This chick is bad-A. She’s a combat engineer who builds patrol bases. As in, she’s “sent to a grid coordinate and told to build a PB from the ground up, serving not only as the mission commander but also the base commander until the occupants (infantry units) arrived 5 days later.” In the meantime she’s in charge of base defense and leading 30 marines.

So I’m surprised she’s against further efforts to put women into combat roles. Given your intense interest in this issue, her argument is a must-read, even if (actually especially if) you disagree with it in the end. Because it’s the best argument I’ve heard on the negative side. Plus it’s just amazing to read about what she’s done and been through. The crux of her view is this:

In the end, my main concern is not whether women are capable of conducting combat operations, as we have already proven that we can hold our own in some very difficult combat situations; instead, my main concern is a question of longevity. Can women endure the physical and physiological rigors of sustained combat operations, and are we willing to accept the attrition and medical issues that go along with integration?…I can say from firsthand experience in Iraq and Afghanistan…that we haven’t even begun to analyze and comprehend the gender-specific medical issues and overall physical toll continuous combat operations will have on females.

And here’s some rebuttal, a lawsuit, and some further discussion.