Care of Proph of The Orthosphere:
The U.S. military has largely been an arm of the welfare state for at least the last 30 years, so this is hardly surprising. Objections to the effect that women in combat will harm military readiness are probably technically correct but miss the point. Promoting military readiness isn’t what the left is interested in here. What they want is to extend government benefits (e.g., hazard pay) to a segment of the population that doesn’t currently get them, at least not the same extent men do, and to provide employment for the otherwise-unemployable, which includes both low-IQ proletarians and second-sigma types with their government-subsidized bachelor’s degrees in diversity studies from Northwestern Nevada State Teachers’ College.
Remember, more people in the military = more people employed, so the leftist bureaucracy gets to claim it wins. More people in the military also = more pressure to justify the expense of military spending by invading increasingly insignificant nations posing increasingly illusory threats, so the left wins again. “Conservatives” get their hard-on from increased military spending, so they get to claim a win, too. Muslims and probably some day Russians (might) lose out, but who gives a crap about them, right?
By the way, while I do agree with the assessment that this harms military readiness (though not by much, at least not by much more than the already-existing sexualizaiton of the military, ludicrous and constantly shifting rules of engagement, etc., already have), objectively, that’s probably a good thing. Since America is the single most powerful force for evil in the world, and this evil is mediated in part by American military force, whatever weakens the American military will, ipso facto, lessen our capacity to aggressively export evil. Will someone like Putin be more afraid, less afraid, or equally as afraid of America now as before? We all know the answer.