William S. Lind :collection (merged thread)

[former_0302]

AP, you have an awful lot of faith in statistics and biomedical research in light of this:

http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...it-not-trouble

In any event, even if one were to stipulate that your various research/numbers are true... why does the military need to be an instrument of societal change? To be specific, why impose women into combat arms fields as adults, when instead, you could impose them into coed sports from an early age?

Again stipulating that your research is true, choosing coed sports as your entry vehicle for change would a) bring a generation of women up from an early age raised in the environment that you seem to be perturbed that they have missed out on, b) physically prepare them for more rigorous activities as adults, and c) impose the cost of change on society in general, rather than on the military exclusively.

Would that not be better than imposing this on the military as an experiment, in which the lives of people may well be on the line?

[AmericanPride]

why does the military need to be an instrument of societal change?

I think that's a loaded question. First, the miltiary is the easiest for the political leadership to change - executive orders do not require Congressional approval, the military is subject to the oversight of Congress, etc. So like with Obama's move on minimum wage increases for federal contractors or with Congressional bashing of federal employees, the military is a target of opportunity. Is it good policy? Not always - but change is rarely neat and tidy. But it is often good politics.

Second, society changes. And those changes are eventually manifest in the electorate and in Congress - and that will change the military. It's my opinion that the military should be an active partner in this in order to help control the process, rather than have it imposed indiscriminately.

EDIT: Additionally, the military is not independent or distinct from society. It is a part of it, no matter how distant, and what it does is shaped and shapes the rest of the country. We should not be content in a democratic society with a military that claims a special place or privilege that renders it immune from society's preferences.

To be specific, why impose women into combat arms fields as adults, when instead, you could impose them into coed sports from an early age?

The better question is why are we excluding perfectly capable candidates from combat arms on the basis of their gender? It's already established that females can execute the same tasks; it's not relevant if more men than women can perform the tasks, or if the strongest man is stronger than strongest women. The fact is that many men cannot meet these same standards but they are not excluded on the basis of their gender. If women are not willining to join combat arms, that's a sociological problem, not a biological one.

Again stipulating that your research is true, choosing coed sports as your entry vehicle for change would a) bring a generation of women up from an early age raised in the environment that you seem to be perturbed that they have missed out on, b) physically prepare them for more rigorous activities as adults, and c) impose the cost of change on society in general, rather than on the military exclusively.

I agree that society has a long ways to go towards practicing full equality.

Would that not be better than imposing this on the military as an experiment, in which the lives of people may well be on the line?

There is somewhere a minimum of knowledge, skills, and abilities that an individual needs to be effective in combat. If someone meets or exceeds these knowledge, skills, and abilities, then they should be allowed to enlist in combat arms. This is not 'experimental' - it's already in practice on many levels, from education requirements, physical fitness and health requirements, and age requirements. (In some ways, I'd argue that current enlistment standards are more restrictive than this speculative standard). In any case, on what grounds can we justify the exclusion of women if they meet these standards?

[former_0302]

It's already established that females can execute the same tasks;

Patently false. So far, no woman has made it beyond day one of IOC.

Since by the speed of your response I take it you didn't read the Economist article I posted, I'll give you the cliff's notes. Just because a PhD publishes something, don't make it so.