Military recruits are said to represent the "best and finest" of the nation's sons and daughters.  They are carefully screened for optimal health and skills, which they are then expected to employ in waging war.  A nation's survival depends on it.  Or does it?

The only real purpose for a standing military is occupation of ground.  Other offensive measures could easily defeat an enemy.  An aerial campaign utilizing biological, chemical, or nuclear weapons would render most if not all person-to-person combat moot.

From the viewpoint of evolution, sending the weak and sick into a known war theatre would be the better option than sacrificing the best and finest.  War as practiced is not survival of the fittest.

As a shift in policy, Secretary of Defense Panetta announced this week he wants to make combat available to our young women.

Would you agree that war is inefficient at best or insane at most?