Get help with any kind of assignment - from a high school essay to a PhD dissertation
"In a perfect world, each U.S. soldier could be an asexual brute using a high IQ who doesn't eat much, is proficient at following orders and leery of challenging authority" (Thompson). So far as humankind is concerned, there have never been some troops like that anywhere on the planet, let alone the United States military. Therefore, the standards for enlisting in army combat positions are as large as possible to ensure that we may create soldiers which are effective as such "perfect-world" soldiers. There are obviously men and women that aren't able to fulfill these criteria, but there are also men and women who are highly capable of meeting and/or exceeding these standards. When some individuals feel that the biological differences between men and women in battle would put our army at a disadvantage, evidence and logic prove they are misinformed. Women in battle are able to fulfill many front line jobs already, aren't at any greater risk of death than living a civilian lifestyle at home, and also have the right to struggle in the exact same level as their counterparts if they are capable of meeting the criteria for conflict. Still, there are still people who insist that women don't rely to the front lines. Former Army Ranger, Roger Chapman, argues that "it's about winning a war, not providing an opportunity. At the end of the day it is about national security" (Musgrave). He believes that letting women participate in combat is not practical because of our military and may ultimately be a disadvantage. Others add that the accession of women to the battlefront will cause the criteria for soldiers to be "gender-neutral" being that they have a different body type. A report from the Congressional Research stated t.. .