(Tried to post this comment at the original blog, but was prohibited due to questionable content.)

In every unit of any level there will be at least one male member who cannot shake a sense of chivalry, and in almost as many, at least one male member who would become enamored of a female member in the same unit. During times in combat when every member must make an all out effort in order to survive, let alone prevail, every unit will have at least one member keeping as close an eye on the female they feel protective of, or affection toward, as on their own piece of the battle equation.

Males in combat are in a situation and a condition where bestial impulses are stronger, and harder to control. This is not to say that rape would be on the increase, but that the emotional drives enhanced by testosterone production are harder to ignore, particularly the concept of defending women, and of experiencing a romantic involvement.

Military members in combat situations do not need personal distractions, or the loss of focus of other team members.

Proponents of even the option of women in combat are almost exclusively civilians, and women in the military who have never been in combat, but believe (without evidence) that they are just as capable as the men.

In response to Patriot-X, there’s also always one member of every unit at every unit that can’t shake his racism, but that doesn’t justify keeping minorities out of military units (although that was tried, remember, and with the same argument you’re making here).

If women can’t cut the standards required for ground combat roles, then they shouldn’t be there. But denying all women simply on the basis of gender is not only wrong but wrong for the military: any organization that doesn’t utilize all of it’s personnel to the fullest of their abilities is shrinking it’s options for the worse.