Fair point, but it remains that gender-integrated units are performing in combat.
I don't doubt there are problems. There also problems with clashes and race and creed, and while the latter two tend to cause problems on a smaller scale than gender, it is a matter of scale rather than quality.
A change doesn't necessarily need to improve combat effectiveness in order to be accepted. It merely needs to a) have some value, and b) not significantly degrade combat effectiveness. It is not in line with our national values to solely consider military effectiveness. If it were, well, for one thing, Afghanistan and Iraq combined would have taken maybe three years to pacify.
There is absolutely a right to try to serve. Yes, defects and other factors can bar one from service. But unless such a condition actively detracts from military readiness, then it should not be a bar to service.
Other nations--nations whose military capability we respect--have integrated homosexual soldiers and, in some cases, female infantry (though that's a topic for another thread) without apparent significant impairment. I would like to believe that our soldiers are just as capable as theirs. Hell with that, I'd like to believe ours are better.
Bookmarks