Skip to comments.Could women in combat mean fewer wars?
Posted on 02/06/2013 1:12:03 PM PST by Tailgunner Joe
I believe everyone should be required to sign up for selective service. The idea of a draft is pretty much off of the table, but if it were ever to be reinstated because of a serious attack on our homeland not everyone drafted would go into combat. Combat should be reserved for those who volunteer. If there is a war the majority of Americans believe is worth fighting, there would be no shortage of men and women willing to sign up for battle. If not, we shouldnt be in it. Period.
Few people would object to women and men being called up to serve in some capacity, other than combat, in a national emergency. In fact it has often been proposed that every young American be required to participate in some form of national service for two years.
The biggest problem with required combat for any sex is that we dont always send our young men and women into harms way for good reasons. We have fought some terrible, some would say illegal, wars. Vietnam was a disaster. Even President Lyndon Johnson admitted early on that it was a bad war and unwinnable. He knew it and so did his secretary of defense and they pursued it anyway. Korea wasnt exactly World War II, the last great war worth fighting.
Iraq was invaded on faulty intelligence and turned out to be a disaster. Afghanistan has turned into a quagmire. Too many people have died because of fickle, weak, dishonest, corrupt or ambitious politicians. The idea of having to fight in a war you dont believe in is reprehensible, whether you are a man or a woman. That is why only those who volunteer, men and women, should be required to fight.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
Is this a trick question?....................
What a moran*
* yes, I spelled it wrong on purpose.
Yes. Well at least for the country that puts its women in combat. Once you loose a war or two real bad, you don’t have a country to defend anymore.
Therefore, no more war for that country. One less country that can go to war could possibly mean less wars.
“The opposite of war isn’t peace. It’s slavery.” - Capt. James T. Kirk
So to the person who think America is the instigator of all the world's conflicts the answer is yes. To the rest of us, probably the opposite is true.
It seems that you summed up all of the main points rather nicely.
That short article was a pile of gibberish, ramblings, contradictions, inaccuracies, ignorance, just useless except as propaganda.
Because women are so totally peace loving and utterly immune from conflict or violence. / SARC sarcsarcsarcsarcsarc
BTW, from my recollection in Jr. High School when Vietnam was still going on. Guys in my neighborhood got Drafted. The Army doesn’t ask Draftees if they WANT to go into Combat.
Um, no. Once the Communist get a social agenda item they like to use it, show it off, get their payback.
How does someone that stupid get published in a major newspaper?
No, it's just a monumentally stupid one.
I guess that there are an increasing number of people whose long-term memories ended on 9/10/2001, then resumed on 9/12/2001, and had no idea who destroyed the WTC towers, attacked the Pentagon, or crashed an airliner in a field in Shanksville, PA sometime in the interim. Thousands of Americans died sometime between those 2 days, but we have no idea why.
Anyway, the catchphrase in today's State Department is that it 'just doesn't matter'. Nothing to see here - move along, and no more imperialist aggressions against historically oppressed peoples. /s
UM....doesn’t she OWN the newspaper? (via her deceased husband)
Naw, it just means we’ll lose.
Nuclear bombs meant fewer wars.
I wonder if they realize that is the ultimate anti-women in the military, argument.
The last thing a free nation wants is for it’s military to become independent and non-responsive to commands of it’s people and leaders and to start deciding policy on it’s own.
” If women ran the world we wouldn’t have wars, just intense negotiations every 28 days.” - Robin Williams
OK, Sally Quinn, here’s the deal: the men have been doing all the heavy lifting fighting in wars. It’s time to give them a rest and let loudmouthed feminists like you demonstrate female abilities to die, be maimed for life, and suffer PTSD.
Effective immediately all women and gays will be formed into combat units and rotated into war areas to replace male units engaged in ground combat. The males will stand down and watch the girls perform. How’s that? How many women and gays signed up to do this: become cannon fodder? Not any I’ll bet.
Leftards really are children. Malevolent children, but children nonetheless.
First off Sally, all women will now need to register for the draft, get used to that. Secondly, dear doyen of the DC salons, less war or not, when it comes, the chances of us losing in combat are now greater. That’s reality Sally, sorry if it flies in the face of your cherished notions and the mindless drivel of your Chardonnay friends.
Now that soldiers will be seeing fewer pounds in their packs, fewer miles on the jog, fewer push ups and sit ups can we conclusively say our troops are going to be less effective now? Especially when entire units are combat unready due to pregnancy or when men die to protect the women??
Sure, we can surrender right off the bat because we can’t fight back.
What they really mean is that when everyone’s daughter is subject to being drafted and sent into combat America’s helicopter parents will all join Code Pink and the nation will find it impossible to go to war amidst the never-ending replay of 1968.
They are commie peaceniks infiltrating the military to undermine the war effort.
Well, sort of. Their intent is to undermine our Western heritage, to dismantle our Judeo-Christian value system, to destroy the fighting capability of our military. But their ultimate goal is not peace but the annihilation of our Constitutional republic so that they can put their Marxist utopia in place. They dream of an America where collectivism, atheism, and pansexuality are all an accepted part of everyday life.
If we have enough trouble with a conventional war, then nukes will have to be used. An enemy might even counter-launch on our cities. Anti-defense lefties don’t think very far ahead on some things, do they.
Sure, I agree. The Army with the women loses quicker and the one without dominates the battlefield.
They might be shorter wars.
And not in a good way.
Nope—More Wars as our foes will see this as a sign of weakness. Women should never be captured alive in battle. Save the last bullet for themselves. i predict more defeats as well with lines of female POWs going into sex slavery in Iran. I hope I am wrong about this. BUT I don’t think so.
I stopped reading about there. She means a draft, and that claim is so far from the truth it is akin to labeling light as dark.
Sally Quinn has been certifiably insane since she was born. Imagine a 50 IQ leftist hairy female ape defining the parameters where combat is okay for woman.
Go figure out how to pop the cap on your flea powder bottle, Sally.
I will finish that thought a bit more concisely for you, young fellar: "Once you loose a war or two real bad --and let loose the Dogs of War, whosoever was on the receiving end of such utter woe is henceforth deemed to be unworthy of any further dissuasion, as he will be in grievous pain and therefore unwilling to initiate any further difficulties lest he be afflicted with yet more sorrows."
You can "qote" that if you like. (Yes, the misspelling is intentional)
I guess she never heard of females deliberately getting pregnant to avoid getting rotated forward or to get out of a rotation. After all, being on point or pulling scout duty is really hard and just too much to ask. (/sarc)
To answer the headline: WTF? No. Why would it?
And end the draft, it’s a dinosaur.
Lots of problems in these statements.
1) The draft is implemented when there is an inadequate supply of personnel for the military in the pipeline to serve military requirements of the nation.
2) It takes longer to train and equip raw draftees, than even an all volunteer force, but that still doesn't preclude the logistical domain where a large supply of personnel might be required for a lengthy conflict and insufficient time is available to market for those skill sets.
3) The supply of manpower to the warfighters generally flows from Active Regulars, to active Reserves, to inactive reserves, to volunteers new recruits to draftees. Each group may take 90-180 more days to field than their predecessors, depending upon the force requirements. It all depends upon the situation.
4) The activation of the draft isn't only conditioned upon an attack upon our homeland. Such a condition arguably might discourage the draft, as it would complicate internal lines of communication when existing labor resources might be better devoted to their current industry. Conversely, it might be more prudent to implement a draft to fight a foreign war, while on foreign shores, in a lengthy conflict, when the existing population is underemployed or unemployed.
Combat should be reserved for those who volunteer.
False again. Self-defense is not only reserved for those who elect to exercise that opinion. It is a right of all people. Very few people want to go into harm's way. Many give argument that the only reason they go into battle knowing many will not return is because of duty, orders, consequences should they resist such orders.
More importantly, there generally is insufficient time to command by popular opinion when war breaks out and orders are being issued.
If there is a war the majority of Americans believe is worth fighting, there would be no shortage of men and women willing to sign up for battle.
False again. In many situations, there probably will be a patriotic movement to volunteer for military service, but strategically, a war worth fighting might not provide America with the circumstances to allow us the time or resources to volunteer to oppose them. We might not know who our enemies are until it is nearly too late.
Even if enough time and resources are available, they must be organized to be brought to bear at the right time and place with adequate reserves to complete the mission. Volunteers after hostilities begin, generally are not employed for 180 to 360 days after the conflict begins, and even then they are green and generally not a balanced independently operable fighting force in modern tactics and operational art.
If not, we shouldnt be in it. Period.
Again false. If not,..this might be the condition of those who are losers, also called the vanquished, those cast into slavery, slaughtered at the whim of their aggressors. Unlike the freedom exercised in her opinions, the finality of being conquered will be much more irreversible than the author's unequivocal, "Period."
"War is a terrible thing. Nobody should ever have to fight in one."
1) War is described as being terrible for very real reasons, but not for the reasons I perceive the author means.
War is not promoted by those who have fought in them, not generally because of violence, but because of the lack of rational cause for the consequential mayhem, and the inconsequential mayhem in even the most rationally planned endeavors.
The highest percentage of casualties and fatalities in warfare is always suffered by the noncombatants in the vicinity of warfare. That's why there are refugees from combat zones.
If war exists, it is in the best interest of those directly involved to be able to fight in them to defend their interests. Those who don't fight in them, and should, are either unprepared victims or cowards and neither are victors.
The author reminds me of the French position in WWII. Fighting for romantic liberty, but undisciplined to plan, organize, and operate with virtue.
Answer: NO. Once the females of one army see females of another wearing the same dress...look out!
Infantry in combat have heightened physical senses.
Don’t count on a female ambush of a male patrol with the amount of estrogen in the air.
B*tch STOLE MY LOOK!
If people (not the poster) are going to ask dumb questions, but ask them seriously, then let’s ask more than just one:
1. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean war over more superficial reasons than before?
2. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean more wars or more combat activity because of certain times of the month?
3. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean more wars based on feelings and emotions?
Now let’s ask some real questions:
4. If women are allowed in combat, could this mean now we’ll have commanders and squad leaders more reluctant to put certain soldiers under their command in the field because they’re women?
5. What if a commander treats all combat soliders equally and most or all of his female soldiers die in combat? What’s that officer’s career going to look like?
The question is fatally flawed because it is falsely premised. The question presumes that war is a result primarily rooted in US aggression -WRONG. The US wages war against aggressors and threats.
The number of wars waged will remain the same ALTHOUGH women in combat will necessarily translate into more women dead and far more women injured. THIS in addition to waging war with women in combat against male enemies who could care less about 'equality' and 'fairness'. The only 'equality' and 'fairness' that will be evidenced in combat will be that women will be just as dead and injured as the men.
War is unfair as in the fairer sex will get unfairly decimated.
Easy for you to say, Sally -- you airhead (famous airhead) -- now that you're way past the age when you might actually be asked to serve!
Conscription of women is another liberal fast-track to civilizational suicide. No wonder they call it "the death culture". Yeah, right, let's get our future mothers maimed, killed off, unable to bear, or screwed up with military stress problems and trying to raise kids anyway. Yeah, let's sign up for a big, fat slab of that.
The only possible reason for demanding that women be drafted for service in combat is a desire to spot the enemy an important advantage, which in turn rests on a buried desire that the U.S. lose its future wars against aggressors and predator nations and NGO's.
Advocacy of women in the draft and in combat units is a Judas offering. People who advocate these measures should be cut off from society, since they've already cut themselves off from faithful support of their fellow-citizens.
Actually, no, it has problems but you still need a way to mobilize.
Both the 1907 National Guard Act (written by Teddy Roosevelt to address what he felt were some problems with restrictions on his ability to "conduct foreign policy" by sending Militia units overseas, standing them up as nationalized forces for as long as he needed them) and the draft itself have constitutional problems. Those need to be addressed.
But in the nuclear age, we have to be able to react quickly, or die by failing to do so. This all needs to be dealt with, within the framework of the Founding and Original Intent.
If it is felt that Original Intent of the Framers was inadequate to the current threat environment, the deficiencies, if any are found in the Constitution, would have to be dealt with by amendment.
BUMP! to you.
Pacifism and appeasement are treason!
There was a Twilight Zone (or something similar) episode where a young boy had these extraordinary powers to punish anyone that upset him, and his family was terrified of him, and gave him anything he wanted, and he still wasn’t happy.
That is what leftists with power are.
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.