Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
One, they are NOT acting as infantry. They are getting into fights (and responding appropriately) while doing MP missions.
Fair point, but it remains that gender-integrated units are performing in combat.

Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
Two, talking to senior NCO and mid-grade officer leadership of these units, all is not nearly as rosy as you paint. There are plenty of issues caused and/or made worse by the presence of females, but the politically correct Army culture covers these facts up.
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.

Quote Originally Posted by 82redleg View Post
Read Sebastian Junger's book "War" about a platoon from 173d on a combat outpost in Afghanistan. Then come back and tell me that the lot of that IN platoon would be improved by adding women (or gays) into that mix. There is a slight possibility that their situation would not be worsened, but why make a change for a slight possiblity. There is no right to serve, and IMO, the only justification if for improvement in combat effectiveness, which no one is claiming. We deny people from service for plenty of congenital deficiencies.
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.