Quote from some boob named Joe Stephens: 'Let’s focus for a moment only on the third: mixed-gender units. Just why there had to be mixed-gender units was never satisfactorily established.'

Maybe you were hiding under a rock when this was debated, but the reason why the specialties a women may train in were significantly expanded was because excluding women from them was a form of employment discrimination.

Mr. Stephens probably has never served in the military, not that there's anything wrong with that. However, people who haven't served may not realize that the job you do in the military has direct correlation with the speed & numbers of promotions you can hope to obtain. It is at its most transparent in the officer ranks, but has its parallels in the enlisted ranks as well.

If you are in the Army, you want to be in a combat unit (infantry, armor, artillery, helicopters (I guess)), if you're in the USAF, you want to have something to do with flying, if you're in the Navy you want to serve in a non-submarine combat ship or be in Naval Aviation.

If you are excluded totally from those career paths, then you will not get as many promotions as those who are in those fields (generally speaking). That is why women have been allowed into various combat & combat support units. As a former USAF officer I applaud these changes. It was not right to have a whole sex relegated to 2nd class status and to suffer through lower pay/benefits simply because they don't have a penis.

As for the scum who would rape anyone (let alone a fellow member of their country's military), they should be frogmarched to Leavenworth ASAP. Other letter posters have already mentioned this (and it is a shame that this factor can be the make-or-break in whether or not a troop gets assaulted), but 'command emphasis' or how much thought the O-6/O-7 gives this problem will usually be the key to ensuring our most vulnerable troops do not get violated.

I have heard before that a nation's military is a reflection of its society. Given the cretins who brought this giant cluster-fuck to America & Iraq, this article did not surprise me.

I do hope you weren't including me when commenting about the posters to Captainlarab.

Mr. Stephens, I apologize for calling you a 'boob'.

I do feel that the employment discrimination reason for expanding the combat & combat support roles for women should trump any other reason for not expanding women's duties within our military.

These rapes are a byproduct of lack of discipline & control by the officers & NCOs within the combat area & also during the training of these offenders (you would have liked to ID some of them & get them out before you start issing them live ammo).

Several posters, not you, have given rationalizations that boli down to 'they're shooting at me & I might be killed, so I'll do whatever the hell I want' as a defense for these poor orgasmly deprived soldiers. IMO, this is utter BS. The feeling of fear is a part of combat, if you're not afraid, then you're certifiably crazy.

Am I supposed to believe that their fear is any greater than those poor Union & Confederate trops being marched in neat formations into rows of cannons & gatling guns? How about our Marines charging meticulously prepared German trenches in the Ardennes? How about heading into Iwo Jima in a tin tub, weighted down with 80 lbs of gear? I'm pretty sure these soldiers of yore weren't raping and/or sexually humiliating their female auxiliaries & fellow soldiers.

Your officers & senior NCOs are supposed to take the lead in ensuring that the men & women realize that this fear is normal & their best chance of coming through the war unscathed depends upon the maintenance of good order & discipline (especially when everybody is armed to the teeth).

Obviously, the Generals have let down our nation in this war (both before & after it began). The lower ranking officers (Colonels on down) realize this & should know they have to redouble their efforts to ensure unit cohesion & discipline are maintained at all costs. My observation is that they are failing in that mission.

Orbitboy mentioned: 'In summary: Right wing NRA wack-job owns gun and is just looking for an excuse to use it. Card-carrying ACLU member, owns no gun, and wouldn't use it even if he had one. Therein lies the difference.'

I'm a card carrying member of ACLU & I have lots of guns.

Just because you don't have a gun doesn't mean you can't have a weapon handy (hammer, club, knife, etc.). Just don't bring one of those to a gun fight ;-)

King opined: 'I love a team that has a great big guy and a great guard, and Texas has that in dynamite freshmen Kevin Durant and D.J. Augustin.'

If Mr. Augustin could learn to throw Mr. Durant the ball a little more, instead of relying on their standard play of: Augustin dribbles the ball around, goes one on four & then hope Durant gets the rebound & scores.

As for Mr. Knight, he is a real POS. The gentleman who mentioned that he gave up on doing what was necessary to get the big recruits was partially correct (IMO). Many of those recruits, starting in 80s, got a little more exposure to Knight via TV than previous generations & decided that they didn't want to play for the SOB. I mean why would you want to mess up what should be an enjoyable experience (playing college ball) by laboring for Coach Legree?

As for 'Buckeye Mike', Kentuckians do place a high premium on education. We aspire to more than working at the local porn shop.