
The debate over whether women should serve in infantry and other direct ground combat roles has come to this: Are they physically strong enough?
I have noticed during the time that I was a member of the military that certain obstacles were tougher for women to negotiate because a woman typically lacks the upper body strength that a man has.
Upper body strength might not matter much during combat because the women who have been involved in firefights have performed admirably.
The military services have launched an extensive effort to verify the specific physical requirements needed to succeed in each of dozens of fields that had been closed to women.
The requirements for brief combat encounters such as firefights is different from then physical endurance needed for extended periods of combat. I know that troops typically don't have much time for actual physical training during the initial phase of deployment. they may have to wait for months for actual combat to begin which means that they will have lost much of their physical strength and endurance.
In the past, the debate over women in the infantry and other combat-arms fields had centered on questions of privacy or the impact on discipline of having men and women share foxholes. That may prove to be a problem but if so it won't be anything different than what the military has already seen.
Units typically have problems like this on every deployment whether the troops happen to be in combat units or not.
The military will probably do a serious job of reevaluating standards for combat troops and what they actually need to be able to do. They will also have to insure that training and tests are not biased to give males any type of unfair or unjustified advantage.
I believe that all of our troops will adapt well to this latest change. It will require some time for it to be fully implemented but in the end we will have a more modern better military force www.militaryringexpress.com
No comments:
Post a Comment