Pat Buchanan Is Not Impressed

He's clearly not in agreement with new Pentagon rules about women in combat roles.

Did the young officers leading troops in battle in Afghanistan and Iraq, returning with casualties, say they needed women to enhance the fighting efficiency of their combat units and the survival rate of their soldiers?
Did men from the 101st and 82nd airborne, the Marines, the SEALs and Delta Force petition the Joint Chiefs to put women alongside them in future engagements to make them an even superior force?
No. This decision to put women in combat represents a capitulation of the military brass, a surrender to the spirit of our age, the Pentagon's salute to feminist ideology.
This is not a decision at which soldiers arrived when they studied after-action reports, but the product of an ideology that contradicts human nature, human experience and human history, and declares as dogma that women are just as good at soldiering as men.
But if this were true, rather than merely asserted, would it have taken mankind the thousands of years from Thermopylae to discover it?

There's a lot more at the link. I will say this - he makes a very valid point that there's been no data assessment comparing the combat effectiveness of non/integrated units. The data might show no change in effectiveness. It might show an increase; it might show a decrease. If it doesn't show an increase, then we're making decisions on criteria other than how effective units are in combat, and that's not always the best way to make decisions about the military. You can do it, and there might be good reasons to do it. But it's rare.

By: Brant