Posted on 01/26/2013 9:56:19 PM PST by ReformationFan
Last Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other U.S. military leaders lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. I, for one, think this is a great idea and have a few modest proposals, if the brass inside the beltway is open to suggestions, on how they should deploy the dames (and whom they should deploy).
First off, if you truly want to eviscerate the enemy—namely Muslims—then I propose sending the most nerve grating and foul women Hollywood has to offer straight into hot zones as our forward armies. I’m a thinkin’ starting off with Roseanne Barr, Joy Behar and Lisa Lampanelli as our first offensive. Talk about shock and awe! The enemy would crap their pants (or whatever it is they wear).
Heck, those ladies wouldn’t even need to bring weapons, Leon. Just send this unholy trinity in with matching Frederick’s of Hollywood teddies juiced up on a pot of espresso and then have them confront hajji with their spurious insights, high-pitched, nasally voices and their unfunny comedic screeds, and our foes will shoot themselves in the face. War on Terror over. Boom. It’s that easy. You’re welcome.
If for some reason Barr, Behar and Lampanelli’s sensory assault on our enemies’ sensibilities doesn’t immediately devastate our adversaries then I suggest sending wave after wave of liberal college students, at the height of their PMS rage, into the thick of battle and have them quote Sandra Fluke and Lady Gaga at the top of their lungs. I believe (and I could be wrong) that this would absolutely demolish any forces that survived the initial onslaught of the Tres Amigas.
From a PsyOps standpoint you could work soft targets and wear down our foes and their enablers with Yoko Ono’s latest solo album blaring from trucks with loud speakers. On top of that scary scenario, we could simultaneously have choppers drop leaflets over the various villages warning them that if they don’t surrender now Yoko’s going to show up at their village and do a six-hour concert. They’ll fold up quicker than the Beatles did. Guaranteed. And radical Islam will leave us the heck alone for many, many moons.
With that said, I share the following concerns that my buddy who works with the U.S. Army and special forces has with deploying the ladies to combat positions:
1. One of the most significant issues with women in combat arms (MOS) is the lack of suitable hygiene. In other words, there are times in our military careers where we go through extended periods where we don’t have showers. Women have monthly hygienic concerns that a man doesn’t.
2. When the government mandates acceptance into a job/work force scenario, standards must be lowered to accommodate the numbers. Most females are not as strong as men. This will be a direct issue in combat. If you have a 5’10” male weighing 200 pounds, he will weigh between 250-275 pounds by the time he has donned a full combat load. How many women, after being hit by an IED (improvised explosive device), could drag 275 pounds out of a burning vehicle while drawing fire? Or how about if a unit is assaulting a radical Muslim compound and a soldier weighs 250-275 pounds. Can his female battle buddy pull him out of the room while shooting several muzzies in the face? This goes back to height, weight, psychological and physical exercise standards. If you lower the standards, the mission is compromised. Last year and this year the U.S. Marine Corps tried this by allowing women in their infantry school without lowering standards. Only two signed up, and neither made the grade. None signed up this year.
3. When soldiers deploy they live together, sleep together, eat together, shower together, and bleed together. So will women be given separate quarters and showers? What if a female platoon leader (in charge of 40 men) becomes pregnant? Will she go home? Will she have to stay in combat? What if she is the only female in the platoon … does she not have to bunk with a man?
4. Emotionally women are not made like men. There is nothing like being face to face with your enemy and pulling the trigger again, and again, and again. Women have been in combat zones and have performed excellently, but to put them in combat arms responsible for the killing of others has not happened yet. What is the emotional and psychological effect of this on women (not meant or created for war) versus men (who were created to protect and be warriors)?
5. What happens when the first female is captured in combat and brutally murdered? What about when al-Qaeda rapes a woman on video and uploads it to YouTube for all to see? How will the American public handle that? Will men act more carelessly and recklessly to spare their female counterparts than they would another man?
Look, I’m cool with and appreciate anyone wanting to give and/or receive a bullet on my freedom’s behalf, but I believe putting girls on the front lines of combat is a bad, bad, bad idea.
1. Make all qualified women register with the Selective System (draft) within the same requirements as men. The women recruits will reduce in huge numbers.
2. NO, I repeat NO, special treatment for women. They can't handle the same pushups in "basic" nor carry an 80lb load on their baks, they are eliminated from infantry.
I believe that even the most butch women will never ever succeed in SEALS, Delta Forces, Special Forces (Green Berets), Rangers, Marine Recon. If they can jump out of an aircraft as Airborne, then okay. But what can they do when they hit the ground with an 80lb runsack, plus weapons, ammo, and body armor?
I guarantee you there will never be a female SEAL.
Just read the other day that the 2 women had to "ring out" from Ranger training. As tough as Rangers are, SEALs are even worst. There is not one woman in this nation that could accomplish SEAL training. Most large hardy men don't make it through the training. It's arguably the hardest training of all the elite forces in the world. Bring the butches on and see how they survive. I would like to see it.
That said, if a woman has the balls to be a sniper, than she should go for it. But than sniper training is extremely rigourous. They want to be warrors, then let them go through the same exact training. It's harsh training.
Forget the NFL...name me one college football team that has a female on it.
For that matter, name one high school football team with a female on it. (Perhaps a kicker someplace???)
There is reason for this, especially at the collegiate level where “equality” is all the rage and surely to be challenged.
In short, are we more interested in winning for Ole County High than we are in winning the nation’s wars?
This article’s a waste of space. All you say is this:
“Men fight for women or over women. Not with women.”
Still not convinced?
“How combat effective would you be after seeing your wife blown up by a land mine?”
For that matter, name one high school football team with a female on it. (Perhaps a kicker someplace???)
...in my neck of the woods, a high school coach with a reputation for being old school put a girl on his team as a kicker...I remember being kind of disgusted with the guy for farting around, and as for the girl, she kicked, well, like a girl...she never cost him any games, so he lucked out having to face the music...even worse, the powers that be opened up wrestling to girls, with the inevitable result that boys simply forfeited their matches and quit the teams...although some unfortunates, very light ones, had the lifetime ignominy of losing a wrestling match to a girl, can’t imagine how they could continue their lives after that...the other side of the coin showed boys wanting to play field hockey, and the edict came down that to do so, they had to dress in the uniform skirt, difficult even for metrosexual males to live down...happily, sanity has returned, and mixed sports are no longer permitted...lunacy put to rest, evven temporarily, is a good thing...
...one thing I think would be good to do, just to shut clamoring women up for a while, is to take the NCAA women’s basketball champs, and put them up against the high school boys champs from Pennsylvania, for instance...I think the boys could pick their margin of victory...
“When soldiers deploy they live together, sleep together, eat together, shower together, and bleed together”.
I didn’t know that men and women are sharing the same bunk now. Sign me up. Give this 63 year old retired
Senior NCO a cute little 22 year old to bunk with. I’m starting to like this idea of “women in combat”.
Would love to see a women try and go through Air Force
Combat Controller school or Pararescue. Now that would prove to be interesting.
In researching Leon Panetta’s military history, I see (on Wikipedia) where he joined the United States Army in 1964 as a Second Lieutenant, served as an officer in Army Military Intelligence, received the Army Commendation Medal, and was discharged in 1966 as a First Lieutenant. His only military service was for two years during the Viet Nam conflict! I guess this was his foundation of understanding the military and why he decided that women could serve in combat!
Simple solution - any politician who votes for this should only be able to use the services of females for protection of themselves and their families for the next 5 years.
Indeed. If women in combat is such a great idea, then logically speaking why aren’t football teams co-ed? We all know why.
Agreed except why limit it to just the next 5 years? Make it a permanent rule for them and prohibit any male protectors for them too.
Agreed except why limit it to just the next 5 years? Make it a permanent rule for them and prohibit any male protectors for them too.
Panetta was only doing what he was told to do.
He was just following orders like the Nazi officers did.
Exactly my point!
After spending time on my family ancestry tree recently, it’s amazing how many people would not be around if my great-great-grandmother had been killed in combat and not had any children! The whole idea is ludicrous and politically motivated.
Does this writer have zero knowledge about the military?? Women are already deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan and have been the entoire time of the wars.
It would seem that the writer has knowledge about women that you seem not to possess. The military does not change the reality that men and women are quite different -physically & psychologically.
There is a reason that women and children man the life boats first.
As well there is that pesky "Violence Against Women's Act" that is still on the books.
Only the leftist mind pushes the imposed utopian equality ideology that you seem to have bought into hook line and sinker like many useful idiots have.
Did Obama's mama wear combat boots?
That’s probably one of the reasons the left is pushing it. It goes along with their pro-abortion and population control mentality.
I prefer the other ideas suggested by posters here—create a whole fighting unit of only women, and send em into battle as a ground fighting unit.
It is the same crap in public life—they want equality, but the door held for em. They would prefer to be in combat with males to drag/carry their ass outta trouble, yet they could not perform that for a male.
Exactly.
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.