Posted on 03/19/2015 10:11:45 AM PDT by jazusamo
I would salute them what ever country they come from and hit it maybe even.
The Israelis and the Russians each tried this decades ago, and reversed course when they found this to be true.
Doesn’t anybody in D.C. study history?
Egads, you mean women are different than men?
Who woulda thunk?
Ping.
Those women could stop a war cold in its tracks!
This is the whole point!
Women in combat arms cause:
1. Higher casualties as males try to protect the females (incur more risks) and females take more risks trying to prove themselves to the men.
2. Fraternization issue have a corrosive effect on morale.
3. Dead females have a corrosive effect on unit morale.
4. Issues of preferential treatment and favoritism have a corrosive effect on unit morale.
5. Issues of rape (both homo and hetro) have a corrosive effect on unit morale.
This is why you do NOT put females into the combat arms. This is something the Liberals totally ignore in their quest for gender equality.
ping
I don’t think they don’t care. I think this is part of the agenda.
Yup! They will leave their posts of harassing pro-lifers, code pink will have a panic attack and turn blue, Hillary and her daughter will dissolve into fits of rage because of the baby, the head of the administration will throw a golf club through the oval office window and the women in Congress under 55 will filibuster until November 2016.
It's how Liberal nostrums work.
Their goal is not to win wars but to polish unicorn farts and get adoration from their "friends".
This is also true of homosexuals!
Active Duty ping.
When I started in the army, we still had WACs. They were a clear asset utilized in the way that they were. Also, full disclosure, I was at too many Army schools not to notice that “a few” of our female military could hang. Had a female captain in one of our groups at one school I attended, who could run about 3/4 of our men into the ground on the 2 mile run. That’s rare, of course, but this young lady did it. She was long, lean, a natural runner. And she could do sit-ups all day and into the evening. She was also bright, smart, sharp. And she was professional. She was NOT a physical beast, however. She was sort of average at push-ups, and you could look at her upper body and realize she wasn’t pulling or carrying to many injured to safety in a firefight. She was also a feminine type female with kids, a husband, a family. Not beautiful in the media sense, but a fine woman nonetheless.
In the old WACs, she would have ended up a general, but I’m talking the early 90’s. My memory says she was Transportation Corps, and I was OK with that. For the most part, her strengths could be used and her weakness at upper body strength would not in most cases be an issue.
Could she have hung in Ranger School? She could have run with them, planned with them, strategized with them, and probably gunned with them. But she couldn’t have carried the packs, carried the buddies, endured the jolts with that lean frame. IOW, she would have made a great planner in their HQ in the sense of transportation, but she couldn’t have fought alongside.
It is common knowledge in the Army that only the combat arms have a shot at 4-star general. Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Aviation, Special Operations. I agree with that. These are the warriors, and a warrior should be in charge of a military unit tasked with winning war. The Jag Corps, the Transportation Corps, Quartermasters, etc. all have branches that are topped by 2 or 3 star generals.
I don’t really weep at all for someone who ends a career, if they’re that good, as a 2 or 3 star. I think the LTC level is a success, and for a former enlisted turned officer, major is a success. I did know one general who began during Vietnam as a private, E-1, General Bryan Douglas Brown, who went on to command all of the US special operations community. A real human being and a real warrior. He should have been there.
This young female captain, while really good, shouldn’t have been. But there’s lots of guys who also shouldn’t have been. Doesn’t make a career any less successful.
I’ve been very critical of women in combat positions and my wife of almost 50 years is also very critical of it as well as women being assigned to duties with a high risk of capture.
When we were married in 1965 she was a nurse in the WAC and a good one. She was also in very good physical shape and still is but she nor any of her fellow WACs that I’ve met never once expressed a desire to be a combat soldier.
Like the LGBT thing, women filling combat slots is ridiculous. In my view it’s not that there aren’t a few that can cut it, it’s that our military is not there for those few but for the protection and security of the country and not for minorities of any kind to make political statements.
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.