In the great Dirty Harry Movie, the Enforcer, there was a scene where Harry had to give interviews to prospective detectives. Tyne Daley was playing a female sent there on the Mayor's initiative to get more women into the force, Harry roughed her up in the interview and said "...what about your partner? If you get blown away, he gets blown away too and that's a helluva price to pay for being stylish".

Nice to see that William is stylish as well. Too bad I don't think he actually understand what a combat soldier does or is subjected to.

Where I am coming from, I was a logistics officer on active duty for 7 years, and then got out. During that time of course, I served with many females and deployed to Bosnia and served in that environment with them In 2004 I was recalled back into the army and led a team of people who where charged with training the Iraqi army as it stood up. I went on numerous combat missions with them, and with US forces and engaged in direct combat operations. So I think I have a pretty good idea of what I am talking about here.

I will say this up front. There are SOME women that could undoubtedly serve effectively in combat situations. So, please save yourself some time and don't tell me about that girl you knew who could do 15 chin ups and run a 11 min two mile.

Now, that caveat being stated, women don't have any role in those forward positions.

First, they lack the stamina to keep up. In Iraq, I would have to wear 50-70 lbs of gear in 125 degree heat for 5-8 hours going from house to house. It was brutal. Most women can't keep up. If they can't keep up, the unit has to slow down. Creating a higher likelihood of someone getting blown away.

Second, they are not physically strong enough. A soldier has to move a lot of heavy stuff in order to properly carry his own weight. A .50 Cal machine gun probably weights 80-100 lbs (can't remember). Ammo cans can weigh 50lbs. You have to be able to move those and move them quickly in some circumstances (well, not normally the .50). Some doors/hatches on tanks or bradleys require a lot of strength to open. A combat medic has to be able to lift a stretcher. I'm 6'6, and weigh in at around 240-250. With all that gear on, I'm around 300-320. I didn't like my chances having guys have to carry me, I sure wouldn't want to have a woman trying to lift me, under fire, and help me get into a covered position. If I went down, more than likely a man would have to quit doing his job and do hers, thereby opening up another door for another guy to get blown away.

Now, some of you are sitting there saying, "why can't there be uniform standards, and if a person can't lift "x" or do "y" he/she won't be allowed in?" Great question. Unfortunately you don't really understand how the armies of the stylish work. What would happen is we wouldn't have enough women from those MOSs (military occupational skills/specialties) make the cut, so twin standards would evolve, just like they are now on the PT test. Look at Airborne school. A man has to do 6 pull ups to get in. A woman has to do 6 as well, only hers re lying on her back with her heels on the ground and pulling up. I assure you that's a lot easier. The purpose is to make sure you have enough upper body strength to be able to properly control your parachute, as it requires pulling the risers down to your chest. That requirement, and hence some safety element, gets white washed so we can get more women thru Airborne school.

Third, Combat Ops are close quarters and move swiftly Even going to the bathroom for a female soldier in that environment is more difficult. Either we have woman peeing their pants or else we have to slow down the operation during those times, which puts the unit at risk.

Fourth, there IS a unit cohesion factor. This is the least politically correct, and the one least acceptable to outsiders, but it is probably the most important. Men housed by themselves return to the wild, and bond much closer than they would if there was the disrupting presence of women. You inject women and the entire unit dynamic changes as the men, instead of bonding, just go ahead and start cock blocking each other. This isn't a big deal in support units, but in the front lines, you have to have trust. With out trust, you have hesitancy. With hesitancy, you lose speed. Lose speed, you can get blown away much easier.

I know some of you are going to say "well, that's just men's problem, they have to get over it. There is no reason for a woman to lose those career opportunities because of the immaturity and stupidity of men." That's a very stylish question. My answer would be how many men are you willing to sacrifice on the twin alters of political correctness and 100K years of human nature?

Lastly William, whether or not women should serve in combat isn't a question of whether or not they can pull a trigger or stop a bullet as well as a man. That's really not the issue. The issue is whether or not they can adequately perform the 100+ tasks that occur surrounding the trigger pulling/bullet stopping. My experience tells me there will be significant derogation, and that derogation will get men killed.

And that's a helluva a price to pay for being stylish.

Now this is how you make an argument. Objective standards are the clearly preferable choice. Show why objective standards do not work.

See that all you worthless posters out there? An argument! Clear reasoning.

Fans of the series probably will be entertained seeing Eastwood as Dirty Harry again, but for more casual viewers, The Enforcer just doesn't measure up to the first two entries in intense action or in their exploration of ethics. With the exception of the role of women as law enforcers, this is a routine cop thriller, with lackluster villains and a bland plot, not all that different from the many cop shows that one could find on television at the time of release almost any night of the week. First-time director James Fargo (Every Which Way but Loose, Forced Vengeance) shoots without any of the style that marked Don Siegel's Harry, and with the jazz score and trademark loose delivery, you can bet that Eastwood had a major hand in how the film was made, much as he did with Magnum Force, perhaps worthy of sharing co-director credit.

There has to be just a little irony in the fact that you would quote The Enforcer as if it were some sort of real world example of style v function. You understand how a movie works, right?

I guess a man's got to know his limitations. .....

Headhunt makes some valid points, although his argument seems to rest on the idea that the armed forces or incapable of having and enforcing any objective standards to decide who is capable of combat duty, and that's a pretty disturbing claim.

But I really do have to take exception to the unit cohesion argument. It's not that I doubt cohesion is important -- but I think cohesion is learned, or created, by shared experiences and earned respect over time. If a group of disparate men can "cohere" over time, despite differences in race, life experience, education, ideology, why can't women be incorporated in the esprit de corps of the group? Presumably women who volunteer for combat will share many of the values of the guys who make similar choices.

As someone once in a position to know that headhunt33 is right, let me say: He's right.

Unless women have envolved stronger bones and upper body strength between the time this subject was studied in depth by a presidential commission, women in combat in a ludicrous idea. Women mechanics have to get men to carry their tool boxes, and women firefighters can't pull hoses. What do you think will happen in combat?

Mr. Saletan argues that we should select for the strongest men and women. Sounds good, but he apparently does not understand that all the physical studies show that on average, the strongest women are only as strong as the weakest men. The military weeds out the weakest men,

As well, the cost of find these Amazonian wonders they keep making movies about would be prohibitively expensive. We would we purposely select for a physically inferior cohort of soldiers.

As well, the only people suggesting women in combat, are, unsurprisingly, old feminists who will never see a shot fired in anger. And guys like Mr. Saletan, whose life will not depend on whether Corporal Sally can carry him out of the line of fire.

Last, shooting a psychiatrist on a rampage is not sustained combat of the kind in Iraq and Afghanistan. It isn't the same as facing enfilading gunfire on a beach, with arms and legs blown thither and yon. This was one man. On a military base. In the United States. Full blown combat operations are rather a different matter.

Second, the question isn't whether women can do it; it's whether they should do it. This is where the moral question comes in: Do we really want to train women to kill? As well, if we do that, are we prepared to do what must be done to inure men, who are naturally protective of women if they were raised properly, to brutal violence against women. That's what will have to happen. Headhunt 33 didn't fully explain another problem with women in a unit: Men will do things to protect a woman they would not to protect a man, whom he knows can get by on his own.

Only barbarians would even consider putting women in combat.

Of course, most will not agree with that attitude. But even you don't, there is, as headhunt33 so ably noted, the physical realities.

In short, Mr. Saletan is in way over his head on this one.

That's how you intend to refute a relatively extensive argument (by message board standards)?

By pointing out that The Enforcer was not as good a Dirty Harry movie as some others? I mean, at least take it to the next level. Point out that Harry's reluctance to woman was proven wrong by Tyne's performance in the field where she ultimately was killed in the line of duty and won Harry's respect. Or, by noting that Harry would tell her that "a guy could do a lot worse than to have you as a partner"?

Perhaps argument isn't your thing. You are correct a man has to know his limitations. Too bad you are driving down the dirt road unaware of the bomb in your back seat.

Becephalus:

Now this is how you make an argument. Objective standards are the clearly preferable choice. Show why objective standards do not work.

See that all you worthless posters out there? An argument! Clear reasoning.

It does seem to be a rare bird around here.

I think you make very good points in your post. Current weaponry and gear that an infantry soldier is forced to carry NOW is too heavy for most women. But I'm sure it's hard on men, even fit ones. Why don't they look into creating high tech and ultra light weaponry? The army could contract out to civilian arms companies and that would create more jobs!

I think the pee thing is just ridiculous, though. Why not just design pants and panties for female soldiers that have zippers between their legs and whoosh? You know, they just unzip and woosh. . And women can take a shot so they don't get their period, so you don't have to worry about bears and sharks coming on land to attack you guys and messing up your operation.

I think that in the next 20 years women will be in combat positions because of necessity. It would be better if the millitary prepared itself for it because I'm pretty sure it's gonna happen.

I think that HH and News were onto something regarding unit cohesion but didn't dare go far enough for fear of touching some raw nerves. Men in combat will try to protect and/or fuck the women under their care. It's hardwired into our genetics. We can't help it, it just IS. Some chick piloting a drone or printing my paycheque - Cool. The same woman in a fox hole beside me? No thanks.

Headhunt: "And that's a helluva a price to pay for being stylish."

You lost all credibility with that concluding argument implying that women are frivolous even in a war situation.

Newspaperman: " men who are naturally protective of women if they were raised properly, to brutal violence against women."

Do you realize the contradictions in your statement? If men are "naturally"protective of women, then it wouldn't matter how they were "raised". As far as the evidence goes, if men were naturally protective of women, and particularly their fellow soldiers, there wouldn't be such a high rate of rapes in the military. And there wouldn't be such a problem of domestic abuse...

As for training women costing more than training men, why don't you just let them compete in boot camp? No extra cost. And no, the strongest woman isn't as weak as the weakest man, that notion shows ignorance of men's strenght and lack of it....

And what is it that prevents you from praising the woman who put an end to the shooting spree at Fort Hood? What?

?? An argument, yes. Clear reasoning, not so much.

Contrary to your assertion, the OP did *not* "show why objective standards do not work." What he said, in fact, was that the standards currently are NOT objective -- that women do not always have to meet the same physical standards as men.

His long and very articulate piece did not -- until the end, when he brought up the unit cohesiveness argument -- ever once state a reason why a woman who could meet the necesssary physical requirements should not serve in a combat capacity.

And yes, I fully agree that only a tiny minority of women will likely be able to meet those standards. I also agree that the standards should not be lowered (assuming that they are mission-realistic to start with, of course.)

(Full disclosure: I'm a female Air Force veteran who served during the Cold War in an intelligence capacity -- no bullet-dodging, but working to keep the Big One from blowing us all to radioactive smithereens.) :) :)

If that is how you drew your conclusion, I suspect you weren't open to any argument contrary to your belief on this subject.

First, thank you for your service.

Second I submit that my argument (which was more implied than explicitly stated) that standards would eventually and inevitably be lowered in order to allow more women to those roles and rise to positions of greater authority is a valid argument for keeping the ban in place.

HH, some flourishes aside ("stylish?") you do present good arguments. Your arguments, however, presume that combat will always be the same -- long treks under adverse conditions carrying heavy weaponry. But today in Iraq and even in Afghanistan servicewomen routinely face combat conditions, even though they are not in the infantry. Perhaps this simply means that fact overcomes arbitrary divisions. But News' argument that he doesn't want women to have to face the rigors of combat is facetious. After the Second World War, studies showed that most American servicemen in combat either didn't fire their weapons, or fired them with no special effort to aim. Subsequently, the military altered combat training to make aiming and shooting automatic. Lesson? In a healthy society, balanced individuals of either gender do not shoot first and ask questions later. We need to have a military, and I thank you both for your service. I also admire you for returning to a peacetime society as productive members. Somehow, I think Americans of either gender are capable of that.