Brought out the PDSer's and Misogynists in force.
Posted on 01/30/2013 6:30:57 AM PST by Kaslin
What if, during the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney had accused President Obama of wanting to let servicewomen serve in combat? After all, Obama had hinted as much in 2008. What would Obama's response have been?
My hunch is that he would have accused Romney of practicing the "politics of division" or some such and denied it.
In any case, wouldn't an open debate have been better than putting women into combat by fiat? You'd think the folks who are always clamoring for a "national conversation" on this, that and the other thing would prefer to make a sweeping change after, you know, a national conversation.
Instead, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced the change on his way out the door. And Panetta has been lionized even though it wasn't really his decision to make. If the president didn't want this to happen, it wouldn't happen. Perhaps Obama let Panetta run with the idea, just in case it turned out to be a political fiasco.
The good news for Obama is that it hasn't been. Absent any informed debate, polls support the idea. Indeed, the Republican Party has been shockingly restrained in even questioning what is a vastly bigger deal than the lifting of the half-ban on gays in the military -- "don't ask, don't tell." The mainstream media have celebrated the milestone and largely yawned at the skeptics.
Most lacking from the coverage is any attempt to explain how this will make combat units better at combat. Instead, we're told that gender integration is necessary because without combat experience, it's hard for women to get promoted.
Lifting that glass ceiling is an understandable, even lofty desire. But what does it have to do with making the military better at fighting?
My point isn't that women should be kept out of all combat roles. Indeed, as many supporters of the move are quick to point out, women are already getting shot at. "In our male-centric viewpoint, we want to keep women from harm's way," Ric Epps a former Air Force intelligence officer who teaches political science, told the Los Angeles Times. "But ... modern warfare has changed. There are no true front lines; the danger is everywhere, and women have already been there in Iraq and Afghanistan."
True enough. But does anyone believe such changes are permanent? Will we never again have front lines? Or are the generals simply fighting the last war and projecting that experience out into the future?
Heck, if we'll never have wars between standing armies again, we can really afford to cut the defense budget. Something tells me that's not the conclusion the Pentagon wants us to draw.
It is a common habit of many liberals and self-avowed centrists to preen about how they don't deny science and evolution the way conservatives do. Well, on this issue, it is the opponents of women in combat invoking the scientific data that confirm a fairly obvious evolutionary fact: Men and women are different. For instance, at their physical peak, "the average woman has the aerobic capacity of a 50-year-old male," notes defense intellectual and veteran Mackubin Thomas Owens in a powerfully empirical article in the Weekly Standard.
Another evolutionary fact is that men act different when around women. This creates challenges for unit cohesion and fighting effectiveness.
The three most common responses to such concerns are that countries such as Israel and Canada let women in combat; advances for women can't be held hostage to sexist attitudes; there won't be any lowering of standards, so only physically qualified women will be in combat.
As to the first point, Israeli gender integration is often wildly exaggerated. And the Canadians have neither the capacity nor the need for a large standing army.
The latter arguments don't strike me as particularly reality-based either. Sexist attitudes alone aren't a justification for anything. But we're not talking about misogyny here. Proof of that is the fact that the military already practices gender-norming (giving women extra points for being women) in many instances. Will there really be less now?
Obama's decision hasn't stifled the debate, it's merely postponed it until the day Americans see large numbers of women coming home in body bags, alongside the men.
Mr. RomneyCARE would NEVER confront Obama
beyond Debate 1. After all, Mr. RomneyCARE
only attacked conservatives, especially women,
like Gov. Palin.
Brought out the PDSer's and Misogynists in force.
Don't we just live in a wonderful country?
Obama rules by fiat! He thinks he knows what is best and if the congress doesn’t run forward to provide it he will by exec order. That is who he is. With Moochelle, Jarrett and Axelrod there to prompt him he rambles on.
Were there Canadian women in combat in Afghanistan?
Bottom line. This move isn't about fairness. This is secular humanists working at breakneck speed to destroy the judeo-christian culture and re-make the world in their image.
Obama’s continuing “War on Women”.
That first picture was obviously taken more than two months ago ....
USMC Casualties:
Peleliu — duration 10 weeks, Total: 1,794 killed, 8,010 wounded or missing — 9,804
Iwo Jima — duration 5 weeks, Total: 6,821 killed, 2 captured but recovered, 19,217 wounded — 26,040
Okinawa — duration 11 weeks, Total: 12,513 killed, 38,916 wounded, 33,096 non-combat losses [kamikazes] — 84,570
Japanese Casualties:
Peleliu — duration 10 weeks, Total: 10,695 killed, 202 captured — 10,897
Iwo Jima — duration 5 weeks, Total: 21,844 killed, 216 taken prisoner — 22,060
Okinawa — duration 11 weeks, Total: About 95,000+ killed, 7,400–10,755 captured — 105,755+
I remember when Billie Jean King beat Bobby Riggs in tennis. Never mind that she was a man in a woman’s body and a heck of a lot younger. But, it PROVED that women were equal to men.
Because there’s still some inventory in the gun store? I was at Bass Pro Shop in Concord with some kids today, and there was a sign at the register listing how much ammunition and other firearms-related items each customer could buy, because of the “unbelievably heavy demand.”
Some women are fighters. Anoreth is one ... she’s Athena, she’s a duellist, she’s John Wayne if he was a tiny redheaded girl. But she’s also 5’1” and 105 lbs., and there’s nothing to be done about that, any more than there’s anything to be done about the (general) behavior of men around women and vice-versa.
Only someone who doesn’t want our military to be effective as an offensive/defensive force would be doing what the Obama administration is doing.
Yup ... I can say for sure no gun shop in my general area has inventory like that any more ...
Only someone who doesn’t want our military to be effective as an offensive/defensive force would be doing what the Obama administration is doing.
You'd almost be inclined to think that His Execrable Majesty Emperor Barackula was deliberately trying, with malice aforethought, to destroy the US military and intelligence community.
Yes, I’d be almost inclined to think that, and I could back it up with some supporting facts, too.
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.