When Pete Hegseth again brought up the point of women serving in combat, the left went nuts again. As for me, it is a matter of what our goals are. Do we want to provide equity for women in the armed services, or do we want a military that is best able to defend us.

I have heard it before and again. However, I was in the Marines. I know. In case after case, allowances must be made for women. I am simply not going to go into details. It is causal to the most obvious observer. If women are put into combat positions, it will weaken the military. However, if it is really your goal to see to it that the women get their chance at carrying forty pound mortars, fine, have at it. (just out of curiosity, how many women do you know who can carry a 40 pound mortar as well as a fifty pound pack more than feet.)

My best suggestion for you is the following. Train the women in separate outfits. Let them compete to see if they can deal with the problems of war as well as the men. It would have a secondary advantage. If the men were all killed, then the women would not only be desperate, but they would also have the training. It would serve as something of a backup for plan A.

The fact of the matter is, though, the outfits that are totally women would not be able to fight as well. Worse, you mix the women in with the men, neither will the men.

However, if you are going to try to tell me that a woman is going to be able carry her weapon and ammo as well as strap a fifty pound pack on her back and keep up with the men running up and down hills, or through 3 foot deep swamps, it is simply not going to happen.

Then again, if it is your goal to put women in combat, no matter what, fine. The men will help pick up the extra weight, which will certainly slow them down.