The troops are therefore empowered and are in duty bound in this war to use without mitigation even against women and children any means that will lead to success.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
I think women are too valuable to be in combat.
In the business of war, the role of women is really to maintain normalcy and ensure that there is cultural continuity.
In the 360-degree battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, women have served honorably and fought valiantly. Yet there is a key difference between being in harm's way and reacting to enemy contact, and being in a direct combat operations role day in and day out. They are different scenarios that require different standards.
If we want the most effective fighting force, we need to pick the most qualified capable man for the job, even if it's a woman.
As a woman, especially when you have children, one gets so good at soldiering on - almost too good.
Might it not be that a great force that has always been thinking in terms of human needs, and that always will think in terms of human needs, has not been mobilized? Is it not possible that the women of the country have something of value to give the nation at this time?
I think if we understand better the impact of war on women and children, we might be more careful about the wars we start.
There's full consensus in the military that women shouldn't be in person-to-person combat. I don't know if we have enough experience to know whether this is the right approach. But women can be elsewhere. We have mandatory military service in Chile. I pushed for women in all areas.
Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society.
Women are needed in the military because there aren't enough soldiers, and we're seeing more women serve.