The argument being used for including females in ground combat military forces, bad breath distances (infantry, armor, special forces) is that the U.S.A. needs to have the highest efficency combat force it can have. WHAT? What that red herring statement is implying is that we currently have a less than efficient force in the field, and we won’t have that until the U.S.A military has men AND women in the same foxhole. That is offensive.
Of course now all girls over the age of 18 will now have to register for the draft (Selective Service). The proponents of this asinine idea have never been in a close combat role. It is somewhat embarrassing enough for men to preform their personal hygene, ETC. in the field with other men (some of whom are sexually attracted to them). Add a couple of females into a building under seige with enemy fire, or as one of a four man crew in a tank out in the field with lonely, horney ninteen year old guys that are coming down from daily adrealine rushes, and you know there will be problems.
A combat rediness loss of total troop (?) strength of 2-5% for pregnancy is common now in Navy ships, add to that the additional 2-5% potential loss of troop strength for the men facing court-martial and immediate ‘sensitivity training’ immersion programs. This will make a LESS than currently effective fighting force.