That's funny. I didn't read it the same way you did at all.
To me, he was asserting that men will behave differently on the battle lines in the presence of women. He talked about the "camaraderie of men" causing them to do "things that may not be in the interest of the mission."
I read it as an assertion that men on the battlefield will be more concerned with the welfare of the women in their unit than they are in completing the mission.
“But I do have concerns about women in front-line combat, I think that could be a very compromising situation, where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission, because of other types of emotions that are involved,” Santorum continued. “It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat, and I think that’s probably not in the best interest of men, women or the mission.”
Here we go again, attempting to interpret what a crafty politician is “trying” to say. Just explain to me what types of “emotions” that “naturally” happen could affect a mission. This was a stupd, inexperienced statement and I suspect it is going to be the first of many. One thing about that negative newt, he is clear, concise, does not parse words, and we know precisely what he said. But then again, newt tells it like it is, speaking to his base, not creating riddles.