It wouldn't be her "fault", but the potential problem is very easily rectified by not having females there in the first place. For those of us who have actually served in a combat theater, it most certainly is a compelling argument, and it's also reality. Let it be known that you were the one to try to go down that road, not I. LG, for someone who lambastes the media whenever they take up the liberal cause du jour, I'm honestly suprrised that you're falling for this social engineering madness. I don't know who told you, or where you developed the notion, that females are equal to males in physical strength, stature, and endurance. The inconvenient truth is that in general, men are stronger, and can run faster & longer than women. That's such a basic fact that it's not even worth arguing about, but look no further than the diminished PT standards for females in both the military and for entrance to the police academy, and the different categories for amateur and professional sports. Why do you suppose there are no women in the NHL, NFL, MLB, or NBA? How many men finish the Boston Marathon before the first woman crosses the finish line? I'll ask again, for what, the 5th time? What benefit does it bring the United States Armed Forces to allow females in front line combat units? Since you can't/won't answer, I'll answer my own question. Absolutely nothing.....there are positively no potential benefits whatsoever, other than appeasing the "I am woman, hear me roar" crowd. What problems does it bring? The morale killer of fraternization, the hassle of separate living accommodations, and decreased combat efficiency due to having soldiers that are not as physically capable as everyone else. Is all that hassle and danger really worth it in order to appease a miniscule minority? The United States Armed Forces are the finest in the world....there is absolutely no need or benefit to change it through liberal social engineering.