Real qualitative differences must be weighed over women in combat

AS A veteran armor officer of the US Army, I have noted the Globe’s continued opposition to excluding women from military combat specialties, most recently in the Jan. 6 editorial “New uniform shows reality.” A realistic discussion of women in combat should include the review of articles like the one in the same day’s Globe that reported that women were uninterested in front-line combat jobs because they believed they would be unable to do them (“Women’s military roles slow to evolve,” Page A9, Jan. 6).

A better review of the policy requires one to consider the physical requirement of actual combat roles, as opposed to being exposed to combat situations while serving in non-combat roles. Living in an M1 tank, a Stryker, or a foxhole for weeks at a time presents physical challenges for which the average-sized man is better suited than the average-sized female. Being in a combat role on a day-to-day basis requires tasks that the average-sized female cannot physically do.


This is not the same as the illogical arguments once made for excluding African-American men. This policy is about the actual physical capabilities of the average individual.

Please don’t imagine that I am some Neanderthal in my thinking. I am the proud father of three athletic and educated young women, whom their mother and I have raised to believe that they can do anything that they want to do. Not being a combat arms soldier will not prevent them from being the leaders that they aspire to be.

Sean P. Hurley


Loading comments...
Real journalists. Real journalism. Subscribe to The Boston Globe today.