There is a reason why in the Olympics there is women's competition and men's competition, why there is a professional men's basketball leagues and a professional women's basketball leagues, and why basic military recruit training for men is different from basic military recruit training for women.  In weight, stamina, and strength there are major differences between men and women; in the overwhelming number of cases women cannot keep up with men in those areas----however there may be some unique exceptions.   The action taken by the Secretary of Defense yesterday, bypassing Congress in the decision making process, with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who sat there wide eyed without saying a word, imposed another of Obama’s radical “diversity” agendas upon the US  Armed Forces.  The radical decision flies in the face of the many studies completed by the US Marine Corps, US Army, and Congress over the last 10 years, those studies resulted in Congress setting rules that prevented women from being drafted and from being assigned to front line infantry ground combat units.  Recently two female enlisted US Marines were allowed to train with male Marines, in order to qualify for assignment to infantry ground combat units; they failed miserably and their video interviews are truly revealing.  One of the trainees said they couldn't keep up with their male counterparts during the sustained and long period of training required to qualify, that their legs gave out from under them, that their stamina was not up to their male counterparts, and that they could no longer carry their heavy back packs; they asked to be relieved (they weren't under the added pressure of being under an enemy firing weapons in an attempt to kill them).  At a minimum, the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee should review the data gathered from that most recent physical endurance test, conduct immediate oversight hearings, and make public the results of the extensive research completed on the study of “Women in Land Combat” gathered by the US Marine Corp last year, in which those two female Marines were involved.  The data does not support Panetta's move to put women into front line ground combat units, and before the radical decision becomes de facto law, Congress and the American people need to know why women in front line ground combat units will not work and how it will degrade the Combat Effectiveness of combat units.  Panetta’s announcement is not a “gift” to female military enlisted personnel who have expressed very little interest in being ordered into front line ground combat infantry units.

For four years, the Social Experiments on Diversity has been forced upon a captive US military force whose senior flag leaders have not objected to Obama’s civilian appointees at DOD orders that degrades Combat Effectiveness; each new initiative further damages the unit cohesiveness and moral of the US Armed Forces.  Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution gives the power to the Congress “To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and Naval Forces.” There is a legal requirement to notify Congress of changes regarding women in the military in advance of the issuance of the order Panetta signed, including the requirement that the Congress be provided with a report on the impact it would have upon the Selective Service System, but the Republican leadership of Congress has not asked for the report—Congress must act in this case!  Panetta was wrong in circumventing Congress, but it's up to the members of Congress to assert their Constitutional right and duty to provide oversight.   Every study completed on “Women In Combat” has come to the conclusion that women in combat are less likely to survive front line ground combat operations than men.  It is extremely dangerous to imbed women in tip of the spear military units like SEAL Teams, the Green Berets, Rangers, Special Forces, Airborne units, the Delta Force, etc. because they will experience difficulty in required stamina, and strength that will slow down the units they are assigned to; they will not be able to shoulder the same sized back packs over extended periods of time in combat operation, they don't have the same strength to meet and overcome an enemy combatant on the ground, face to face, and the unavoidable normal male/female sexual attraction within the units damages unit cohesion/unity (a unit’s Combat Effectiveness is degraded when female members become  pregnant—this has become a very serious problem for US Navy ships scheduled to depart on 6 month deployments, because so many female crew members become pregnant that the ships can’t be fully manned).  There is absolutely no evidence that putting female military personnel in front line ground infantry units will strengthen the US Armed Forces—that is the trumped up story being promulgated by the Obama Administration which is another outright lie.

It is one thing for a woman to be able to qualify, using the same rigorous qualification criteria as men, in order to be assigned to a front line ground combat infantry unit.  After they have successfully completed the same rigorous qualification requirements as men, have been imbedded in front line ground combat infantry units, it will be another thing to be engaged in  "sustained" combat operations for many months on end without a break, many times operating in mud without sanitary hygiene facilities during the monthly menstrual cycles.  The combat environment is very different from what the majority of Americans understand it to be.  Please read the below listed article that will reveal the unvarnished truth about the awful realities facing US military personnel in front line ground combat operations, those realities have been swept aside by Chairman Dempsey in order to comply with Obama's Experiment on Diversity.  The harsh realities of combat operations cannot be easily swept aside by active duty military personnel who are involved in them, and by Veterans who have lived through those same front line ground combat operations.  After you read the below listed Wall Street Journal article, ask yourself if you would want your daughter or granddaughter to be drafted and then be required to serve in front line ground combat infantry units, during sustained combat operations where men in an enemy force are trying to kill them (the prohibition for women in combat was the only barrier that saved our daughters and granddaughters  from being threatened with the draft in a national emergency--now that barrier has been removed by Obama---think about it)?  There are thousands of male military personnel who would volunteer to fill ground combat infantry billets.

Wall Street Journal
January 24, 2013
 
The Reality That Awaits Women In Combat
A Pentagon push to mix the sexes ignores how awful cheek-by-jowl life is on the battlefield.
By Ryan Smith

America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday's news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.

Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units.

Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view.

I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back.

Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other's laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.

The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.

Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade's face.

During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.

Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet.However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers.

Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation's military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?

Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex. Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion.

The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.

Mr. Smith served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. He is now an attorney.