soldiers involved. This again would hae been another area supporting a ban for women.Finally, had the committee looked at the psychological implications allowing women into combat would pose they also would have found many things true. The risk to the nations defense force as well as population as a whole was to great to put aside for the sake of equality among the sexes. The government did not have the right to play with human minds in that way simply so females could be equal to males. By realizing that, the committee would have found a third area to support the proposed ban.After the study was done, the correct thing was done, and women were banned from direct ground combat situations. This policy however had no legitimacy because it was not based on the facts from the 3 areas discussed, but was instead bases on social norms and bias. If the government would have instead based their policy on facts and figures they would have developed a policy that had legitimacy and reasoning. There would be no room for people to argue about equality when they discovered that based on facts, women truly are unequal to men, and there isnt a single thing humans can do to change that. One would not be able to expect a government to allow something simply for equalities sake that had so many negative factors weighing against it, including human life.In a report for the Heritage Foundation in 1994, John Luddy summarizes the proper policy best by stating the purpose of the armed forces is to fight and win the nations wars, not to serve as a laboratory for social progress. (Heritage, pg.8). If the committee and the Secretary of Defense had looked from an unbiased point of view they would have still developed the same policy, but instead would have developed it for the proper reasons....
