It may not be politically correct, but Kingsley Browne raises some legitimate concerns about the wisdom of women in combat in his new book, Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars.” Kingsley is a Professor of Law at Wayne State University and teaches about discrimination in the workplace.

More than 80 women have been killed in Iraq and more than 500 wounded, some seriously. Some of them were performing support roles and some were in the thick of combat. I must admit that thinking about a women lying bleeding and maimed on the road to Baghdad, makes me cringe. I can’t imagine looking at some of the recent WWII movies like “Saving Private Ryan” with women on the front line getting blown to bits. Is this difference in reaction, just me? Is it discrimination? Or is it just the way we are as men and women?

The obvious point that Kingsley makes is the fact that in virtually every other job that involves physical exertion, there tends to be an almost natural division of jobs between the sexes. Why are most trash collectors men? Why most nurses women? Why most farmers men? Is it a matter of discrimination, or just a natural preference of one type of job over another. The point is that we don’t see a need to encourage women to go into jobs that they generally do not choose, so why is the military so concerned about eliminating the same kind of distinctions in job assignments between men and women, particularly in combat zones.

In the name of equality, we are placing women is situations where their physical strength is an obvoius negative factor in their performance. Women may well be able and willing to drive support vehicles in a combat zone where the threat of death is real. But, if and when that ambush comes, no amount of desire and courage will necessarily allow a woman to lift the 500 lbs. of vehicle that is crushing her comrade to death. Thus, it is hard to deny that the presence of a woman in such a situation may make a tangible difference in survival.

And then there is the situation where the safety of a woman is threatened in a combat zone. Can we deny there is a natural tendancy for the male to protect the female. In a combat zone, if an injured comrade were a man, he might be left to deal with a threatening situation on his own. In the same situation, additional risks might be taken to protect or extricate a woman from danger. A mission could well be jeopardized by the presence of a woman and this is not a negative reflection on either sex, as much as it is a recognition of that inherent difference between the sexes.

Kingsley highlights three generally recognized differences between the sexes:

1. Physical ability and strength. While each is trained as a soldier, training standards recognize the difference between the sexes. Women are not expected to perform to the same level of strength as a man. Just as training is different, performance is difference because strength still matters in the military.

2. Psychological differences such as the willingness to take risks. Women, as a rule, have higher levels of fear. Men generally have a higher tolerance for pain. Women are naturally more compassionate, with higher levels of empathy. The differences might result in different outcomes in any particular combat situation. And what of the trauma of killing another individual? As Kingsley points out, women are going to react differently than men to the experience of killing another human being. We might well expect women to experience higher incidences of PTSD than men as a result of the combat experiences.

3. Effects on groups. Units exposed to combat situations generally develop higher levels of cohesion than non-combat groups. Males bond differently in all male groups than in mixed groups. Men trust individuals with masculine traits. Women generally do not make men feel safer. In mixed groups men tend to compete with each other for status in the eyes of the woman. Trust is the center of cohesion in a combat group and the greater the danger the greater the level of trust needed to maintain group cohesiveness. Thus, in those situations where group trust and cohesion may make the difference, the presence of a woman may have a negative impact and thus the ultimate outcome may be different.

According to Kingsley, women comprise about 11% of the troops sent to Iraq and 2% of people killed, which suggests that this innate difference between men and women in combat situations is recognized in reality. The push to have more women in combat may arise from women in the military. It is well known that combat experience is seen as a necessity to advance a military career. As more and more women join the military, they want the same opportunities for advancement and command as men and they know that combat experience is important to promotion. Thus, it may be difficult to avoid involving more and more women in combat situations.