The basic problem of putting women into combat is that, because they are far weaker than men along every dimension of athletic performance, it will result in mortality disproportionate to their numbers. The ratio of rates of casualty to rates of combat participation will be much worse for women than for men. Women in combat units will likewise suffer disproportionate rates of all the other hazards of military life: wounds, disease, injuries, and so forth.
It is for this same reason that we don’t allow athletic competition between men and women: the women would lose badly, every single time, and so would suffer grievously (not to mention wasting everyone’s time) in a quest for success over male competitors that the brute facts of biology render hopeless in principle, and ab initio.
Being by nature unsuited to combat with men, women are more disinclined to it, and in practice few women are likely to seek out real opportunities to serve in hot zones. The number of women who are interested in playing tackle football at any level of the sport gives a good indication of how many women are going to seek out combat opportunities.
The result will be that women will serve in combat units in numbers disproportionate to their numbers in the general population, and of those very few who do serve in combat, a disproportionately high number of them will be wounded or killed.
This whole situation being doubly “unfair,” what we are therefore bound to see, sooner or later, is an outcry against it, and a movement to eliminate these disparities. In effect, we will see measures proposed that are designed to reduce the proportion of men we field in combat units, and to shield women from the hazards of combat, while allowing them to continue to claim to have endured them, for purposes of career advancement in the military.
There will be real combat, which will devolve almost entirely to men – as Nature obviously intended that it should – and there will be fake combat – de jure or administrative equivalents to combat.
This situation will persist, and will grow more and more convoluted in its rococo administrative fictions, so long as the military takes its orders from politicians who are not themselves combat veterans. So long as that basic structure of the relation of the military to the rest of society is maintained, such absurdities are bound to multiply. All of them will have the same effects on the military:
- They will force the military to engage in activities other than war – e.g., nation building, diversity promotion, dam building, etc. – diluting the resources it has available to devote to the very function for which it exists in the first place.
- They will reduce the lethality and efficiency of such portions of the military as actually see action – by, e.g., promoting unqualified minorities to achieve diversity goals, ensuring that a certain number of bullets sold to the military were produced in a certain Congressman’s district, and so forth.
- They will involve the military in more inane, ill-defined missions, under constraints of crazy rules of engagement that meet the current standards of political correctness, and that prevent the destruction of the enemy, thereby preventing either victory or defeat, or peace.
- They will result in more casualties.
I am tempted to a generalization: liberal policies increase mortality or decrease fertility or both.