I can personally remember the distinct difference between being under direct fire during convoy ambush, and clearing enemy forces during house-to-house fighting. During the former, the mission was to fire back and move out of the ambush. However, during operations directed against the enemy, the mission is to physically close with the enemy to kill or capture. Rough, bloody, mean fighting. Though many in the unit may not spent substantial time in actual Infantry combat, the entire unit must be imbued with the mindset and cohesiveness required. As Infantry Officer and Commander of all Forces during Desert Storm, “Stormin Norman” bravely told Congress, the Army needs “a combat exclusion, not based on women`s rights but on the fighting ability of the armed forces.” History and even modern examples give us reason to question the wisdom of assigning men and women together in Infantry battalions. Forces like the Israeli Army, which must keep forces at the height of efficiency to survive, have experimented with gender integration and yet pulled back. It just did not prove combat effective for the Infantry battalions.

I expect many to claim “sexism” and read this as some kind of “slight” against the service of women. I intend nothing of the sort. Women have served bravely in those branches and positions open to them. Clearly, women have proven the equal worth of men in many areas. However, as biology and common sense make clear, men and women are distict. This is particularly the case when it comes to the physical nature of brutal Infantry ground combat. A problem comes with the Media’s portrayal of operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Seldom does the average American learn about the nuances of the branches within the different Armed services and distinctions I have mentioned.