The solution is very simple then. No quarter. Kill them.
A corpse is a corpse. How it got that way is immaterial.
That was well before my time. Things have been incrementally changing over the years. As I've tried to explain, modern militaries fight jointly. The pace of modern warfare and the ever-increasing emphasis on technology (specialists) virtually ensure that females will participate in battle at some juncture. Be it as an F18 fighter pilot, an Apache helicopter pilot, firing missiles from a frigate, sniping, working with self-propelled ground guns, or lasing enemy targets right at the front line. Every soldier is an asset and the military must squeeze every iota of talent from its finite asset pool.
Modern militaries no longer fight hand-to-hand in trenches. Killing zones are typically at a distance of hundreds of meters. As you can see with urban examples such as Fallujah and Gaza, a modern military will destroy the point infrastructure and greatly soften up the penetration lanes previous to the introduction of ground forces. Still, urban warfare is hellish. Be that as it may though, I see no reason at all why female ground units cannot be an effective and positive asset.
Well, most of what you wrote is definitely an Air Forcish point of view.
Lets start with some basics, one of which you mention, that of a the 'beta' infantry unit composed of female riflemen. In our Army that would seem to indicate that the 'beta' designation means that it is a different type of infantry. For example, in the US military, we have Ranger, Airborne, Air Assault, Mechanized, Light, and Stryker Infantry. Each of those has a different deisignation, right down to individual skill identifiers to ensure the right skills set to ensure the right qualifications of these infantry units. (i.e. it makes no sense to assign a soldier to an airborne unit that is not parachute qualified.)
That 'beta' designation lets any would be war planner know that this is not a standard infantry unit, and I would be willing to bet a paycheck that the unit did not see front line action in the latest Gaza campaign.
It also raises other questions about career progression and inculcation of attitudes. Are these officers competitive for Battalion and Brigade Command? Are the NCO's being culled and trained to become Sergeant's Major? If not, that 'beta' unit is little more than show.
As for the sexuality portion, here are ust some of the places where either I, or friends (I do have them), have found soldiers engaged in sexual acts in either training or combat:
Temproary billets, storage rooms, bathrooms, on an LP/OP, in a HMMWV, in the back of an LMTV, on an LOGPAC assault line waiting to corss the border, in the back of a Bradley, inside a tank, inside a water trailer (which subsequently had to be sterilized so soldiers wouldn't drink the resulting sexual fluids), in an out house, behind a rock, in a pile of trash (and that particular incident involved one woman and six men).
What so many are willing to simply dismiss is something that most military leaders have routinely encountered. It was or Brigade Sergeant Major who caught the couple, both soldiers, going at it in the out house.
This is not just our military. Years ago, we were suspicious of some police forces in Kosovo, and had our scouts monitor them. Within 24 hours we caught male and female police giving and recieving fallacio in broad daylight. (For some reason, they were catching too many weapons smugglers at the time - odd).
When you simply dismiss these concerns, you will run smack into the reality that infantry leaders will not budge on. Until a manner or method is discovered that will adaquately discipline such behavior without shredding the constitutional and legal concepts were are sworn to uphold, the ban will be kept in place.
It isn't about individual qualification, it is about standards that must fit with general trends that can be applied across the board to roughly standardize th resulting unit and its application on the battlefield. The over riding consideration is, and always will be, the likely efficient in battle. No other consideration matters in the slightest.
Finally, there is the reality of the infantry battle. What Tashah refers to is called conditions setting. It is the attempt to establish condition, such as suppression, that allows the introduction of ground forces in as safe a manner as possible. Make no mistake about it though, our enemies are not stupid. They don't hang out clumped together in large groups in the middle of the desert where you can easily identify them and fire cruise missiles from a frigate, bombs from an F-18, or rockets from an apache at them.
The enemy is going to hide among heavily populated urban areas, caves in remote areas, under heavy canopy where they will difficult to spot, in sewers and catacombs, underground, and generally in places that denude easy identification, and make the use of massive firepower difficult at best. Simply put, the enemy does not play to your strengths.
It should comes as no surpise that Al Qaeda is not trying to sink our frigates from Baghdad or Kabul. Instead, they go into places that make our infantry forces more critical than ever before, into areas where physicality and team work are more critical that even to bring about operational and strategic success from a series of small unit, tactical engagements.
The simplest, most effective means of creating and training a unit up to the standards of cohesion and physicality required to be effective in the small unit battles we are fighting, and are likely to fight, is through single sex, all male infantry units.
Many women may chafe under rules of exclusion, simply put though, it is not about you.