If you were really genuine about this 'band of brothers' concept, Babette, you would be arguing for the return to its real origin – the Sacred Band of Thebes, the one where the elite troop of fighters consisted of 150 pairs of male lovers.

Would make for an interesting change in modern military force recruitment tests…

No reason for a willingness to fight and die to be other than gender neutral – as opposed to gender inclusive or interchangeable – so long as it's not compulsory on any individual.

Besides, if you doubt the abilities of females in combat, just try kicking a dykes-on-bikes' ride out from under her.

I can't see why anyone would want to engage in combat, but if anyone DOES want to then I don't see that their gender is a reason to exclude them. Since the modern military already spends billions of dollars on weapons systems that don't require physical strength to deploy and use, it would surely be hypocritical to turn around bar anyone from using them because they didn't have that strength.

As for the 'band of brothers' argument -- really? in this day and age? What's next? Should we try and ban women from combat because there are no female toilets in the Afghan desert?

There is a fairly standard test for front-line grunt. Which may include a very long run in full battle gear, followed by picking up a comrade and their gear; and running a hundred metres or so with them.
Then jump over a 2 metre wide ditch, climb a 4 metre wall, run along a 20 metre narrow beam, climb over a 6 metre cargo net, run through a couple of dozen tyres, work your way on on your gut under/over a wet muddy obstacle course, perhaps with a few live rounds cracking overhead, then shinny up a long rope and finish with some live fire at simulated moving targets.
Necessary, given a front-line soldier, operating in the field, may have to undertake a forced march of up to a hundred kilometres, at the drop of a hat, carrying all essential equipment with him or her, over rough terrain no vehicle can negotiate.
The only requirement, is they be strong enough and fast enough, naturally robust enough, and fit enough to complete a forced tactical withdrawal, under battlefield conditions, without compromising their ability or that of a platoon, to efficiently engage the enemy.
Moreover, they should never become a source of distraction, above what might be considered normal, minus any gender issues; but particularly, when on patrol or operating behind enemy lines!
The job statement for a soldier, boils down to kill or be killed, and look after your mates!
Therefore, every soldier, needs must be also emotionality strong, tough, uncompromising, clinically engaged and able to follow lawful orders professionally!
They cannot lose their resolve or their bottle, just because the leader is swearing or shouting orders!
They must never faint at the first sight of blood or human entrails, etc/etc.
Battlefields are often or routinely full of such sights and the often almost unendurable sounds and smells, that accompany them!
Aside from all that, gender or gender bias should never ever be an issue!
Rhrosty.

My son doesn't like "girls" on navy ships. He also hates stupidity.

During an overhaul period he was assigned 2 female stokers, [engineer types]. He soon found that at least one of them was in the way where ever he went.

To get rid of one for a while, he told one to take a cylinder head out of the engine room, & load it onto a truck, wharf side. She informed him it was heavier than regulations permitted her to lift. Beauty he thought, & sent the other to help.

Naval ships are not easy things to get around, particularly with 2 people carrying one thing. For these young ladies, just getting through a water tight door required 5 applications of a chain block, [lifting equipment], & about 2 hours. There were many of these, & 4 decks to traverse.

Two days later, when the other 11 heads were off, he assigned 2 male ratings to load all of them on the truck. When they had finished, they went back & helped the ladies complete loading theirs.

Moral, don't assignee girls to a man’s job, don't assignee them to men who expect people to work, not watch, & for god’s sake, don't go to fight with girls in the way.

Gee's I'm getting sick and tired of this business where some women wish to be involved in combat roles ? Not just being close to the 'wire', being outside the bloody thing !

You and your section go forth for a 7 day patrol 'outside the wire' there are no niceties for a female, everyone does what he does. The bloke on the M60 carries several hundred rds of belt 7.62, around his neck, his offsider carries the bulk of the belted stuff. It's so hot you can barely breathe, sweat makes every bit of your material black with perspiration and you stink. You take a leak where and when you can, and most of us had severe rashes in our groins, our arse area, under our scrotums, our packs are so damn heavy that rashes appear where the straps grind with friction against skin.

You defecate when possible, oh yeah diarrhoea is fun too, and not being able to wipe yourself properly after, is a real barrel of laughs also ! Particularly with these bloody rashes you get. The part that I loved best was the monsoon. Cooling, but bloody hot and steamy after the rains.

So imagine for a moment ladies, trying to maintain your own personal hygiene measures every month, as well as your daily needs, coupled with EVERYTHING above...? WELL ALL THAT'S THE GOOD PART !

The bad part is the 'contacts', the 'ambushes', working with the 'ginger beers' setting up our friendly 'Claymores' ? Not a very nice way to spend you day I'd like you to know ?

OK, if the ladies want to try 'working outside the wire' ? Well let them.

any one interested in truth only needs to see the diaster and joke of having young females on the beat in Sydney and Melbourne. Talk about downgrading and disrespecting the role of policing.