Am aka American Mercenary asks why do we need Women in the Infantry/Combat Arms section of the military

"Problem solving is a simple process. Define the problem. Identify solutions. Wargame different solutions. Pick the optimal solution from those identified and execute. So why is there a push for women in the Infantry? What exactly is the problem that this is designed to solve?

The Marine Corps opened up Infantry training to "WMs" or Women Marines. As I understand it the training is open but the job field is still closed. The training is to help improve the level of training and readiness of female Marines who necessarily augment line Infantry units in executing the "Security, Stability and Support, and Civil Support" portions of Full Spectrum Ops.
Wait you, say, Full Spectrum Ops is all about kicking in doors! Not so. A military operation is broken up into four areas, "Offense/Defense, Security, Stability, and Civil Support" that is very familiar to veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Notice that we do not need women to conduct Direct Action."

He brings up some very good points.  Why are the Combat Arms sections of the military being forced to use women.  Especially when they are not needed and serve a very important function already.  Why change a vital and important function that females in the military already do to include Infantry training?  Yes, there have been women in combat, however they are not ideally suited for it, for the most part.  I am going to sound like a Neanderthal here, but women for the most part are not suited to a primary combat role.  Most women are physically weaker, note I said most, not all.  A large majority of women are not psychologically suited to combat, how many women hunters are there who kill and clean their own game?  I'm not saying that women cannot serve in combat, I'd be a major hypocrite if I did.  There are women who have found themselves in combat situations and they have done their jobs and survived.  However it is wrong to take a women and place her into a strict combat environment unless she meets the same physical goals as the soldiers around her.  Women have less rigorous physical requirements than male soldiers.  That has been true since women have become a part of the armed forces.  And yet to put a female who cannot meet the same physical requirements as the males around her, is just asking for problems.

#1 if the female cannot carry the same amount of weapons and gear as her squadmates, the same distance in the same amount of time, the squad can either leaver her behind, slow the squad down or detail several squadmembers to march with her, dividing the squad, which means if they come into contact with an enemy they invite destruction piecemeal.

#2 if the female cannot emotionally deal with killing death and destruction the squad loses what could be a vital lynchpin when it attacking or under attack.

#3 the incidence of rape and sexual assault is down in the armed forces, but it still does exist.  Also during Iraqi Freedom and operations in Afghanistan there were female members of the armed forces whose fraternization with male members of their units threatened unit cohesion and morale

I am not a Neanderthal, despite what some may think.  I have not included several arguments that I have heard for years against the idea of females in combat.  Personally I feel if the female can meet the physical and emotional challenges and follow all directives against fraternization, let her fight if she wants to.  However we cannot allow anyone who cannot meet the physical and psychological requirements into the combat arms.  To do so will thin the combat arms making it less effective and in the long run destroy it.