We should not be putting women on the battlefield. However, there may be merit in compelling females to register for a military draft of sorts.
While these two statements may appear contradictory, they complement each other quite well. Modern armed forces demand that a variety of roles be filled, and many of them are not combat oriented. From logistical specialists to human resources officials, there are ample military occupational specialties that include duties outside the scope of direct conflict. These service members support combat forces, improving their effectiveness.
Reforming conscription laws to include women and only allowing them to be assigned to these noncombat specialties would free up manpower, enhancing the capabilities of the armed forces.
Some may take issue with the exclusion of women from combat roles, arguing that women are just as capable as men and should therefore be allowed to fight and die on foreign shores.
However, very few women are capable of being on par, physically, with the average male soldier. Making requirements gender specific, or lowering them overall to accommodate women, is dangerous because the feats required in the field do not become easier if you happen to be female. Further, there is substantial evidence suggesting that including women in combat units harms cohesion.
Forcing women into combat roles, which Senate Democrats are currently trying to do, would be an unmitigated disaster. If women are going to be subject to conscription, they need to be placed in noncombat roles to maintain the effectiveness of our military.
