whole purpose is to carry everything they need to do battle. That's the difference between mechanized infantry and light infantry. There are many examples of both men and women who are studs when it comes to the PFT, but can't keep pace when carrying an 80 pound ruck sack for fifteen miles. Most male only schools (like Ranger School) in the Army do a PFT the first day as a very standard way to weed out the least physically able to compete in the school followed by several other more intense events (like a ruck march) to test capability. All if this to say that there are many other factors that determine physical capabilities other than just push-ups that you say are skewed in favor of males.

3) Women can achieve the same PFT score for less. Women ruck with less weight at a slower pace. Adjustments have been made. Also, depending on your job (infantry, signal, medical, etc) there are different physical expectations. For example, a light infantry officer with the 173rd is expected to be able to regularly max out the PFT. His credibility as a leader hinges partly on his ability to keep up with and lead a very high-speed group of soldiers. A doctor in the Army, in contrast, doesn't feel the pressure to max out the PFT as much. Why? Because his job is less dependent on his strength and speed.

4) No, in combat you don't do push-ups. You do pull yourself up with your pack, armor and weapon over walls and ditches. You do carry wounded soldiers and their pack, armor and weapon out of harms way. Your ability to do that time and time again, and quickly, determines life or death for you and the person you are assisting. Upper body strength is critical. While push-ups in the PFT does measure a strength men will naturally be able to perform better, it's a strength that is necessary for the job.

5) Why is it necessary to have soldiers carry so much weight for long distances when we have planes and vehicles, etc to do that and our wars are urban in nature and such loads aren't necessary?. One, the enemy isn't always accessible by aircraft or vehicle. Ask the troops who have served in the mountains of Afghanistan. Two, sometimes the troops have missions that take them away from their forward operating base where all the supplies are for several days. In those cases, they must carry everything. Three days worth of water and the ammo for one soldier alone is a lot of weight not to mention his weapon, armor, MREs, etc in his pack. Three, its naive to think that every war or conflict in which the US is engaged will be like these if the past two decades. To get rid of the ability of certai units to make long range combat maneuvers through areas only accessible by foot is naive and dangerous.

6) So all I have said doesn't matter if the standards are maintained, right? No. The link to the article explains why not. She also explains how this is more of a political move than it is a practical move. It's true that combat leadership is more prestigious and therefore can lead to more prestigious leadership appointments. It's also true that combat is physical, and therefore physical ability and excellence plays a central part in success. Putting the best qualified people in places of leadership, especially when lives are on the line, should be more important than making sure the opportunity exists for people less qualified. And there is nothing wrong with that.

7) Last one! I'm not judging the intentions of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but Christian, come linger in the military community for a little while and you will quickly realize that many not so prominent senior leadership has sold out to the god of promotion and prestige (who is the cousin of the god of political correctness) at the expense of what's best for the soldiers they lead. It's a problem all too often seen. I don't know if these guys have been in DC too long and they've forgotten their experiences as young company grade officers, or if the people pushing for this are right in their ear, but I think it's disrespectful and tragic that these leaders pay little attention the voices of those they lead- the voices of those who will deal with the consequences of their decisions and who actually fight the fights and dig the trenches and train for war. The overwhelming majority of services members, especially those in combat arms, do NOT think the full integration of women into these roles is beneficial. Yes, some of their reasoning is pig-headed and sexists, but some of it is with noting very seriously.

also I do not ignore-you seem to especially the ones about making food for the family and clothes for her children-characteristics that women of those days used to look up to as well.

You and Melody don't have any idea which underlying facts about *me personally* you've gotten wrong and you're both too busy playing the victim to try to understand why your incorrect assumptions cause your attempted insults to crash and burn.

Regarding my interpretation of Proverbs 31, I'm always amused when the "literal" crowd works so hard to ignore the words that are right in front of them.

but wrong about the number of women

the military has diversity metrics(quotas) as well as lower standards if women cannot reach the mark