Two-thirds of Americans support the recent decision to allow women in combat, according to a Pew Research survey, with nearly identical percentages of men (65 percent) and women (66 percent) in favor of the change. Most say the new policy won't harm military effectiveness and see it as a move that will make opportunities better for women.

I fall on the other side of those statistics, uneasy about the prospect of sending women into the front lines of the battlefield.

I'm not the only one. Writing in the Washington Post, Kathleen Parker argued that when it comes to combat situations, women are not actually equal to men primarily because the art of war is much different than the corner office on Wall Street. Men and women can work many jobs at the same capacity with no real differences between them. Combat is a whole other ballgame.

"Arguments against women in direct combat have nothing to do with courage, skill, patriotism, or dedication," she wrote. "Most women are equal to most men in all these categories and are superior to men in many other areas, as our educational graduation rates at every level indicate. Women also tend to excel as sharpshooters and pilots."

"But ground combat is one area in which women, through quirks of biology and human nature, are not equal to men — a difference that should be celebrated rather than rationalized as incorrect."

A female active duty Marine wrote in The Weekly Standard that biology alone proves that women are not physically capable of the rigors of war at the same level as men. Something will have to give. Either men will die protecting their female comrades or the standards will be lowered, and no one will win in those situations. ...

Subscriber access only You have reached the end of this Article Preview

To continue reading, subscribe now. Subscribers have full digital access.