Should G.I. Jane fight in combat?

There has been a robust debate (in which I have participated) on Andrew Sullivan's blog about whether women should serve in combat. As a former combat-arms Marine officer, I don't have a problem with the idea ― provided would-be female warriors can hack it physically and psychologically. The PT requirements alone will eliminate most women from consideration (as it does for some men). One Sullivan reader had a similar (albeit less nuanced) take:

"As a male veteran and someone who used to teach this debate to future military officers, I've always found such arguments very easy to counter. The physical differences between the genders ... are undeniable. But, of course, they are not universal. There are some women I served with who are stronger than me, faster than me, and could kick my ass. (And that's saying something: I was a wrestler in college.) So the answer to this is simple (and every man and woman I served with agreed, as I can recall): Figure out what the physical standards for combat are, and then just have that one standard for men and women both. If most women cannot meet those standards, so be it. Many men won't be able to meet them either. But some people will be able to meet those demanding physical standards - and some of those people will be women. Why is this so hard? One physical standard for both men and women. Whoever meets it can go to combat. End of story."

Well, not quite. I too have known some steely-eyed female Marines who could probably kick my butt from here to next Tuesday. But it's not as simple as the reader portrays it. War is not a movie. In reality, war has always been a hellish Globe Theater tailor-made for cruel actors. They operate best in situations usually characterized as FUBAR, which are frequent. And sadly, war routinely invites the worst in men (See any war of your choosing since the Bronze Age). So I'm a bit surprised Sullivan's readers have been dancing around the 800-pound gorilla in this debate: What happens when a female soldier or Marine is captured in battle?

To put it bluntly, some will almost surely be brutally raped. The greater the number of females in infantry-type units, the greater the odds some will be captured. The mathematical probability of abuse is therefore exponential. The experience of Maj. Rhonda Cornum in the Persian Gulf War (she was raped by an Iraqi soldier as she lay wounded) is just one example of why chivalry, if it ever actually existed, is long dead. The specter of sexual abuse probably lies at the heart of why some oppose employing women in combat. It's entirely understandable. It gives me pause as well. Are we as a society ready to cope with this special kind of collateral damage on a potentially larger scale? If we (and the women we ask to serve in war) can live with this grisly reality, then, yes, open the combat arms to those brave females who can meet the requirements. But let all of us ― tough, would-be G.I. Janes included ― walk into this Brave New World with our eyes open. Know that ugly risks are involved.