Among those countries, Israel immediately comes to mind, as do most Islamic countries. Israel is a country predominantly populated by ethnic and religious Jews. The Jews have been persecuted since biblical times. Their survival as a people has always depended upon their ability to effectively defend themselves against those who sought to overpower, enslave, or eliminate them from the face of the Earth. It is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield.
Throughout history (as we are taught history), Muslims have traditionally been a warlike people... at least since there has been the Islamic Muslim faith. Islam was created by a man named Muhammad, who had "visions" in a cave near Mecca in 610AD, and spent the next 12 years preaching on the streets of Mecca. Islam became recognized as a religion in 622AD, with the creation of the Islamic calendar. One of the goals of Islam is world domination, by means of conversion or execution of "the infidels" (anybody that is not Muslim, or apostate Muslims ), and the establishment of a world Caliphate.
The history of the United States is similar to the above in some respects, and totally dissimilar in others. Our culture raises men to respect and protect women, or at least it did until the most recent generation. The majority of men still see women as "the weaker sex" and therefore in need of their protection. Therein lies the "problem". Just as the Israeli's experienced men trying to "protect and assist their female counterparts rather than continue their attack", American men will be culturally and psychologically inclined to do exactly the same. And the end result will unquestionably be the same - they not only will put their own lives in greater danger, but will also jeopardize the survival of the entire unit.
Wherever men and women are put together there is, always has been, and always will be - "fraternization". Fraternization is a military crime punishable by a maximum of two years in prison, and a dishonorable discharge for enlisted personnel and dismissal for officers. (Why enlisted personnel can be imprisoned, and officers just dismissed from the military is beyond me. The crime is the same, but the elitists get to walk away, while the working-class military go to the "Gray Bar Hotel") While the Army defines fraternization differently from the other services, the maximum penalty is the same in all. As a practical matter, though, fraternization alone is rarely prosecuted; instead, most such cases are handled with administrative punishment like a letter of reprimand. Essentially, "fraternization" is a euphemism for inappropriate social interactions between different ranks (I will leave the details of what may constitute "inappropriate social interactions" up to your imagination). When interpersonal relationships (beyond those required to perform one's assigned military duties) arise, there is always the possibility of an unexpected, often unwanted pregnancy. What do we then do with a pregnant "warrior"?
Why is the United States Government even considering assigning women to combat units as combat soldiers, when the DoD has access to this information - “Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
Who am I to argue with those who have investigated the consequences of women serving in combat roles? It is not that they are afraid to fight, it is that they will be a greater liability in a combat zone than would their male counterparts. If the fight is brought to them, I feel certain that the majority of American women would pick up a weapon and defend themselves and others. But, if the combat should become hand-to-hand, they will most probably not be victorious. Just my thoughts on the subject. I could be wrong… and the Sun could rise in the west tomorrow morning.