A scholar makes a definitive, controversial argument against women in combat More than 155,000 female troops have been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan since 2002. And more than seventy of those women have died. While that’s a small fraction of all American casualties, those deaths exceed the number of military women who died in Korea, Vietnam, and the Gulf War combined. Clearly, women in combat isn’t a theoretical issue anymore. Women now fly combat aircraft and serve on warships. Even the remaining all-male corners of the military are blurring the lines in Iraq. And for many advocates, this trend is considered progress—toward a better, “gender neutral” military. Co-ed Combat makes the opposite case, based on research in anthropology, biology, history, psychology, sociology, and law, as well as military memoirs. It asks hard questions that challenge the assumptions of feminists.For instance: Has warfare really changed so much as to reverse the almost unanimous history of all-male armed forces? Are men and women really equivalent in combat skills, even leaving aside physical strength? Do female troops respond to traditional types of motivations? Can the bonds of unit cohesion form in a co-ed military unit? Can an all-volunteer military afford to reject women? This is a controversial book, likely to draw a passionate response from both conservatives and liberals.

Browne makes a case against women in combat, based on research in anthropology, biology, history, psychology, sociology, and law, as well as military memoirs. It asks hard questions that challenge the assumptions of feminists. For instance: 5 Has warfare really changed so much as to reverse the almost unanimous history of all-male armed forces? 5 Are men and women really equivalent in combat skills, even leaving aside physical strength? 5 Do female troops respond to traditional types of motivations? 5 Can the bonds of unit cohesion form in a co-ed military unit? 5 Can an all-volunteer military afford to reject women?

With an important introduction by C. Everett Koop and passionate endorsements from Senator Edward M. Kennedy and public officials from every major city in the U.S., this authoritative and timely guide calls for the diagnosis and treatment of urban violence as a public health crisis.

Looks at the effect of deadly battle on the body and mind and offers new research findings to help prevent lasting adverse effects.

"What men will fight for seems to be worth looking into," H. L. Mencken noted shortly after the close of the First World War. Prior to that war, although many military commanders and theorists had throughout history shown an aptitude for devising maxims concerning esprit de corps, fighting spirit, morale, and the like, military organizations had rarely sought either to understand or to promote combat motivation. For example, an officer who graduated from the Royal Military College (Sandhurst) at the end of the nineteenth century later commented that the art of leadership was utterly neglected (Charlton 1931, p. 48), while General Wavell recalled that during his course at the British Staff College at Camberley (1909-1 0) insufficient stress was laid "on the factor of morale, or how to induce it and maintain it'' (quoted in Connell1964, p. 63). The First World War forced commanders and staffs to take account of psychological factors and to anticipate wideJy varied responses to the combat environment because, unlike most previous wars, it was not fought by relatively small and homogeneous armies of regulars and trained reservists. The mobilization by the belligerents of about 65 million men (many of whom were enrolled under duress), the evidence of fairly widespread psychiatric breakdown, and the postwar disillusion (- xiii xiv PREFACE emplified in books like C. E. Montague's Disenchantment, published in 1922) all tended to dispel assumptions and to provoke questions about mo tivation and morale.

Throughout history, women have been shielded from the heat of battle, their role limited to supporting the men who do the actual fighting. Now all that has changed, and for the first time females have taken their place on the front lines. But, do they actually belong there? A distinguished military historian answers the question with a vehement no, arguing women are less physically capable, more injury-prone, given more lenient conditions, and disastrous for morale and military preparedness. Groundbreaking and controversial.