Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars

This is one of the best books on the issue of putting women into combat along side men. Most Americans know nothing of military history or how warfare is waged. I read some of the negative reviews of this book and they are typical of those who argue for women in combat; they are emotional and not based on reason. If women are suited for combat and are natural warriors then the question must be asked: why, throughout all of history, has there never been an army of females formed to conquer another culture or people (or even to overthrow their oppressors)? If women had the warrior mentality and proclivity they certainly would have done so. Can the naysayers of Mr. Browne's book really envision a scenario (as he described) of an army of women storming the beaches of Normandy or the sands of Iwo Jima? The thought is ludicrous. This leads to the next logical question. What would be a superior fighting force; an army of all males or an army of all females? If an all male army is superior then how does adding women to the army make it better? A good analogy can be made with the game of football which requires (much like a combat fighting force) physical strength, aggressiveness, the ability to fight through injuries (and resistance to injury), the willingness to sacrifice oneself for the good of the team, the willingness to take extreme risks, and the willingness to brutalize your opponent. What is a superior football team; an all male football team or an all female football team? If an all male team is better then how does adding women to the team make it better? I will even go so far as to say that any top boy's high school football team would easily defeat a trained team of the best female athletes in the world. This is how great are the disparities of physical strength and aggression between men and women. Continuing with the sports analogy I would only agree to putting women in combat if they had their own, separate female only units just like basketball has the WNBA. This would solve all of the problems with pregnancy, issues of sexual harassment, and the issues of male/female relationships or romance. Why has no feminist or those who want to put women into combat proposed this? Because they know that, as a group, an all female combat unit would be a disastrous fighting force. To get a woman's perspective on this issue, people should read Stephanie Gutmann's book, "The Kinder, Gentler Military". I also suggest googling an article by Marine Capt. Katie Petronio published in the Marine Corps Gazette titled, "Get Over It, We Are Not All Created Equal" in which she recounts her experiences in combat zones in Afghanistan. Men and women are not interchangeable, but this concept is being taught in our schools and universities.

Kingsley Browne's book tells the truth about the disaster awaiting us as we acquiesce to relentless and focused political efforts to place women in combat. With a bibliography of 28 pages, his research is both broad and deep, and his entire text well documented. Fortunately for the reader, he makes no concessions to political correctness. He honestly examines natural differences between men and women, as well as the nature of warfare, then in a scholarly and unemotional manner tells us how and why placing women in combat would hurt unit cohesion, military leadership, discipline, and manning of the armed forces. He addresses the issues without concessions to post-modern sensibilities and with complete candor based on the facts of his research. I wish he would have also addressed the social issues caused for the civilian world by placing women in combat, such as who do we draft when war comes: mom, dad, or both? This book will give the ammunition needed for those who instinctively know placing women in combat is a bad idea, but don't have the specifics to support their intuition. Browne gives all the facts and details you need. Unfortunately, the people who need to read this will not, because their actions are based on ideology rather than common sense.

This book takes on a modern day touchy subject and does it masterfully. The author backs it all up with facts; evidence. Unfortunately, in this modern day world of "perception is everything" ... the facts get tossed aside. Military folks should read this book; study this book and then fight to bring "reality" back into the conversation.

No brainer. Women do not belong and should not be allowed in combat roles. Not now, not ever and the only people pushing for it are politicians who have never put on the uniform, rucked 12 miles with 60lbs, fought through blisters, slept in the most uncomfortable places and that’s not even referencing being in a combat zone let alone consistently engaging the enemy.

Spent twelve years in the infantry, eight on active duty back in the early 70s.Well written and researched work. I found it an easy read but thoughtful in the way it dealt with a most difficult topic. Many people stress the physical issues but doing work in the combat arms, especially the infantry and special operations has had to adapt and lower standards across the board; the higher ups have just dealt with the politics of social-political correctness.

This book is a wealth of facts and information that identifies the several serious problems with women in combat. This should contribute to the debate, but there is hardly any debate on this important subject. Why? The political actors forcing these changes on the military suppress debate. They also suppress collecting data that would allow for a more detailed and complete analysis. They are unconcerned with the impact on military effectiveness. They are social engineers and the military is their petri dish for conducting experiments on human beings. Men and women will die.

Here's a serious, well-resoned study which busts all the myths about women in combat. Kingsley Browne clears away all the hype and politically correct nonsense. A must for anyone who wants to be able to discuss the subject unemotionally.