Posted on 02/08/2013 9:37:49 AM PST by Kaslin
Martin Dempsey, the Army general who's now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was a division commander when he got to Baghdad in 2003 and climbed into a Humvee for his first trip off base. "I asked the driver ... who he was (and) where he was from," the general remembers, "and I slapped the turret gunner around the leg and I said, 'Who are you?' And she leaned down and said, 'I'm Amanda.'
"And I said, 'Ah, OK.' So female turret gunner protecting division commander."
One of the things that makes a good commander is the speed with which he can adjust to changed conditions, and the general had just been introduced to another reality of the ever-new U.S. Army.
The general told that story the other day as he stood next to the country's secretary of defense to formally lift the Army's ban on women in combat units. No, not every woman -- or man -- may be fit for combat, but now every trooper has a chance to qualify for it. Which is as it should be -- at last.
Gen. Dempsey, it turns out, is a rich source of instructive stories. Not to mention comments that apply to more than their immediate subject. It was during this same news conference that he discussed the considerable problem of sexual harassment, not to mention outright abuse and rape, in the service. He traced it to treating women as less than equal. To quote from his remarks:
"When you have one part of the population that is designated as warriors and another part that's designated as something else, I think that disparity begins to establish a psychology that in some cases led to that environment. I have to believe the more we can treat people equally, the more likely they are to treat each other equally."
When you have one part of the population that serves in the military and another part that doesn't, a rift is likely to develop between those who have defended the country in uniform and those who have never had that privilege. And it is a privilege. As well as an education, not just an obligation. It's also a necessity in a democracy. For the divide between citizen and soldier may only grow greater as the years pass, and develop into mutual suspicion, even mutual contempt. And divided we fall.
Unlike generations of Americans, this one may be remarkably ignorant of both military life and the military virtues, not having been exposed to either. Which is why every citizen of a republic should serve in the military for at least a time. In order to understand that freedom does not come without obligation -- including a military obligation. And to realize anew that discipline, far from being the antithesis of freedom, is one of its requirements. They go together, like liberty and law.
The idea and ideal of the citizen-soldier has been at the core of democracy since the ancient Athenians invented it and entrusted the defense of their city-states to their hoplites, the first citizen-soldiers. Divide citizenship from military service and something essential to the preservation of democracy since the Greeks has been lost. Democracy and its defense will have been separated, and that is not a wholesome arrangement for either. To quote Thomas Jefferson, "Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state."
A professional army is a great asset -- a necessity, as many a democracy has discovered when it neglected to train one. But a republic needs citizen-soldiers, too. Without them, democracy is divided at its very core: between those who defend it and those who are defended.
It is not a healthy division, for the result is a mutual ignorance that leads to mutual estrangement -- between those citizens who have known military service and those who haven't. It is a division no democracy can afford. For the military needs a connection with the citizenry, and the citizenry with its military. Both benefit, and the country benefits most of all.
Or as Gen. Dempsey noted: "When you have one part of the population that is designated as warriors and another part that is designated as something else, I think that disparity begins to establish a psychology...." And it is not a healthy psychology, for it divides rather than unites. And united we stand.
Just being a trigger puller doesn’t make women have the capacity to do an offensive combat operation where brute strength, speed, and the mindset that are necessary for victory.
And furthermore, women being KIAs has nothing to do with combat effectiveness. Always see and read this sorry canard being played by the leftists.
Obama and the rest of the DUms have found their “Yes” girl in Dempsey.
Having done the PT test in basic back in the 60's, I would say passing the test wouldn't be that big of deal for a woman in good physical shape.
Yes I am sure most of us have noticed how dumpster Dempsey clearly is doing the bidding of our Pharaoh president.
generally... the problem isn’t having women in the military... it’s the reduction of qualifying standards in order to allow them in. this leads to weaker then possible units... and when your life is on the line, you want to make sure you’ve done everything you can to minimize the chance of failure
this includes optimizing each member to the maximum potential for the role
being built weaker, by design, is not optimal... obviously
As soon as Tammy Duckworth got out of rehab in 2006 or 2005, she was instantly glommed onto by Dick Durbin and Rahm Emmanuel. They ran her in a conservative GOP CD in Chicagoland in 2006, I think it was. She almost won. As consolation prize, Obama put her at the VA (good idea), and then Durbin the Turban and the boyz ran her again last fall in another district that had been gerrymandered to get rid of a Tea Party Republican, and she won. Now she's a prize heifer in the New Dem Party ..... which makes me think she's probably gay to boot. No husband, no guy in her life, she was an Illinois National Guard Blackhawk driver and a captain when she got hit near the end of 2004 in Iraq. She's a double amputee, super attitude, good trooper, and now she's in Congress.
Just sorry to see Durbin the Turbin and The Impostor doing better for Iraq War vets than the GOP's perfumed princes.
My impression of Dempsey is that he is a tool.
This article is gibberish.
You know how you sometimes look at someone and get that first impression....Well...I don't like this guy...
He’s already talked about lowering standards.
None of which, he quickly added, reflects so much as a mote of dust on Pres. George W. Bush, who has been tireless in his devotion to veterans, disabled veterans particularly, and veterans' affairs.
If Barky had a pair somewhere, he'd appoint Dubya to the VA.
Basic PT is a joke. Can a women carry a 200 lb wounded man for a long distance and at the same time fire a weapon accurately, and keep on humping along through out the day having the ability to do it over and over again? A man may be called upon to do that. I can can do it but can a girl do it? I doubt it. Can a women fight hand-to-hand if need be and beat a man in a fight — I can do that too - again can a women do that? ...Not with any seriousness. They can however, sit back at a distance shoot from defensive positions, but that’s not taking it to the enemy in any offensive operations and be effective at the same time. If the enemy is ever on the same par with US in a fight, and your unit is filled up with women. You’re going to lose.
Fn A! That would have been my reply too, 50 years ago. There are many good comments following the linked article. One is on point IMO:
“His turret gunner got in a vehicle in a convoy of at least 4 vehicles
Because it was the CG’s vehicle it was not first although other times it may have been and did a short drive from one camp to A close by location or camp and then eventually returned to the original camp
We know it was a short trip or as CG he would have taken a chopper
The convoy was not intent on engaging the enemy and in fact with the CG they would try and avoid the enemy
That is a great job for the female gunner, I convoyed from Kuwait to Baghdad over 3 days and had several females in our convoy
That is totally different then an infantry unit going for two weeks into hostile ares looking to engage the enemy
Females are not suited for the Infantry”
Mostly women but men do get raped. They need to clarify sexual assault though as it has a broad meaning. A grope is sexual assault and it happens a lot with foreign nationals. They include these in their reports and it looks like our military men are a bunch or rapists. A lot of the local desert denizens don't see women running around un-veiled.
A nation that believes women are somehow equivalent to men in form and function and treatment expectations, and sends them off to war to do combat, does not deserve victory in war.
That noise you hear in the background is a posse of Chinese generals smacking their lips.
Based on what this clown said most Air Force guys would feel like second class citizens as they are not “warriors”.
Actually, I think nobody believes that, not even the policy proponents.
What they're doing is punching menu items on an ideological bill of fare that keeps the 'Rat Party together. This is the year the lesbians get their macho-girl itch scratched. Reality later.
Which is why we need a bunch of double-Y-chromosomal sadists and perverts in the military. Makes sense to me!
Perhaps the most significant aspect of all mammalian life, is the profound differences of the sexes--the reality from which all continuing life emerges. Anyone who does not understand this, is very confused. Anyone who seeks to somehow change this via revolutionary policy decisions is beyond hope.
For a Conservative discussion of the Feminist Absurdity.
Frankly, it is not very reassuring--if this is how General Dempsey actually reasons--that he is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. God spare us, another War, while such people are in charge!
William Flax
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.