Interesting the change in policy and can see the points being made and why most aren't valid.
Yes women's bodies are different, we don't have unisex olympics. As long as the physical standards are not lowered, any who qualify as an infantryman (or infantrywoman) should not be barred for this reason.Combat puts women at unique risk
The most salient point happens to be a feminist argument: Women, because of their inferior physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...d5b_story.htmlThe threat to unit cohesion should require no elaboration. But let’s leave that obvious point to pedants and cross into enemy territory where somebody’s 18-year-old daughter has been captured. No one wants to imagine a son in these circumstances either, obviously, but women face special tortures. And, no, the rape of men has never held comparable appeal.
The first part over cohesion, would like to see a study that shows that the women already in the field show a break down a units effectiveness with women already on the periphery of combat. General concerns of mixed interactions are a reality, but this can be at the pentagon just as likely as in the field.
Leaving the last part which is for me is the most salient argument to me even though I admit most of our modern military engagements is asymmetric without conventional "front lines". In addition to the risk to a woman, leaving no man behind takes on a whole new meaning and elevation of risk and need to act when its no woman behind. Will probably be seen as old fashioned sexist that won't to put women back in these...
...but this is why I can see this as not being a good thing.