Posted on 02/06/2016 8:32:21 AM PST by darkwing104
This week, while addressing the Senate Armed Services Committee regarding the ongoing effort to open combat positions to female troops, the Marine Corps commandant and Army chief of staff both told senators "that they believe women should be required to sign up for the military draft now that they are being integrated into all combat positions."
The generals, Robert Neller, USMC and Mark Milley, US Army, told the committee that women should no longer be exempted from the Selective Service program. The integration of women into combat position without a long term study by the defense department is being forced upon the military by non-serving politicians. Certainly it is an issue which signals the need for a national debate. Will Americans allow their daughters, sisters and wives to be drafted into a combat position?
Certainly there are women who are capable of performing the same work as men in the military. But inescapable facts of biology make that a minimal number at best when it comes to filling positions on the front lines. Standards will be undoubtedly be lowered as they have been in every other social experiment forced on the military. In this nation's history only men were required to register with the Selective Service. During times of war they were drafted to create an Army to protect the country. Women have fought for America since the days of the American Revolution. But they did not serve in Washington's Continental Army.
It was Barack Hussein Obama and the also never-served-a-day-in-his-life Defense Secretary Ash Carter who have ordered the military to open all combat positions to woman. But the question must be asked: Are Americans ready to see pictures of flag-draped coffins flying into Dover AFB carrying their Moms, daughters and sisters?
(Excerpt) Read more at coachisright.com ...
“Selective Service” is offensive. Inclusive Service is better. /s
The all volunteer military has led to war without end. A draft is the only way to have a military. All serve, all could be in the line of fire. The only reason the Vietnam war ended was the draft. The minute the draft was over, the protests stopped.
“The all volunteer military has led to war without end.’
Now there’s an interesting thought. Wasn’t it Clinton who said, “What good is having an army if you can’t use it?”
Will Muslim women who are drafted still have to wear burqas?
NO. HELL NO.
My family isnt going to get maimed or worse in some ME hell hole so the pot smoking kid down the street can play video games all day.
Not going to happen.
I don’t think there’s an equal protection problem if suitability standards are used. Most women don’t qualify for infantry
Sane testing, and the problem resolves itself.
The equal protection issue arises from prior court cases that have tried to force women to register. The argument that prevailed was the women were barred from combat arms, which obviated the need for them to be registered for the draft.
They have removed the reason for the exception, and therefore if they do not remove the exception there is an issue.
Proper testing simply will add to the cost of administering any draft that becomes necessary, at least until the standards are declared to be sexist.
No, the other way around. It’s time to end registering for a draft no politician will ever enact. It’s completely pointless.
There's a wrinkle I didn't know about or expect. It makes combat duty the plum, coveted job. The thinking seems to be, if you've got to be drafted, it's discrimination if you don't have your fair opportunity to be in combat.
I never thought of it that way, and I'll bet most people of both sexes don't view it that way.
Your thinking is a bit backward from the logic applied. The argument is that the draft is used, first and foremost, to fill the combat arms roles required in a major war. Therefore, if one is ineligible to the combat arms, one is not required to be in the draft.
From my memory (which may be suspect), the “include women” argument was really used as bait to try and get rid of the selective service altogether. The anti-drafters thought including women would scuttle registration. But their arguments were rejected because women cannot fill the primary roles sought in a draft.
The “plum role” part comes in the volunteer army, where combat arms are considered a distinguishing role, so that officers and enlisted who serve there have a leg up in the race for promotion.
Is my thinking really that backward? In today's military, what is the ratio of supporting to combat roles? I think it's pretty significant, and good deal higher than one to one. In a situation where there was a general draft, there would be plenty of danger to go around, and not just for combat volunteers.
I agree that many military volunteers do consider combat to be a job they want, but I'd submit that in a mobilization, many draftees would prefer not to get that job.
The logic used to determine the prior lawsuit, as I understand it, was opposite to your line of thought. Perhaps the thought has to be modified, but if a draft is required, then the support to combat ratio changes from the volunteer force.
I understand that the logic used in the lawsuit was different. I follow it, but I think that it is backwards. That doesn’t help, as once a precedent is established, it becomes hard to overturn.
The logic used is, to my way of thinking, backwards. Equal protection means that the law doesn’t subject different distinguishable groups of persons to different requirements.
Volunteering is one thing, but if I didn’t want to go (say in a war caused by Dem fecklessness) I’d feel more protected if I was treated the same as the other class exempted from the draft.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.