(no subject)

My little letter to the editor on women in combat in yesterday's SMH:

If Peter Pitt found himself in combat, he'd want his platoon to consist of "the biggest, fastest, strongest men [he] could find" (Letters, September 30). Understandable, but given the nature of modern warfare, I'd want my own platoon members to be the most highly trained soldiers I could find, whether men or women. My perfect platoon would be level-headed, reliable, clever, and superb at teamwork. Neither sex has a monopoly on those qualities.

Not bad, although a letter from Friday's paper knocks mine into a cocked hat:

"I agree with Peter Pitt that if going into combat I would like my fellow soldiers to be the biggest and the strongest. However, if our platoon had to beat a hasty retreat I would like to know I was just a bit faster." - Warwick Teasdale, Pretty Beach

Think I may have to write something based on my description of the ideal platoon. There's a hilarious letter in the same edition as mine complaining that women live in a "Pollyanna world" of "'justice' and 'fairness'", whereas in war it's superior military might that counts. Perhaps the many painful failures of superior military might in recent times show that I'm on that right track - that sheer physical power isn't enough. I'd back knowhow and cunning vs mere muscle any day of the week.

One other letter remarks: "Why don't we put the energy and passion of the argument for having women in combat into keeping men out of it?" I'd agree to that with one small change: "Why don't we put the energy and passion of the argument for keeping women out of combat into keeping men out of it?"