Co-Ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars

The author was right on. Let's face some facts people. The military is around for one reason - to kill the enemy and break things. Here's another fact, the volunteer military is a joke. There is no way it could sustain its quotas without letting in females. What are we going to do one day when we actually fight an enemy that really knows what they're doing; like the Germans, or the Japanese, or the Soviets? It's going to be a nightmare, and no amount of smoke and mirrors power point presentations or sensitivity training is going to hide the fact that women shouldn't be anywhere near any shot and shell. As for me, I knew it was time to ETS when I was at the Burger Bar in Frankfurt one day in 1993. I saw two female soldiers, one was pregnant and the other was pushing a baby in a stroller. Both sported combat patches from the famed 101st Airborne Division. I shook my head and thought of a certain night jump over Normandy, Bastogne and Hamburger Hill. What is our PC military going to do when we have to land on another Omaha Beach? It's going to be a slaughter, sorry to say. It's time to stop drinking the Kool-Aid and to return the military back to the way it was always supposed to be, for males.

Kingsley Browne's book is the latest evolution of the buyer's remorse whic those who are concerned with the readiness of the United States military have had since women were first integrated on a large scale level in the 1970s. If Brian Mitchell's "Women in the Military" coalesced my own doubts and observations about female policy and Stephanie Gutmann's "The Kinder, Gentler Military" reinforced them, then Browne's effort updates and solidifies them. It is the first serious book on the matter since the US military was committed to the Global War on Terror and therefore either very timely or somewhat overdue. For those on the margins looking for either a robust rejection of feminism or an excuse to ignore his thesis because it is inherently anti-woman will both be sorely disappointed. Quite frankly, it is the most dispassionate exhortation for us to take a second and honest look at our laws and policies that I have read on the subject. With a topic that generates a lot of heat on both sides, perhaps it is Browne's profession (law) which allows him to lay out the argument for reconsideration in such a logical, unemotional and, ultimately, compelling manner. Browne catalogues a long list of reasons why women should be barred in direct ground combat. Much of the information is established -if conveniently forgotten by bureaucrats and politicians-and some of it, if not new, has at least gone largely unmentioned in the past. Browne reminds us that pregnancy rates, sexual misconduct, double standards, cohesion problems, POW issues, and leadership differences all contribute to an integration problem that cannot be wished away with training or regulations. That he resists the temptation to consider the broader argument about women in the military only enhances the value of his argument. At best, he concludes, it makes for a dysfunctional organization, at worst, it costs lives. My only two criticisms with the book are minor. The subtitle "New Evidence that Women Shouldn't Fight The Nation's Wars" is a bit misleading. There is not a whole lot that is new; it is mostly older arguments laid out in his format and updated with newer data and examples. The other is not so much a criticism as it is an observation on format. Like Warren Farrell's books (The Myth of Male Power), he goes to great lengths to include each and every argument available which supports his conclusion however each comes across as abridged. The result is a dissertation which is a yard wide but only an inch deep. The book could easily have been twice as long had he decided to be more thorough in each topic, but it also would have been less readable and probably redundant to other books of the same theme. His discipline in scope and scale appears to have been the right combination. Browne's argument leads to one uncomfortable conclusion: we should roll back the loosened laws and regulations that put women in combat situations. In his conclusion, he addresses not only the "what"

This new book by Kingsley Browne is an excellent review of the latest physcial, psychological, and experiential reasons for keeping women out of the combat arms. He does not denigrate anyone's service, including many women who have been wounded in combat, as has been suggested. He does require readers to give up certain myths that he explodes, but especially that women and men are interchangeable. He does not conclude that there are no women capable of meeting the standards of modern combat, but that they are few and far between. He does point out that even though a few rare women might be able to meet the present combat standards it would still change the relationship of soldiers in the field from one of philia to one of eros. He points out that team work and esprit-de-corps or male-bonding is what creates the camaradery which makes men kill and if necessary die for each other. The introduction of women into this all-male enclave would change the relationships and reduce male-bonding and because of that combat effectiveness. He is quite right when he remarks that combat effectiveness should be the only issue with regard to any change to the combat arms of the US military. Those who claim to be disgusted by a book they haven't read should read the book, and then think about the nature of war and what combat effectiveness means.

This book should be read by every member of congress. It is an excellent piece of work that is very well documented with both facts and real world stories. This book dares to say something non PC and it should be applauded for that by itself. So much nowadays the mere thought enrages the liberals. This book stands in defiance of that plight. The book deals with the issue of a coed military as it is. It doesn't criticize the women but addresses the issue as what it is, God made differences. Frequently the women work harder than the guys. The problems come with how females and males interact, especially when young and of child bearing years. It is hard to concentrate on winning the war then. Also women tend not to have the aggressiveness necessary to close with the enemy and kill them nor the upper body strength to stay in the field for very long. Look at Iraq now. There isn't much of a push button safe military there. The threat effects everyone equally. These differences are undermining combat efficiency in the name of political correctness. Those false Gods might work well in the everyday work place but doesn't work to well in combat. The military in a combat zone is totally different than anything else. You are there 24/7. Everything else is different. You get to go home or have a break in those occupations. These differences between the sexes as documented in the book are so deep it can't be "trained" away. We have 30 years of experiences now that proves that point. The only thing that hides the shortfalls is how the intensity of combat has been less than in previous wars. To prove the point compare casualty lists from Vietnam vs now. As a Veteran myself I can relate and verify the stories in the book. I urge people to read this book. The book talks about the difficulty of mixing females and males in the harsh military world. This difficulty has resulted in lowering of standards in the interest of furthering the cause, not winning the wars. Officers don't dare do anything about the issue or they face the wrath of feminism. The book has several stories about all of this. No one is talking about the war babies or the love boats from coed crews either but this book is. These babies also have hidden costs. The Government ends up paying for delivery and that usually takes a trained person out of the force. The military is suffering from the horrors of feminism now but in a way so is all of society. The Army just reflects the society which it comes from. The issues here have wide ranging implications. As females have entered the work force our nation's culture has changed correspondingly.

Excellent and well done. It is about time someone wrote a book like this. The data presented in this book mirrors very closely my military experience as an active duty chemical officer in the mid 1980's. This book is well researched (anyway as well as a topic like this can be researched when certain groups are trying desperately to hide the truth) yet at the same time an enjoyable read. Although educational on many levels it is not dry and boring. The author uses enough real life examples and vignettes to keep things interesting even for those who are not just interested in the military, current affairs, or politics. The main criticism I would make of this work is that it assumes that the same (or very similar) costs do not exist in other areas (ie. medicine). I would suggest that this book be required reading for any politician who has anything to do with the military, all officer courses, and all the military academies.