This is all true to the most part, however to quote someone from the past in regards to what war is about;
This is also true, however, the penalty that may be paid is that someone's son or daughter may have to come home in a body bag due to the misjudgment to begin with. There are many men that have served that are still undergoing mental health treatments, and medical treatment for giving their all to being in a combat setting, as the same holds for women that have served.
John Lofgren Monkey Boots Shinki Horsebuttt - $1,136 The classic monkey boot silhouette in an incredibly rich Shinki russet horse leather. 
Grant Stone Diesel Boot Dark Olive Chromexcel - $395 Goodyear welted, Horween Chromexcel, classic good looks. 
Schott 568 Vandals Jacket - $1,250 The classic Perfecto motorcycle jacket, in a very special limited-edition Schott double rider style. 
Yes I feel that way as well. Now for some reason, I just have to say, for me, not for you or anyone else, not for those women that want to serve or think service in a combat setting is insane, my own personal take on it, is no. For things to be forced upon someone one way or another is wrong. That I do agree with.
Not sure if you viewed recently on the news of a soldier that was getting awarded honors by the President for his courage in saving lives while in combat. One part of the venue that was covered regarding his story of courage was that his commanding officer had called in for more air/artillery support and that was denied. The majority of his unit did not survive. Being able to pick apart what is in part the cause of why things went as they did, in part, only in part, was due to the fact that those up the chain of command, had NO combat experience, and more than not, fell short of making choices that to me, in part is due to the current trend of allowing people to be in those positions due to having to follow what is commonly called, "politically correct". There is nothing about a war that is "politically correct".
We do have women that are placed on the battlefields and some have done a decent job, and some have been decorated for what they did and have had great courage. I do commend them for that. I just think it would be far better had they not been there to begin with.
That is very true indeed. While I was in school, doing a study for one of the classes I was taking at the time, we were given a role to take as to how to set up and structure a social setting, and to make it be anything other than what is currently factual today. Each group of my fellow classmates picked something like utopia or what resembled communism. Those models as they went on for merely a few weeks, all failed due to the normal and average input that a society has to deal with on a day to day basis.
I understand all of this. No negative response by me at all about what you state. I think many that know me personally would label me as a bit of stubborn mixed with a very large heart. I view things from a few angles and at times, forget to take the time to consider what anyone else would think, but always welcome a variety of other viewpoints. Have to add to this, I also never step back, and am someone that more than not, will have a "take no prisoners" stand when it comes to what I believe is right or wrong. I never think it is good to "cave in" to anything just because the pressure is on, or due to popular demand. That is what works for me, and may not be any one else's cup of tea.
Those time zones are something else. I have to call friends that are in London and one that is currently working on finance for his company that is based here in the USA, but they send him to China all the time. I get so confused about all that, I just leave them a voicemail and tell them to call me when the rooster crows!
I just now read this and yes, you surface many issues and address them very well, (something you have a talent for as always)!Actually, all combat-related judgements in the military (usually) lead to body bags; the goal is to keep the number of body bags needed on your side to a minimum. None would be best, with the other side needing lots.
To be quite frank about it, many men currently serving in combat would not be able to meet some of the standards that have been suggested. Sheeplady to the contrary, for the most part the men and women serving in the military are fairly average people. They're not all in top physical shape, especially those Guard and Reservists who do not have the benefit of having physical training as part of their duty day. But they still manage to deploy and do the job, and do it very well.
Should women serve in combat? Well, they already are. In places like we're in these days there really isn't any such thing as a safe "rear" where the support troops hang out. The question is actually more along the lines "should we let them serve officially in combat units." Well, I don't know. I can see and understand both sides of the discussion. I think that, in due time, it will happen. But probably not for some time.
On the subject of the draft, don't expect to see it come back unless we are already in dire straits. We discussed this when I attended the USAF Senior NCO Academy. One thing many people do not think about when they talk about the draft is the fact that it is very expensive to run a conscription-based military. First off is the high rate of turnover and the costs associated with that--the screening and training, for starters. With a draft military your standards are lower and most people don't want to be there, which results in increase washout rates and compatibility with the military issues--which leads to more turnover and training costs. The various aspects that drive up the cost of having a military if you implement the draft go on and on, and I do not have the time or energy to cover them all or to look up references right now--I'm supposed to be writing a paper for a class, not hanging out here! But you get the idea.
Regards,
Tom
