[meenie]

Hackworth is right on this one. The physical conditioning has been compromised by the introduction of women in basic training. Women have a place in the armed forces. They can hold their own and excel in areas they specialize in such as nursing and clerical work. They have no business in the physical area of line outfits.

Another development that is harming the military is the concentration on reserve and national guard deployment. National guards and reserves are backups to relieve the armed forces of non-combat duties, not to be sent out on peacekeeping ventures all over the world. These men have families and jobs and civilian responsibilities requiring their attention. Their use should only be required in the most extreme emergencies.

A point not covered by Hackworth is the emphasis on the spectacular deployment of guided bombs, cruise missiles, and recon drones. This just thrills hell out of the TV audience but is terribly expensive as a means of waging war and lacks the human intelligence on the ground. They still require the special forces on the ground to observe and fulfill the duties of directing fire. Why spend thousand of dollars per explosion via air when an artillery piece could deliver on target for a small fraction of the cost?

We have as a Defense Secretary, Chairman of Joint chiefs, air force men. They have the best intentions, but the reality is we are up against an enemy that requires the grunt on the ground to dig out the guerillas. Yet, most of the emphasis is on acquiring more tech, instead of improving the ground components of our defense or offensive forces. When we see as in Anaconda, 1200 sorties flown and most of the opposing force slipping away, it should tell us that we are pretty innefectual. We have a bad habit in the military fighting the last war while fighting a new war. The circumstances now demand a whole new emphasis on counteracting the present enemy.

[Quila]

The physical conditioning has been compromised by the introduction of women in basic training. Women have a place in the armed forces.

I must take exception on the general principle:

1. I once dated a female sergeant who could take any man in the unit in a run with barely a sweat. She did marathons just for fun.
2. My wife could do a five minute mile and excelled at rugby.
3. One female in a unit of mine was the best deuce-and-a-half driver we had (no power steering and a bear to drive).
4. In PLDC (sergeant's school), one female student offered to lead the unit in aerobics, with all the "manly-men" obviously snickering. She wasted us all in 40 minutes and she was still going strong.

Only #3 was in any way "butch." I think the point would be simply equal standards.