FILE - In this Jan. 3, 1990 file photo. Capt. Linda L. Bray, 29, from Butner, N.C., with the 988th Military Police Company from Fort Benning, Ga., poses in the Army's Quarry Heights base in Panama City, Panama. Bray led 30 MPs in an attack on Panamanian Defense Forces kennels the night of the American invasion, resulting in intense combat with PDF soldiers and a cache of weapons captured. She is the first woman to lead U.S. troops into battle. In 1991 she resigned her commission after an Army investigation questioned her report of the battle. (AP Photo, File)
It must be true what they say about women - that they're smarter, stronger, wiser and wilier than your average Joe.
How else can you explain the magical thinking that apparently has prompted Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to abandon all reason and lift the ban on women in direct combat?
Methinks the boys have been outmaneuvered.
This is a terrible idea for reasons too numerous to list. The most salient point happens to be a feminist argument: Women, because of their inferior physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival.
More on this, but first, let's be clear. Arguments against women in direct combat have nothing to do with courage, skill, patriotism or dedication. 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.
Remember, we're not talking about female officers of a certain age pacing the hallways of the Pentagon when we speak of placing women in combat, though perhaps we should be. My favorite bumper sticker remains: "I'm out of estrogen and I have a gun."
We're potentially talking about 18-year-old girls, notwithstanding their "adult" designation under the law. (Parents know better.) At least 18-year-old males have the advantage of being gassed up on testosterone, the hormone that fuels not just sexual libido but, more to the point, aggression. To those suffering a sudden onset of the vapors, ignore hormones at your peril.
Now, hold the image of your 18-year-old daughter, neighbor, sister or girlfriend as you follow these facts, which somehow have been ignored in the advancement of a fallacy.
The fallacy is that, because men and women are equal under the law, they're equal in all endeavors and should have all access to the same opportunities.
This is true, except when the opportunity requires certain characteristics. Fact: Females have only half the upper-body strength as males - no small point in the field.
Further to the fallacy is the operating assumption that military service is just another job. The rules of civil society don't apply to the military, which is a top-down organization in which the rules are created to maximize efficiency in killing enemies.
It's not just another job that can be managed with the human resources department's Manual on Diversity and Sensitivity.
The argument that women's performance on de facto front lines in Iraq and Afghanistan has proved concerns about combat roles unwarranted is false logic. Just because women in forward support companies can return fire when necessary - or die - doesn't necessarily mean they're equal to men in combat.
Unbeknownst perhaps to many civilians, combat has a very specific meaning in the military. It has nothing to do with stepping on an IED or suffering the consequences of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It means aggressively engaging and attacking the enemy with deliberate offensive action, with a high probability of face-to-face contact.
If the enemy is all around you - and you need every available person - that's one set of circumstances. To ask women to engage vicious men and risk capture under any other is beyond understanding.
This isn't a movie or a game. Every objective study has argued against women in direct combat for reasons that haven't changed.
The threat to unit cohesion should require no elaboration. But let's leave that obvious point to pedants and cross into enemy territory where somebody's 18-year-old daughter has been captured.
No one wants to imagine a son in these circumstances either, obviously, but women face special tortures. And, no, the rape of men has never held comparable appeal.
We can train our men to ignore the screams of their female comrades, but is this the society we want to create?
And though some female veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have endured remarkable suffering, their ability to withstand or survive violent circumstances is no rational argument for putting American girls and women in the hands of enemy men.
It will kill us in the end.
- Kathleen Parker: email@example.com