Posted on 06/03/2005 4:29:05 PM PDT by Tailgunner Joe
Why are our generals trying to push women into ground combat in Iraq despite Pentagon regulations and congressional law against it? What is it about civilian control of the military that the generals don't understand?
Current Department of Defense regulations exclude women from ground combat, as well as from assignment to forward support units that "collocate [i.e., are embedded side by side] with units assigned a direct ground combat mission." Federal law requires that Congress be given 30 legislative days' advance notice of any change to this policy.
Army Secretary Francis Harvey has been skirting (pardon the word) this policy by unilaterally rewording it to assign women to forward- support units except when "CONDUCTING an assigned direct ground combat mission." (emphasis added) When a ground-combat unit actually engages the enemy, the women (who are slated to be roughly 10 percent of the forward-support companies) will have to be evacuated from the battlefield.
How many ground and air vehicles, and how many extra men, will this ridiculous plan require? Will the enemy hold his fire until the evacuation is complete?
Frustrated by the Army's devious behavior, Reps. Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and John McHugh (R-NY) tried to add an amendment to the military appropriations bill to codify the current DoD regulations which the Army seems to have difficulty understanding. The feminists are lining up their media allies to demand that women be forced into land combat situations, while falsely asserting that Hunter-McHugh is "changing" the rule.
Much of the demand for women in combat comes from female officers who are eager for medals and promotions. Enlisted women are acutely aware of the heavy lifting that must be done by the combat infantry.
The Army's own opinion surveys prior to 2001 consistently reported that 85 to 90 percent of enlisted women oppose "being assigned to combat units on the same basis as men." Women enlistees have a right to expect the Army to obey current policy and law.
The advocates of women in combat say the front line is everywhere in Iraq. They continually try to fuzzy over the difference between being subject to risk (such as being ambushed by a car bomb) versus the task of aggressively seeking out and killing the enemy.
Army Chief of Staff General Peter J. Schoomaker tried to laugh off the difference by saying that "maybe since we're killing 40,000 people a year on the highways, they [women] shouldn't drive. That's very dangerous, too." Comparing the risk of highway driving with engaging the enemy in combat is insulting to our intelligence and common sense.
Putting women in military combat is the cutting edge of the feminist goal to force us into an androgynous society. Feminists are determined to impose what Gloria Steinem called "liberation biology" that pretends all male-female differences are culturally imposed by a discriminatory patriarchy.
History offers no evidence for the proposition that the assignment of women to military combat jobs is the way to win wars, improve combat readiness, or promote national security.
Women, on the average, have only 60 percent of the physical strength of men, are about six inches shorter, and survive basic training only by the subterfuge of being graded on effort rather than on performance. These facts, self-evident to anyone who watches professional or Olympic sports competitions, are only some of the many sex differences confirmed by scholarly studies.
Denial of physical differences is an illusion that kills. That's the lesson of the Atlanta courtroom massacre where a 5-foot-one, 51-year-old grandmother police guard was overpowered by a 6-foot-tall, 210-pound former football linebacker criminal; so now three people are dead.
Every country that has experimented with women in actual combat has abandoned the idea, and the notion that Israel uses women in combat is a feminist myth. The armies and navies of every potential enemy are exclusively male; their combat readiness is not diminished by coed complications or social experimentation.
The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces voted to maintain the exemption of women from assignment to combat in ground troops, combat aviation, amphibious ships and submarines. But already 33 servicewomen including mothers have been killed and 270 wounded in the war in Iraq.
The Army is wondering why it can't meet its recruitment goals. It could be that the current 15 percent female quota is a turn-off to men who don't want to fight alongside of women who can't carry a man off the battlefield if he is wounded. Forcing women in or near land combat will hurt recruiting, not help.
No country in history ever sent mothers of toddlers off to fight enemy soldiers until the United States did this in the Iraq war. We hope this won't be the legacy of the Bush Administration.
"Imagine two young soldiers, one male and one female, sharing a foxhole..."
That's YOUR fantasy, FRiend. In the Real World, it's not like that. Those guys are your Brothers; not your Lovers. Yeesh.
And your DD214 lists your military combat experience as...?
"...must be something in the water up there...thanks for your service."
It's not the water, it's the milk, LOL! Builds strong bones and healthy bodies; and the fact that we Farm Gals are expected to WORK from the day we can WALK. ;)
Everything I've done since my 20 years in the military (I joined at 17) has been a Cake Walk. All of my female ex-military friends agree. The Real World is a Holiday compared to the time we spent (willingly, passionately, patriotically) in the military. ;)
It's been basically all 'down hill coasting' from there, LOL!
AMEN!
You are correct. REMFs do it with their women like rabbits. Way too many of them are getting pregnant and expensive. Everyone knows it, but the Pentagon chicks continue to refuse to collect and issue numbers on that.
Women who serve outside of combat specialties are extremely valuable to our USA and always have been. But feminism does not work in combat specialties. To lose a war for such idiocy is "unthinkable" (doctrine from combat leadership training).
I personally rail against a female in ANY job where the standards of performance have to be lowered in order for her to obtain that job. I don't want someone who is visually impaired to fly an airplane, I don't want someone who is intellectually inferior obtaining admission into a medical school, and I don't want someone compromising our military because it makes the feminist happy.
We should keep in mind that those pushing for women and homosexuals in the military, and women in combat, are the ones who wish us ill. Their desire is to weaken us in anyway they can. All too often even when they force through their malevolent ideas they turn out to be disappointed in the results. Americans of all stripes are very adept at turning lemons into lemonade and the liberals into pouters.
Why do we not, as a general practice, commence regular beating of women here at home in order to properly toughen them up for combat duty? And the children---well lets just strip them of their mothers right now--get them off to some kind of immediate rotating foster care so they can prepare for the day when "combat mommy" does not return. Are we not a better people than to allow this to be done to children in our name?
If you want to see recruiting plummet, intermix these social promotion graduates in with the land combat force. Many soldiers, including my own would then understand that we clearly do not want the best force, but rather the kowed general career ladder climber Pentagon pc player composite real killing machine.
Females do belong in the military in every role they can realistically qualify. Some can bench press 300--and out chuck a backhoe--those with no children we can talk about. As a rule--just say no.
11B40 ... 2 tours in RVN, 1970 - 1972.
The scenario described nearly occurred in my platoon one night. Although instead of male and female soldiers, we had two homosexuals who couldn't keep their hands off each other. Fortunately, it was our platoon sergeant who caught them in their moment of lustful indiscretion and not Charlie.
I have the greatest respect for our men and women in uniform. But life in the combat zone isn't always exciting. There are periods when nothing is going on and boredom sets in. If you think that sexual activity between men and women in a combat zone doesn't have potentially serious consequences, you have your head in the sand.
I take personal offense to that statement as I support women both being in the military and, provided the policy of gender norming physical assesments is rescinded for combat roles, women in combat roles.
Your statement asserts that I wish to weaken my nation and its military. In short you have called me a traitor. Would you like to repeat that assertion, or would you like to use less sweeping statements next time?
"free healthcare"
Lost me here....
The title of this article is correct !
Good reply...
Well, if you saw it, or were involved in it yourself, then I certainly can't dispute that it was your experience. It wasn't mine.
The military covers your medical care while you're on duty. I consider that "free healthcare."
Thank God we won't hear from you again! My question to you is quite simple: what is YOUR military experience?
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.