Inspiration for the post: a conversation about women in combat roles and the relative physical advantage men have as regards the demands and energy required by related combat training programs and evaluations.
Problem: there may be more required across the “combat” or war fighting spectrum than the agility and strength so tested in training — and at times demonstrated in the field — as well as admired for entertainment and, perhaps, general cultural inspiration.
Variable not mentioned in this lopsided patch of talk: the span of combat mission roles. Regarding the “grunt” – okay, that’s the old industrial steel-driving guy at war and in the mess in big numbers.
From the Awesome Conversation (FTAC)
This is for fun:
But this has been perhaps the changing face of war:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-45295212 (On Japan’s first female combat pilot).
The real question for the west . . . perhaps for western men and women . . . is how fast does everyone want to skidaddle back into the medieval world and its competitive frames?
Assignment / mission definition may be more the controlling variable for who goes where, not for who has ability, agility, ambition, courage, determination, discipline, etc. under stress of battle.
At the moment, the modern enemies are medieval scourges, i.e., feudal absolute powers (like Assad) and their manipulated hornets (like ISIS).
I hesitate on posting because I know (confession: from the armchair) that “field operations” have been complex as well as irrevocably changed by technologies, assets, and strategies (and politics) throughout. Is the drone’s remote jockey in front line combat? With relation to terrorist “actions”, where isn’t the front? For that matter, what isn’t combat in the age of “Hybrid Warfare” and “Information Warfare”?