[dc/dc]

I don't either, for all the same reasons.

Having been in combat zones twice as an embedded civilian, I've seen what this will do. It won't be pretty. Women do not even have to be attractive in the US to provide distractions for men or be sexual conquest targets. There's the "desert scale". It's real no matter what anyone says.

The other issues are mainly logistical, but nonetheless important. The four that come to mind are women that have breasts that are large enough to inhibit proper wearing of body armour and their agility, hair, fitness (as you mentioned), and emotion. Combat is emotionally stimulating, and one must quell the reaction to events occurring around them such as explosions, gunfire, death, etc. I'm not saying that one has to become callous to war, but one must be able to keep their wits about them and finish the mission. Granted, not all men can do it well either, but it's much more difficult for women. From personal experience, when under attack, most women were freaking out and hiding whilst the men were collectively securing themselves and the base.

I fully support women in the military as there is a lot they can do and they add a lot of value in our current theatres of operation, but there is no reason for them to be full combat troops.