[Chgogal]

You raise a good point that cannot be ignored. The Perfumed Princes had better make sure the elite standards remain the same. They had better make sure that only the very best are eligible for Ranger School regardless of their gender. Finally, they better make sure that only the best qualified are awarded Ranger Qualified status.

If I were a General, I'd lay my life down for those standards. Otherwise, I would resign.

[rlmorel]

Chgogal, I think it is unfair to place this burden on the heads of officers within the military in charge of various programs facing this type of issue. I don’t think they should be put in that position. It shouldn’t come to that.

In a perfect world, with a military containing no “Perfumed Princes” and a civilian leadership that is not inclined to meddle in the details of running things, that would be the responsibility of the military leadership to ensure that standards are met.

But whether you want to admit it or not, neither of these situations above is the case.

The military takes their direction from the civilian leadership. Their only options (other than simply saluting and obeying) are to sabotage the wishes of the civilian leadership, or to resign. And those are the only choices: Obey, Obstruct, or Out (Leave). (Liberals might read these “Three O’s” and grin with the knowledge that it is EXACTLY what they want. Because they know that obstruction will not prevent them from reaching their objective. Nobody can obstruct forever, and obstruction can be just as damaging to the military as to the individual doing the obstructing. Liberals would call that “a twofer”...)

(Note: the same options of Obey, Obstruct or Out are being presented for opponents of homosexuals in the military as well. I want to emphasize that I do not in any way view these situations as having anything in common except for the two things: The method being used to implement the “desired” changes, and the impact on the military’s ability to perform a mission in the end. That is all. While I view the homosexual lobby and the feminist lobby in the same way because I do believe they have the same goals with respect to the military, I do not view the situation with women and homosexuals in the military at all in the same way. (Note that I will more closely group women in the military with homosexuals in the military who have no interest in pushing a homosexual agenda over the goals of the military) Again to reiterate: I don’t view women in the military in this respect, because I do believe the majority of them are patriotic and hardworking with the end goal of an effective military.

Anyway, all three of those options accomplish the goals of those who do not have the best interests of a cohesive and capable military at heart.

You may have read “Once an Eagle” by Anton Myrer. We have a good number of Sam Damons in our military, still. Principled leaders who want to do what is right for the country, the mission, and the men.

But for every Sam Damon, there are many who will do the right thing until it impacts their career, and there are always many more Courtney Massengales who will embrace what is needed to advance their career, regardless of the country, the mission, or the men. The reason this is so is because of human nature. The founders recognized this when devising a Constitution, to protect the people from men like Massengale and his ilk.

However, there is no such limiting mechanism inside the military other than the precepts of honor and tradition. The firewall is the government itself. Once that is breached, there is no saving recourse. One can attempt to argue along the lines of orders must be followed unless they are immoral or clearly wrong, but these pressures and edicts issuing forth from the civilian leadership do not fall into those categories, at least according to the civilian leadership. (Personally, I do think it is immoral and wrong (not because of women entering the Rangers, per se, but because of the loss of life and failures of the missions I see in the future)

So our commanders have no choice but to obey, sabotage the process or resign. The people in the “civilian leadership” have no intention of changing their views, barring a massive shift in values and electoral engagement.

The electorate can be broken into multiple parts: Those who think we should have a military, and those who don’t. Of those who do think we should have a military, they can be divided into those who know almost nothing about it, those who view it as a jobs program and those who understand what the military is all about. And even those who understand what the military is all about can be further broken down into those who want to achieve the goals of a successful military but think women in the military are being shortchanged from a career advancement point and want to change that by making the military gender-neutral, and those who want to achieve the goals of a successful military by focusing resources to maximize their application regardless of whether it alienates people because they understand that many of the rules in the military were written in blood, and to disregard those rules is to devalue the blood shed.

There are enough people in the electorate who view the military variously as a jobs program, an equal opportunity program, an unwanted necessity and an abomination that diverts money from social programs, that the groundswell to resist this is not going to come from the electorate.

And those in the government who make decisions? That speaks for itself. The Democrat party long ago stopped being responsible in this role, and there are too many in the Republican party who are indifferent to this. And we all know what the media wants. They want what the Democrats want.

Bottom line: This is a done deal.