Today’s news that departing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will open front-line combat positions to women elicited joy from lawmakers on Capitol Hill who have been arguing that women deserve the opportunity to serve in all capacities on the 21st century battlefield.
The Joint Chiefs of Staff have recommended overturning a Clinton-era rule that bans women from serving in smaller ground combat units.
“This is an historic step for equality and for recognizing the role women have, and will continue to play, in the defense of our nation,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), chairwoman of the Veterans Affairs Committee. “From the streets of Iraqi cities to rural villages in Afghanistan, time and again women have proven capable of serving honorably and bravely. In fact, it’s important to remember that in recent wars that lacked any true front lines, thousands of women already spent their days in combat situations serving side-by-side with their fellow male servicemembers.”
The military branches will have until 2016 to seek exceptions if they have reason to believe some jobs should still be closed to women. Implementation of all special forces and front-line positions is not expected to happen immediately.
“I respect and support Secretary Panetta’s decision to lift the ban on women serving in combat. The fact is that American women are already serving in harm’s way today all over the world and in every branch of our armed forces. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, and our nation owes them a deep debt of gratitude,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), ranking member on the Armed Services Committee.
“As this new rule is implemented, it is critical that we maintain the same high standards that have made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world – particularly the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units,” he added.
The chairman of the committee, Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.), had a short and sweet reaction to the “expected” announcement: “I support it,” he said. “It reflects the reality of 21st century military operations.”
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), who got a feasibility study on women in combat included in the defense reauthorization bill, called it “a proud day for our country.”
“This decision finally opens the door for more qualified women to excel in our military and advance their careers, and obtain all of the benefits they have earned,” Gillibrand said. “Officially recognizing women in combat will strengthen our country both morally and militarily, and create promising opportunities for the brave women who serve our country, and the families that stand by them.”
“Women should be judged by qualifications and abilities, not by gender,” tweeted Sen. Pat Leahy (D-Vt.).
Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) declared “yet another glass ceiling is about to be shattered.”
“America’s military is the greatest in the world and it has been made stronger today with the promise of equal opportunity for women and men,” he said.
Good. Stick everyone one of these feminist misandrists right up there in the heat of the battle, and take those two idiot Senators with them. Shove a gun in Patty’s hands and let her have it.
Want to be one of the boys? Time we started treating you as such.
This has nothing to do with equality this is all about female officers being able to get good soldiers killed to further their careers. When things don’t work standards will be lowered and excuses will be made but good people will still die. All this for the sake of getting some infantry badges and ribbons.
Feminist careerism (both in and out of uniform) that’d be paid for by women coming home in body bags that our nation and its families can’t bear.
This is not about feminism, you dolt.
It’s about recognizing what the Army, USMC, and to a lesser extent, USAF and Navy have been playing a dishonest game for years – women have served in combat every day over the past decade, often without the proper training, equipment, or recognition for their service because they were doing something that they technically were not allowed to do.
Don’t believe me? Go talk to a female MP sometime. There’s a reason why the MP’s are known as the “women’s infantry.” It’s because despite classifying MP’s as “combat support services,” where women are allowed to serve, the Army (and probably the Marines too) have been using MP’s as light infantry for years – among other things, the MP’s pull convoy security duty and accompany Iraqi and Afghan police forces on dangerous operations as part of their mentoring mission. Google Silver Star winner, Leigh Anne Hester, for an example of the kind of dangerous missions female MP’s have been doing.
I have two old friends that were female MP officers during the surge in Iraq. While many of their male peers were allowed to go to Ranger school to improve their tactical and combat leadership capabilities, both women were denied the opportunity to do the same because of their gender. They and their male peers ended up in an equal number of firefights with Iraqi insurgents while serving as platoon leaders during their deployments. At this point, women are on the front lines in psyops, intelligence, MP, logistical, combat aviation, and many other functions that put them directly into harm’s way. Now that the Pentagon is finally being honest about this, perhaps these women will get the training and support they require to get the job done.
These women are not “feminists.” They are patriots that raised their hands and volunteered to go to some of the most hellish places on earth because they thought it was the right thing to do. The fact is that if more of America’s straight young men were willing to do the same, we wouldn’t have had to start accepting gays and women in combat positions. But now it’s a numbers game and I for one, am perfectly happy to accept ANY American who is willing to put themselves into direct combat, regardless of age, race, gender, or sexual orientation.
“Don’t believe me? Go talk to a female MP sometime.”
No I don’t. Go talk to the men the female MP works with. You probably would like their answer. I was one. Witnessed enough to conclude they are a burden and their male counter-parts have to pick up the slack. Is it fair to ask a woman to carry her body weight in gear and ammo?
Your panties are in a twist as you are pushing the femnist view point and knowing that you will not have to suffer the consequences for holding such a delusional opinion.
Dolt?? My my. Here is some data for you from another dolt:
Sources: http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/139-female-soldiers-have-died-in-iraq-and-afghanistan?news=844316
and: http://www.allgov.com/news/us-and-the-world/139-female-soldiers-have-died-in-iraq-and-afghanistan?news=844316
ALL U.S. military casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan as of about July 2012:
ALL Killed: 6343———FEMALES: 110 (1.7%)
ALL Wounded: 48,872——FEMALES: 800 (1.6%)
DOES THAT PUT SOME PERSPECTIVE ON IT FOR YOU?
Oops. That second source was this:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/iraqafghanistan_military_casua_1.html
Bullshit. I don’t know what’s worse – grade ‘A’ misandrists or the whining little pukes like you that support them. Screw ‘um and you can kiss my ass, hag.
Put their sorry asses right up there in the heat with you with them. And I’ll put out the welcome mat for Allah and see just how brave you are, ‘Erin.’
I read through most of the comments and its clear people talking past each other. I could find very few of you people that don’t get that women have been in combat, etc… but people need to also get it that women are genetically not as strong as men are… So they can’t carry as much as far, etc… simple fact. Tested recently in Marine Infantry Officer Training…. they dropped quickly… There are tons of combat jobs that are not as likely going to need someone to hump 80 pounds miles… but woman must recognize that and training can’t be gender normed for these thing. You must be able to pick up a wounded soldier and move him to safety when your on the streets of Baghdad or in an Afghan village. Can most women do that? I would say 99.9% cannot. SO there needs to be limits and the training will prove this. There is NO way a woman will pass infantry school, ranger school, seal training etc… purely for this reason. That doesn’t mean there is hundreds of other place you will be in combat. Like convey support, we have learned how dangerous that is in the sheeeetholes of this world… important you know how to handle the vehicle and people on the vehicle how to handle their weapons and tactics of fighting in the street like that… This admin just sheets ideas out there without thinking… Also it not fair to men to put females into certain situations… we can’t have whole groups of men in trouble cause you had to squat too pee in the middle of the road and they saw your couchie, when men can whip it out and go. You have to have very thick skin…I am not saying men should be grabbing, hurting, or molesting a woman either… There is a way of life in all male platoon…that dynamic needs respeced… not regulated so a woman or fruit loop gay guy is not offended or off filing paperwork. If not we will pussify our high speed combat forces… I am all for women fighting, moving up the ranks etc… there are limits and issue that need understood. Jez, Obama is such a tool – if all DIMS are this dumb we are really introuble. Than again I saw 40% of blacks and 30% of latinos couldnot pass the basic entry test to the military… I scored a 98 in 11th grade.. we have an issue in this country called education, where is our leader on that – oh yea he is protecting unions… screw the kids.. If dims were even slightly tough on their stupid leaders I wonder where we would be today but part of being a DIM is being a sheep. I can hear it now – “I should be a general cause I voted for Obama”…as he says to his buddy into his obama phone, while his ballot gets kicked into the ocean off the carrier so it would not count in the last election…
Problem is they will game this. The women SEAL’s will be judged differently then the men etc.
Eh, our enemies must be laughing themselves silly
Well, the Israelis and Aussies let the women fight; why can’t we?
I’m being sarcastic, of course. I don’t remember the last time the Aussies fought in anything major (and the support roles they gave in Iraq were all men). The Israelis have yet to prove how adding women to combat roles prevent the Palestinians from firing rockets at their country.
This will not end well. No sir, not end well at all.
From what I’ve read, the Israelis did use women in combat back in 1948 but the results weren’t good. Too many men got killed trying to protect the women. Many years ago, I saw an interesting “60 Minutes” segment where the Israelis used women to train the men. Male pride being what it is, men didn’t like it when women shot better than they did, so they worked harder to become better soldiers. Sounds reasonable enough.
Women have served in the US military for a long time and most of them do very well. There are a lot of jobs that women can do as well or better than men. Combat arms jobs such as infantry, armor and artillery aren’t the same. Those jobs require a lot of strength and endurance. I was airborne infantry a long time ago. A lot of men can’t do that job and very few women could meet the same physical requirements as the men. This isn’t going to end well.
Actually, Israel has women fighting in the military now. However, it didn’t go as intended. Guess what Israel had to do to get women to enlist more in combat roles? You get cookies if you get it on your first try:
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4263718,00.html
The Israelis put all their Infantry women into one battalion. They were smart enough to contain the nonsense to one unit.
The only mixed unit is the Caracal, which is primarily border guards.
Their single combat operation was a small skirmish where the men substantially outperformed the women.
“Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.” – Groucho Marx
The Army, whether in the US or Israel, is in effect saying, “These are our standards for combat service. But if they don’t fit today’s politically correct expectations, we’ll come up with others.” Doing so however not only puts that soldier at greater risk but her fellow soldiers as well.
That’s not to say there aren’t a growing number of roles in which female IDF soldiers today play a role. Education/Training and intelligence, of course. But also running UAVs, serving in rescue units even a few as helicopter and fighter pilots. But they don’t serve in elite combat units – the sort that often operate in hostile territory – or on submarines. A single mixed-gender infantry unit patrols one of the borders.
It’s part of the package, they want to move away from “requirements” and focus on roles.
Women want into combat? Or do they want combat lite? They want the stickers without the work, because they as a group are physically incapable.
When Marines hump around Afghanistan with 70+lbs of gear, how many woman can do that?
It’s all about “fairness” and not reality.
A woman could not pass BUD/S in its current form, plain and simple. I have a feeling though there will be pressure to change some things to accommodate women. You can expect a humongous exodus at that point. Of the two women hand picked to complete the Marine Infantry officer’s course, both dropped out.
99.9% of young women couldn’t make it through the Marine Corps School of Infantry much less a special warfare course. No way. We marched 20 to 40 miles almost daily with 80 lbs of gear.
I’ve seen woman Soldiers and Marines who literally couldn’t carry that load from a truck into the barracks in one trip – much less do a 30 mile speed march.
The Canadian Army tried a female infantry class and had 1 woman out of 103 graduate.
http://www.heretical.com/miscella/frcombat.html
Yes, under the current standards, you’d be correct.
The standards will be lowered, and lowered, and lowered until the “correct” number of women can qualify.
The object of this game is not equality.
The goal of this is the destruction of the United States Armed Forces as an effective fighting machine.
???
Did you think these Marxists had something else in mind?
Ludicrous argument.
There’s not a lot of men that could pass BUD/S in its current form either, that’s why special ops are still called “special.”
For all of you whining about women not being able to perform to standard, have you any idea how many MEN in today’s Army can’t pass their PFT? Back in my Army days, I had way more trouble with my male soldiers passing at the range and on their PFT’s than I did with my ladies.
Yes, a BUD/S class starts with 100 men, all who pass a rigorous pre-test that 99% of women couldn’t pass. Then, by the end of that 26 week cycle, 75% of those men have been eliminated. So I repeat, NO woman could pass BUD/S in its current form. It isn’t about if some men can’t hack it, that is true, but it is a canard. There isn’t a woman alive who could make it through the BUD/S. As the Canadian experiments showed, an elite woman is equal to an average man in terms of physical conditioning, and men can adapt and grow muscle faster.
As I also said, two women were selected for Marine Infantry Officer’s course. They were specifically chosen because it was believed they represented the best chance for success. Neither one of them finished. The fact that SOME men didn’t complete it is irrelevant.
Right, and I’m not saying that women are cut out for all combat operations.
Obviously, special forces are probably not going to be an option for them. But there’s no reason why they can’t be part of a tank crew, help man a howitzer, or become a Sapper.
Obviously, special forces are probably not going to be an option for them. But there’s no reason why they can’t be part of a tank crew, help man a howitzer, or become a Sapper.
Actually, there are reasons. Tanks crews don’t just ride around in a tank. They have to be ready to service the tank including some pretty heavy tasks. One of the jobs inside a tank is to load the cannon, by hand, while the vehicle is moving over rough terrain. Tain’t easy. The same with a howitzer crew. There are jobs on the crew that require heavy lifting, often over a period of hours in a protracted firefight. Are you only going to let women do the lighter jobs, sticking men on the crew to pick up her slack? Or are you going to hold the women to the same standards as the men?
“Man a howitzer”? “Part of a tank crew”?
You reveal how little you know about those jobs. Both require far more physical strength than 99% of women have. The 155mm howitzer projectiles weight over 100 lbs. The howitzers themselves are obviously heavy. A crew has to be able to set up, load, fire, tear it down, and move fast – all day and all night if necessary.
An M1 crew has to be capable of quickly loading their tank with 50-lb shells, setting up 100-lb M2 machine guns, and changing a tred in the field. (The sprocket screws on the treds are torqued at over 700-lbs.) That and the crew lives literally on top of each other.
A woman on one of these crews couldn’t do all that would be worse than useless.
Here is a Marine gun crew just cranking. Every Marine on that crew has to be able to do every job on that crew.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgTk5-JX8qI
Sally, don’t ya go
Don’t ya go downtown
People who think males and females are equal and equally capable of coexisting 24/7 as gentlemen and ladies in infantry combat are doomed to be disappointed. Good thing the war’s over and we now have peace in our time so everyone is going to live happily ever after.
Every time somebody fights’ ‘honourably and bravely’ for this country, the taxpayer is out another million dollars. We can expect women to be equal in this category, if not exceed their quota…..’>……..
Fine, let’s get you girls registered with Selective Service–the League of Women Voters has dropped the ball on this when they could have had a collective vagina dialogue ten years ago to get the ball rolling– and have an affirmative action draft of a quarter million gals so they’re not under represented anymore. And to give the experiment a chance of success, let’s have gender segregated units so the males don’t have to put up with gender norming. That way with gender segregated units the generals can balance out the casualties to make sure there’s equal dying for equal pay between the sexes.
Requires an immense amount of discipline and “zipper control” that’ll detract from other things in order to work. Am not saying it couldn’t be done, but that’ll be more than many people can spare. High-speed elite units that make a conscious effort to instill “don’t f*ck your buddy” (now literally as well as figuratively) as a matter of general discipline of being a soldier/Marine/etc. could do it because that’s the kind of willpower and human material they often have to work-with. Regular, non-elite, folk who behave badly, do dumb stuff, don’t learn from mistakes, let other folk be responsible for their actions, only joined for the benefits or college money, were barely qualified, etc. (you know, the 20 percent who give you 80 percent of your trouble) might be too high a hurdle to clear with this.
I am.
Anybody who thinks it CAN be is an idiot.
On that you are correct. I don’t know what the solution is though, other than all-female units, which might not be a bad idea.
An all-female brigade would be even worse than a mixed-unit brigade.
You guys are really intent on sending women to their deaths, aren’t you? Whatever happened to the anti-war “Bush Lied, They Died” Left that just wanted all the troops to come home. Now you’re out there rushing to integrate women into combat roles. You guys could barely handle seeing dead men; one wonders what will happen to you once dead women start piling up.
They’re all thinking of tough-as-nails Private Vazquez from “Aliens”, forgetting that it’s a movie. Grrrl Power!
The solution is blindingly obvious to anyone who has not been brainwashed by modern political correctness.
Women don’t belong in the military. Period.
Problem solved.
Just further emasculation of our military. What happens when we have women taken as POWs and tortured? What will the public do? What will the public do when we have women coming home in pieces? It’s bad enough when men suffer like that, but what will happen when women do? Read descriptions of what happens when a ship is sunk (like in WWII). Read what happens when a tank is hit with a shaped charged? Burns, lost limbs, faces half gone, etc. Will there be a cry that nothing is worth having our women being hurt? Then our military ceases to be effective and the world descends even further into chaos.
There are women who can easily kick my rear end. But how many? And how will things work out in the “fox hole”? There are already cases of women becoming pregnant on Navy ships. How will this dynamic work in combat situations?
Just another trick of the leftists to cause the US to cease being a world power.
“already cases”?!! I don’t know about recent years, but the norm is that on a single tour on a large ship at least one (or more) woman will get discharged and sent home pregnant.
“Just another trick of the leftists to cause the US to cease being a world power.” Another aspect of that “fundamental transformation”.
I remember a day when we were sweeping the road into Fire Support Base Keene in Hau Ngiah province in Viet Nam. The VC had been mining the road and blowing up mail and beer runs. We took a break and the attached engineer stepped off the road and stepped on an anti-personnel mine and blew his foot off. A couple guys in my squad were helping him when he swung his other leg and hit another mine and blew his other foot off. My buddy was yelling he was blinded (it later turned out to be only dust). Another guy Smitty was laying there with chunks of metal sticking out of his face. I lost it, picked up an m-16 and drew down on a Vietnamese woman on a bicycle’s back. Fortunately for me and her both I didn’t pull the trigger.
I also remember having staph ulcers all over my feet and legs from walking in feces fertilized rice paddies. It took me about two months to wash the dirt out when I got home and ten years to get psychologically well.
War is not a laboratory for liberal a**holes to feel good about feminist theory. It’s dirty, bloody madness which can destroy the strongest of men.
Thanks
Besides, if anybody looks at participating in combat as “yet another glass ceiling about to be shattered”, I do hope they come home in a box……..
“The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier.”
- Napoleon Bonaparte
Something tells me he didn’t have women in mind, nor would most all of them want him to have them them in mind.
Thank you for all you did, and for that one thing you did NOT do. (Not pulling that trigger.)
I’m glad I’m not a military recruiter. It may soon be a lot harder to make quota on female enlistments.
What will the public do? What will the public do when we have women coming home in pieces?
Both of these things have already happened. Dozens of US Army nurses were captured by the Japanese when the Philippines fell and remained prisoners for over 2 years. The Japanese were not known for their good treatment of POWs. There were also a small number of American female POWs in the first Gulf War. Also, women have died in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. It sucks but no more than when a man is killed.
I served with many good women in the military, but those were in non-combat related jobs. Combat arms jobs are a completely different thing. I respect and admire anyone who volunteers for military service, especially in wartime. There are just some jobs that women – with few exceptions – simply lack the strength to do. Let them continue their valuable service where they’re fit and qualified. Don’t get a lot of men killed in the name of political correctness.
This insane nonsense shows how much the top commanders of the US military are no longer warriors at all but are 100% politicians. The US Army just added 2 more defeats to their long losing streak. It is not the male heterosexual PFCs, Specialists and E5s who continue to lose wars to third war poorly equipped enemies. It is the US Army officers and increasingly officers of the other military service branches who are not fighters but politicians first, second, and third and after that they have become more interested in managerial issues rather than how inflict pain on the enemy in order to break their will to fight. This nonsense is just another symptom of the destruction of the US military. Maybe potential enemies like China will die of laughter. If the US military has to face a well- equipped real enemy with the potential to conquer the US such as China possibly in the future heaven help the US.
No reason why a woman couldn’t be a line backer or fullback in the NFL, that a woman couldn’t fight Mike Tyson for a heavyweight belt. Why not? Sure, sure. Pinheads in the government, none of whom served a day in the military: Obama, Schumer, Pelosi, Menendez, Panetta, etc. Go for it knuckleheads. But ask General Martin “Tuxedo” Dempsey; he’ll tell ya.
Remember in the early 90s there was an effort to form an all-female baseball team and have them compete against men? They were called the Silver Bullets and they would tour the country competing against men. They also got their asses handed to them in an embarrassingly consistent fashion.
The most vital aspect, literally vital, of considering women for combat alongside of men is just how carefully, and by whom, will the candidates be screened. The screeners surely must all be recent combat veterans. What about their individual physical strength?
Taking them into combat simply because they’re in uniform will be asking for tragedy.
Damn! all of this lethal political correctness!
This is what Fundamental Transformation looks lke, I guess.
A big eff you to the 52% that gave us this miscreant.
You are going to have women in combat against Muslim males? Better make sure these women are wearing Burqas.
No, these women will need welded-on chastity belts to prevent rape.
Greetings:
On the one hand, I see this as an example of “it takes a village to hollow out a military”.
On the other, hey, why should the sexual dysfunctionals have all the fun. Let the heteros have an equal, socially just chance.
Meanwhile and somewhere in the deep, dark depths of Indiana, which are very, very deep and really, really dark, a look of stunned shock makes its way across the face of former Pvt. Jessica Lynch (and formerly all of 5’2″ and 90 lbs)
What’s left now ??? Anyone want to double down on the midgets/dwarfs/littler people ???
Transexuals, pedophiles and folk who have sex with animals will be the next frontier… go diversity!
Political correctness is making people blind to the simple fact that women of child-bearing age are a precious demographic. If you lose too many of them, your country is trouble. What’s next, legislating that male breasts should give milk? As if political correctness can abolish biological fact.
A commenter above mentioned China. China has *millions* of excess young men because the Chinese aborted away so many baby girls. The temptation for China to try their luck going up against the US is pretty strong, I would say.
In certain ways, men are expendable where women are not… this is one of them.
Perhaps this is what the small c’s are after as a means to forge their goal of an undermined US that would be incapable of fighting for its people.
Perhaps?
And perhaps the sun rose this morning in the east.
This is a historic step for stupidity. There Senator Murray. Fixed your quote for you. The leftwing are so hell bent on “equalizing” everything, that they have lost all common sense.
Murray’s the dimwit that said Bin Laden was building day care centers for the women in Afghanistan
If she can do all the same things her male counterparts can do, let her go, but I do mean ALL the same things and to the same standards, no gender norming allowed. Most women just aren’t going to be physically powerful enough to do it, but you’ll probably get the rare one who makes it … just. I hope her kit includes a suicide caplet should she get caught by militant islamicists, though.
I don’t think this is a good idea but if they’re going to allow this, then they should use one PT standard, that being the men’s since it’s more stringent. Aside from the physical aspects, I think having more women in combat roles will lead to other inter-gender issues.
If they did, most women currently in the military would not pass the PT test and would never get another promotion.
Well, I am guessing they are all to busy with the “war on women” that our Leader has informed us of. However, anyone stupid enough to put on a uniform for this elitist government and their mega-wealthy handlers can have at it. You get to die just like the rest.
Next year’s headline : “Sandra Fluke becomes the first woman to complete the scaled down SEAL training in San Diego” She blazed a trail by demanding enough birth control to service her entire class at the end of the woman and gay training day which consisted of swimming two laps in the pool and walking briskly for several minutes.
In the midst of a very serious topic, this was the funniest comment yet.
Thank you for your service.
Holy crap. This is a sad day. Sexual tension in a unit DESTROYS combat effectiveness. When you put horny boys in a confined space with horny girls all you get is trouble.
As a serving combat arms officer, I can predict where this one is going. If we ever have to fight a real army again (like China’s for example) we’re toast. Small unit leadership will be too busy worrying about “equal opportunity” issues, pregnancies, VD, rape allegations and the like to have any time to contemplate hunting down and killing the bad guys. Fools.
“Sexual tension in a unit DESTROYS combat effectiveness.”
What makes you think this isn’t the intention? Through in the homosexuals and you are going to have an EO bitch fest without end.
Cannot wait to hear the wailing from liberal parents when their precious Suzzy gets her draft notice. Hah.
Right on Mark
And lets not forget our current enemy’s fondness for raping infidel women. I can just imagine what they would do to a captured female soldier.
Make sure it’s 50.8%. And don’t forget to quota up Hispanics and blacks – in every single field.
That’ll make an effective fighting force.
Like Rome, circa 450 A.D.
Hahahaha.
Why didn’t they just declare war illegal all over the world and say they’ll destroy any civilization that indulges in it?
And rain – make it only rain on Mondays.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hispanic_Medal_of_Honor_recipients
McCain’s statement is monumentally stupid because it uses the “all over the world” meme as the standard for this policy decision. Optimal, maximum, absolute combat effectiveness should be the standard for any decision pertaining to our military.
McCain’s argument is an admission that the strategic objective is to replicate the norm, to be mediocre.
If the fools in our government use the global norm as the basis for decisions about our military, then we really are doomed.
It will be a cold day in hell before Leahy (Vt) or any other Obamocrat judges someone on their qualifications and abilities.
There’s just something fundamentally unnatural about a society that would put its women into these types of roles. On a certain level we as men have always known we are more expendable than women. Our role in the furtherance of the species isn’t nearly as involved as the woman’s, and that is why we are better equipped for dangers that often require self-sacrifice. Women are supposed to be shielded from that, and only as an absolute last resort engage in it themselves.
It speaks to the values of a society, and contrary to the Left’s self-congratulatory jubilation, I don’t think it speaks well at all.
Here’s what you do. Next war, send out an all-female army. Draft ‘em, train ‘em, and send them off. I’d like to see how they’d do. Women fight in their own way. Our problem is we’re thinking, OK, have them fight the way men fight. No, no, no.
Women should be told the objectives of the war, and design a plan to accomplish the mission.
I wonder how the Vietnamese War would have ended up if we’d sent eight million American women overseas.
Can women carry out combat tasks better than a fat, old male such as I can? They certainly can.
Can they carry out the same tasks as well as their male contemporaries? No, they just can’t. I have no problem with women in the military. I don’t see why women shouldn’t achieve the highest ranks, but we have to recognise differences between the sexes. That might mean a different command structure: women promoted on a more cerebral promotion path? I don’t actually believe women are cleverer than men, but, if you are going to have women in the military, you do need to do proper justice to both sexes.
I am absolutely certain that female soldiers can carry out command roles and quite a lot of combat roles, just as well as men can, and should be given the opportunities to fulfil those roles, but that’s not the same as yomping across the Falklands. Lots of women could do that, but a lot more men could do it better (I’m not one of them).
“Liberals” just want to reinvent the wheel again.
Everyone! Please remove the tires from your cars and wait patiently while the “liberals” come up with a “perfect” solution to the wheel “problem,” based on the inarguable principloes of “peace and justice,” of course.
There’s a reason women didn’t fight on the front lines through history but, don;t worry, the “progressives” righteously insist that all those decisions through time were “tainted” by some vague, disqualifying bias.
No, no. See, women are BETTER fighters. Evil men long ago exterminated the master race of super women. They did this so they could go out on Friday nights with the boys from the office.
Have fun, ladies!
You can blame women and liberals for this all you want, but it’s straight males who have brought about this eventuality. In days gone by, men felt that volunteering was the honorable thing to do. That’s just not the case today. There’s absolutely no shame in letting a woman go to war in your stead. If enough of America’s young men were willing to volunteer, we wouldn’t have to pad the ranks with women.
Obama is about to slash the ranks of the military, just like Clinton did. Soldiers will soon be getting pink slips. This decision has NOTHING to do with troop strength, and everything to do with the Europeanization of our once great country.
I’m not talking about overall numbers, I’m talking about combat arms here, since that’s the argument. With the exception of the USMC, there are not enough people volunteering to go fight at the pointy end of the spear.
“…there are not enough people volunteering to go fight at the pointy end of the spear.”
Rubbish. The Amry and Marines have met their recruiting goals year-on-year. They are getting ready to boot alot of them out now.
There are more than enough men volunteering for combat arms jobs.
If your point was true, it would not be because of male reluctance or cowardice but because of the ridiculous rules of engagement that combat troops labor under and the feckless political leadership that leaves our soldiers hung out to dry.
As I write, Sen Feinstein and a cast of hundreds of other gun rights infringers (an illegal activity according to the 2nd Amendment) are having a “press conference” (a legal activity under the 1st Amendment) . The lead-off speaker is a cleric (I thought the Demunists were against mixing Church and state).
No guns for citizens, more guns for women. Nice combo.
I”m a former Marine from the 1st & 2nd Battalions 3rd Marine Regiment, 1st MEB Kaneohe Bay Hawaii. I didn’t agree or like the Idea of women in combat arms units. But after reading all the above put down on them. And no offense, but I think were in for a rude awakning. Just as black service men, Hispanics & Japanese veterarns of WWII probe themselves ubove and beyond the call of duty. And there(the women in the service), some are going to push themselves and prove us like or WWII vets above (Tuskeegee, Army’s all Japanese American 4401′st , who rescued the all white Texas unit dubbed the “Lost Battalion” of about 300 men in the Battle of the Buldge while sacrificing over 400 of men in the 4401st, one of them Daniel Inyioe former senator from Hawaii who recently passed away. His actions were Medal of Honor worthy, but it took 50 years later, during Clinton’s reign to recognize that. And there’s the femal Army medic that pulled her self together when a huber she. Was in full of infantrymen, just getting a lift, got caught on an ambush, saving and tending to wounded with incoming mortars all around. And her handling it better then some of the other male soldiers she was tending. So even with disagreement, I’m not saying women are not capable. I will recomed this. I think the Lioness Program was a good idea, it served a useful purpose. What about, just having all women (officers n’ all) combat units?
Some one wrote in another opinion column “why don’t they just let women play in the, NFL, the NL/AL, NHL or NBA. Any comments on that one? Quote from a Demo Moore character : ” SUCK MY DICK”.
None of that has any bearing on the issue.
That some women can act courageously under fire does not argue that women belong in our armed forces.
Make the best of a bad situation. “Encourage” female troops to do indoor work regularly with accurate .177 air rifles. Learning a rifle is like learning a violin. Armies consider it learned when Equipment Familiarity is mastered, when actually most of the learning curve occurs after that.
Female target practice will gradually raise ability to hit (it is a long path). When the increased ability shows up at the too-infrequent range trips, the males will note that inability to necessarily be a filthy beast of burden is offset by a better ability to hit things with a rifle.
Well, having served three tours in the Vietnam War – didn’t say I was smart; did I? – I would oppose women in the combat branches or anywhere near a combat zone. Why? Simple: I don’t want to see anybody, ever, in combat; period. I had nightmares for 20+ years, woke up screaming, woke up to find I was starting to choke my wife, woke up and screamed because I thought I was still in the nightmare; et cetera, endlessly or so it seemed. Not to mention the things that have to be done in combat, that you have to see done, hear done … do I really need to list all of that for you? It’s bad enough that anyone has to go and believe me sometimes someone has to. I don’t want to share that misery and torment with anyone.
Will someone please tell me where Leon Panetta got the authority to make this decision?
I seem to remember Congress passing a law which limited women’s role in the military to non-combat operations. I seem to remember news stories about how that law was being skirted during Gulf II.
Did all of that just somehow evaporate, leaving the SecDef in charge of the issue?