Crickets.
This was the sound of the United States reacting to
news this month that all military positions, including ground combat, will be opened to women.
It is axiomatic that the White House, and not
just this one, makes controversial announcements when people are
otherwise distracted. Usually, this means late Friday afternoons when
there isn’t much time for the media to make trouble. This particular
announcement came on a Thursday, the day after two vicious killers
opened fire on a holiday party in San Bernardino, Calif.
Ever since, all eyes have been on the assault and aftermath, as well
as the antics of Donald Trump, while the notion of women in combat faded
from the nation’s peripheral vision.
Arguments against this move are many, some of which I touched upon in
a previous column
that focused on women’s unequal opportunity to survive because of
various physical differences. This time, I submit another crucially
important but politically incorrect proposition: Men’s lives will also
be put at greater risk if women are in combat.
The
reasoning should be obvious. Plainly put, men tend to like women quite a
lot and either will be tempted to express their attraction, and/or will
want to protect their female companions.
Scoff if you must, but blame Nature.
Any combat veteran will tell you that unit
cohesion is everything in battle. Common sense tells us that putting
young men and women in the prime of their sexual lives together in the
field, where the possibility of death is potentially imminent, is a
potential — and unnecessary — gamble on unit cohesion. There is, after
all, nothing like a funeral to remind the living of their mortal
imperative.
Sexual tension is a most
delightful distraction in civilian life. But in close quarters, where
men likely would vastly outnumber the few women who qualify for combat,
other human emotions — envy, jealousy and resentment — enter into a fray
that’s already complicated enough.