Posturing politicians cannot justify disproportionate harm to female soldiers’ health, without informed consent, in direct ground combat positions that would have to be assigned on the same involuntary basis as men.

I understand that this is what "true equality" would look like, but is that what's currently on the block-- assigning women involuntarily to combat units? I thought what was up for grabs was the ability for women to volunteer for combat units. Which, assuming fitness for duty and whatnot on an individual basis, would strike me as a more reasonable proposition.

If women are assigned to positions beyond their physical strength and need to be reassigned, retraining would cost the Army $30,697 per soldier. [5] Decisions to drop out would cost an additional $17,606 in basic training costs, not counting individual recruitment expenditures that are higher for women. The shrinking American Army will have to sacrifice more important things to cover these avoidable losses.

I mean.... maybe to civilians who don't deal with Army budgets very often would these numbers seem somehow daunting. Things like joes recycling at DLI also cost a lot of money, and so does WLC or whatever. Just about every training ever in the Army costs thousands of dollars. And as long as the women stay in, whether or not they can hack the MOS long-term, they will have received more combat-oriented training that they can train-the-trainer in their new POG MOS (think of intel, aka "combat arms retirement," where broken infantrymen already go to try instilling some sense of combat into young MI weenie minds).

The list also should analyze: e) Additional social service/legal specialists to deal with sexual misconduct issues extended into the combat arms

Pretty sure legal's already dealt with plenty of sexual misconduct issues in the combat arms.

Questionable decisions being made behind closed Pentagon doors, without congressional oversight, also will affect young civilian women who likely will become eligible for Selective Service obligations on an equal basis with men.

Again, is this what's actually on the table?

As for me, meh. I'm one of those broke chicks. I wouldn't be suitable for infantry, so I guess it's pretty good I score high on the Chinese DLPT. There's a big broad swath of the military available for soft-jointed fat bodies who don't ever want to meet Heartbreak Hill. I haven't made up my mind on this issue, actually. I feel hella hooah in my heart for the ladies who made it through Ranger school, and I think that having women in the force who'd achieved that level of tactical training can be an invaluable asset in regions where having a female face on your team might be of use for cultural (or straight-up honey pot) reasons. I don't really see, I don't know... the point, I guess, of making women infantry.

What I figure will go down is one day, we'll have a war on American soil again. During that time, plenty of men and women will prove themselves in said fighting, and it'll come out in the wash just how equal women have become. Opening up combat arms to chicks-- especially involuntarily placing them in combat arms units-- does strike me as more political posturing than functional at this point. I have no doubt that there are women who can do it and who want to do it, but I'm not sure whether we need to drag incapable non-volunteers along with them.