Ultimately the combat goal of the U.S. military should be to obtain the best" group of people for the job who will be able to operate under any potential set of circumstances in future. The goal should NOT be to put together a bunch of qualified" troops.
First before we get to sex and human nature lets get some necessary but preliminary points out of the way:
Its not necessary for the physical makeup of the military to be representative of the population and a military career is not a right."
How most other countries run their military should not determine how the U.S. runs its military Lets suppose that youre a high school football coach and you learn about some techniques or strategies used by the pros in the NFL. You may decide to adopt some of these into your own football program. On the other hand if youre an NFL coach and someone tells you about strategies used by his sons Pop Warner team you might listen politely but youll probably disregard the advice. Similarly leaders of the worlds most powerful and effective fighting force the U.S. military dont need to listen to media activists recommending that we become a larger version of the Canadian military.
Morale and unit cohesion are pooh-poohed by the left but have historically been a very important element in military success or failure In athletics professional coaches understand this and those with a basic understanding of human nature and a general knowledge of military history should also understand the importance of morale and unit cohesion.
The military must hire and train with the understanding that the next war may have to be fought much differently than the last war World War II was a different type of war from the Vietnam War (long guerrilla war) which was different from the first Gulf War for example. At some point in the future we may face another war similar in scope to World War II. Many rules and standards that seem to work in relatively short wars where the U.S. faces a much weaker foe militarily may cause problems in a different type of war.
Similarly policies that can be made to work in a peacetime or a training environment may not work very well on the battlefield Liberal journalists applaud mixed male-female units but in a long-term evenly fought intense war will the time manpower and money needed to enforce policies regarding sex sexual harassment and discrimination against women and mixed male-female units help or hurt our effectiveness?
Physical strength still matters Some commentators have noted that a lot of military equipment can be operated by pushing buttons and that strength tests and the lowering of physical standards for women are unimportant. The problem is that in a war especially a longer more intense war like World War II soldiers may have to perform tasks that they were not originally trained to do. Versatility is a desirable characteristic in a soldier. Strength can also affect speed and endurance which are crucial on the battlefield.
Men have several biological advantages over women Men have greater physical strength; theyre more physically aggressive (which is why over 90 of those in prison for violent crimes are men); and they dont get pregnant. Pregnancy is the main reason that the non-deployability rate for women is several times that of men. This is especially troubling given the high level of specialization of some units.
Sex Changes Everything - OK now we finally come to the main problem human nature. A certain amount of sexual tension exists in an office environment especially one filled with young adults of both sexes. However workers are only together eight hours a day five days a week and most of the time theyre working alone on their own tasks. Even in this environment two lovers especially if they arent getting along or if one of them is a manager can be distracting create problems for upper management and reduce the productivity or effectiveness of an office. Multiply the sexual tension several-fold for a war overseas where young soldiers are away from loved ones for long periods of time 24 hours a day seven days a week working or even sleeping together as a team in a much more stressful environment.
Admittedly this is less of a problem for peacetime troops or in recent wars where weve had an overwhelming battlefield advantage but we dont know what the future will bring a protracted more evenly matched deadlier WWII type war will bring this problem to the forefront. The intense male bonding of a non-sexual" nature was crucial to unit cohesion morale and effectiveness in many past wars. Regarding sex whats going to happen if a leader appears to show preferential treatment to his lover? What if he has to pick a few soldiers for a dangerous mission will his lover be included? What happens to morale and cohesion if some soldiers are receiving love and sex on a regular basis and some are left out? What if some soldiers are extremely jealous or show stalking tendencies? What happens if a soldier(s) are willing to literally fight for their love interest?
Ultimately the combat goal of the U.S. military should be to obtain the best" group of people for the job who will be able to operate under any potential set of circumstances in future. The goal should NOT be to put together a bunch of qualified" troops. For example when you hire someone to work for you lets say a secretary you interview candidates because you want the best" person for the job not just anyone who can type. Even in liberal Hollywood screen tests and auditions take place because the producer wants the best" person for the job not just anyone with a degree in acting or a certain amount of acting class hours. This is something the affirmative-action crowd doesnt seem to understand. The overly sensitive politically-correct crowd has already caused U.S. troop deaths via changed rules of engagement and they will push to further weaken our future military effectiveness because conceptually they cant understand the importance and the difference between best" and qualified."