Opinion

Women in war roles: Will standards nosedive?

The Issue: The Pentagon’s recent decision to lift the official ban on women in combat roles in the military.

***

I found “Sergeant Rock-ette” surprisingly even-handed, given the opening line (Ralph Peters, PostOpinion, Jan. 24).

I appreciated Peters’ background as well, which lent some legitimacy to already reasonable and correct points.

I am active-duty Navy, and I have served with some very competent women. While I think that, in society in general, gender should not restrict opportunities, I did agree with the National Review: “The US military is neither a social-justice project nor a laboratory for feminist innovation: Its job is to secure the national-security interests of the United States.”

If standards can be maintained, then we may have a solid foundation for this plan. That’s a big “if.” Zachary Stevens

Layton, Utah

After seeing the nuanced changes in my husband after his second deployment to Iraq, I am convinced that women should continue to be excluded from serving on the front lines.

I was shocked that our current administration decided to take a big leap backward, further eroding the American family. Women were uniquely created to bring forth life into this world and should never be trained to take life from it.

Now the children who depend on that nurturing bond can expect to sadly welcome their beloved soldier-mommies home in flag-covered caskets, as a part of this administration’s new equal-opportunity program. Camille Olive

Galena, Mo.

While I agree with Peters’ stance on women in combat, it will not happen the way he wishes.

I don’t expect a positive outcome when the first women try out for the Rangers or SEALs. They will be given multiple chances to pass, while a man will be gone at the first sign of weakness.

I now look forward to Congress amending the Selective Service Act to require that 18-year-old women register. It’s only fair, since women now have the opportunity to serve in the same combat positions in which men formally held a monopoly. Marshall Miller

Piedmont, SD

Peters is wrong: The decision to allow women to apply for combat positions is purely political.

It will inevitably lead to the degradation of US combat units. The politically trendy concept of equality is not equality of opportunity, but equality of outcome.

This means gutless politicians will look at demographics and statistics and demand a more favorable outcome, leading, as it always does in the fantasy land of progressive thought, to a two-tier system of standards, with one that is less stringent for women.

Women should be in a Marine rifle company when there is a woman playing forward for the New York Rangers. Until that day, let’s put combat units on the battlefield that are simply the best, not bogus social experiments. Peter Killie

Ridgefield, Conn.

Peters and our government need to ask Israel whether having women in combat is a good thing.

If women were just as good as men in combat, wouldn’t nations all over the world have been using them that way since ancient times? After all, in most societies in the world, women have been property or second-class citizens. Why not cannon fodder?

Elizabeth Mulgrew

Upper Darby, Pa.

I agree that if women want to join the infantry, then they should be allowed. However, the military will lower standards and kill any sensible assessment of women in combat. Political correctness upends logic and common sense.

The debate on this issue should have been done in public, including guarantees that the standards would not be lowered. Matthew Porraro

Basking Ridge, NJ