Posted on 08/12/2013 11:52:28 AM PDT by jazusamo
Who didn’t see this coming? Seriously.
It’s worth noting that (IMO) the quality of these PC female solders will be a factor in their willingness to fire on American citizens at the appropriate time in the future.
I’d like to be wrong, but I think is being factored into the the thinking of leftist women like this Col Haring. A colonel, dear God, we are really in the crapper, aren’t we?
Soon they will announce they are lowering the physical standards.
It’s all transparent.
Well my WW II infantry training included a 20 mile march with full field pack and to shoot everything you could carry. Clear thinking is a given.
Exactly right. The pacifists want war to be as distasteful as possible, so that the US will not fight under any circumstances. Maimed women? It’s part of the plan.
At some point, Canada may invade us, and if we are well-trained, we’ll just surrender. Hey, if it saves just one life ...
I am rather certain I remember the Army, speccifically the 82nd trying to scale the cliffs at Pointe du Hoc at Normandy on the 50th anniverasry of the landing and failing to do so. They were using modern equipment on the 50th anniversary and, I am rather certain, had no one shooting at them.
I would agree, strength is not the only criteria. What the men at Normandy had the peace time army of the 1994 lacked. I am rather certain that in 1944, 1994, or 2013 a PC female army would almost certainly lack.
When the Russians entered Berlin in WWII, they raped and murdered women and girls indiscriminately. What do you think will happen to U.S. female POWs when our enemies get their hands on them - especially the likes of Al Qaeda, Taliban, etc.?
The fact that she is on the staff at the War College is troubling indeed.
Now, if we have an all woman army, I agree. Let them fight it out by staying calm and thinking quickly. SHEESH!
In the book THE RISE AND FALL OF THE THIRD REICH the author mentions the rigorous physical training the Germans went through to be soldiers.
In the first years of the war the English and French soldiers was no match physically for the Germans.
And the US found the Japanese soldier to be very small and very tough.
Perhaps the US should go back to WWII physical requirements to be a COMBAT soldier.
If this female colonel is on the War College staff & faculty then the PC battle is already lost & she has stars in her future.
I’ve met her kind. Makes the skin crawl.
It's all going to lead to this: pictures of horribly-injured and dead military teenage girls being played off against pictures of horribly injured and dead civilian teenage girls from - say - Texas, or Connecticut.
That didn’t take long.
Audy Murphy was a little dude.
It's biology.
Of course, there are outliers. There will always be at least one woman for feminists to point at.
When you take a more represenative sample of "average-sized" people and compare men vs women, the disparity increases dramatically. Again, biology. But we're not allowed to notice.
It's not a matter of women's mental toughness, or "wanting it more" than men. It comes down to physical ability, and all of the "Wanting It" in world, doesn't make a 120 pound woman into a 180 pound man.
The truth of the matter is that the ideas of “mass armies” has only been around since the days of Napoleon, and in truth, most soldiers cannot be trained to be warriors and expected to be even marginally capable compared to “natural warriors”.
That is, one natural warrior is worth 100 or more ordinary men trained to be soldiers. Now this being said, the other soldiers can perform very useful support functions. In the US Army, for example, combat support and combat service support personnel outnumber combat soldiers by at least 15 to 1, and act as important “force multipliers” for them.
The one area in which the vast majority of females are superior to the vast majority of males is communications. For some reason, both males and females pay more attention to female voices.
Likewise, in combat support and combat service support roles, females can usually be just as effective as men, excepting those roles that require upper body strength, such as artillery and engineering.
And it can be said that men are just as capable of being lousy officers as are women.
She cites World War II hero Audie Murphy and North Vietnamese insurgents as examples of small people who came up big on the battlefield
Typical leftist thinking. Lets discard the tried and true for the untried and untrue. What could go wrong?
Their right... it is not raw physical strength. There is also stamina, speed, toughness.... oh wait... yeah...
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.