Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Women in Combat Roles
January 29, 2013 | John Leland 1789

Posted on 01/24/2013 5:03:38 AM PST by John Leland 1789

Dear Elected Represenatives :

Just a couple of years ago, I wrote to all of my elected representatives about women in combat, and about the eventual possibility of women being required to register with the Selective Service Administration, as males are required to do.

I received letters from Congress and the Department of Defense that carried this response, "Sir, don't be alarmed --- don't you know that it is against the law for women to serve in combat roles?"

Well, is it against the law, or isn't it ?

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta wants women in combat units ! Does the Defense Secretary have the power to write law, revise law, or ignore the law ? Or was I misled by my representatives who told me that it is against the law for women to serve in comabat ?

This is a very negative course for American women and families. We trust you, Sirs, will fight with us against this trend.

The next step will be requiring females to register with the Selective Service Administration when they turn 18 years of age.

Remember that this is all for "equal rights" experimentation in the social laboratory of the U.S. Armed Forces. It has nothing to do with improving our fighting or defense capabilities.

The grand purpose is to tear families down to the ultimate degree--to make a false patriotism more important than home and family order. This will include more young mothers being inducted into the Armed Forces, separating them from their husbands and children. Many of those mothers will never see their children again, as the more UNO and anti-terrorist conflicts the USA gets engaged in, the more young mothers will come home in coffins, leaving their children motherless. This will be considered "equal rights" by the elites and by the feminist organizations. Many young mothers will return to their children maimed and crippled.

You can be assured that eventually there will be a reinstatement of military conscription (the draft). The way that left-wing, godless, humanistic, socialistic change is crashing down around our shoulders at present, it is likely to be sooner rather than later. The left wing will use it to test how compliant it can force Americans to be—especially this generation which has been taught in the public schools to make government its god, and to trust government for benefits instead of God.

Christians will have to draw a line where they decide to protect their daughters . . . and wives, if they are young enough to be drafted. Will you, Christian, comply and send your daughters, perhaps your wife, to make themselves available to the army by registering with Selective Service ? You say, "Well, it hasn't happened, and it's not likely to happen." Let me ask you something, Christian : What other things have you seen happen in the last decade of which you had previously said, "That won't happen in America." ???

The leftists in our federal government must destroy our families and our churches in order to succeed with their plans. Having lived in two communist countries myself, I can tell you absolutely that the churches must be taken over, and the federal government must be made to be your "Daddy," your "Mommy," your "Uncle," and your "Aunt." Your loyalty and dependence MUST be shifted from God and family to the government.

A very convenient way the federal government has to transfer the loyalty of your daughters from fathers and husbands to the government is to begin putting females in combat units, fox holes with males, destroy the discreet nature of your daughters, put them out there where they have to be intimate with men to whom they are not married---create situations where males have to undress females (and visa versa) when they are injured in combat to save their lives ; this is, not to mention providing more moral temptations in remote settings where males and females are spending nights together in the field or on patrol . . . or in the belly of naval ships (already happening now).

All of the above wickedness will be called "patriotism." Christians who object to their wives and daughters serving in this way will be labeled "unpatriotic," and worse. We have already been called “unpatriotic” even by so-called conservatives (who like to see women in compromised situations) for taking this stand in protection of our own daughters.

Christians, you will have to make a stand, or not make a stand somewhere along this line. The introduction of females into combat units is a conscientious objection, only one of them, that my own sons have put forward along with their selective service registrations, "I, as a Christian man, conscientiously object to serving in close quarters with females because of the moral temptations that arise, when the Word of God has taught me plainly to 'make no provision for the flesh'."

We urge you, our elected representatives to openly take a stand against placing females in combat units of any size or configuration.


TOPICS: Evangelical Christian; Moral Issues; Religion & Culture; Religion & Politics
KEYWORDS:

1 posted on 01/24/2013 5:03:42 AM PST by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

“There are many purposes behind the feminists’ [left’s] efforts to restructure the military, but you can be sure that greater national security is not one of them.” ~ David Horowitz, National Review, October 5, 1992

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2959508/posts


2 posted on 01/24/2013 5:15:56 AM PST by areukiddingme1 (areukiddingme1 is a synonym for a Retired U.S. Navy Chief Petty Officer and tired of liberal BS.))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

3 posted on 01/24/2013 5:20:37 AM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Not to mention that women have periods. So they’re in the heat of the battle and start bleeding and having severe cramps. “Oh, excuse me, boys, while I go and powder my nose.”


4 posted on 01/24/2013 5:21:53 AM PST by District13 (Obama scares me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

No civilized country sends their women into combat.

(Well, I mean, unless there’s a big mud puddle involved...!)


5 posted on 01/24/2013 5:24:16 AM PST by djf (Conservative values help the poor. Liberal values help them STAY poor!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

The purpose of the military is to win battles, kill more of the enemy than they kill of us and ultimately defeat the enemy through attrition of combatants/equipment or through shear will power!

It is NOT about equality! If it is about equality, then why do only OFFICERS get to fly jets? How is that equal to the enlisted men?

There is nothing “equal” about combat! The each side will attack at the weakest point and will scrutinize any perceived flinch and will use EVERY SINGLE ASPECT against the other to be victorious! Our enemy doesn’t “play fair” or only shoot at the armed or only attack the well defended, which means we must have better trained, more equipped and FULLY FUNCTIONAL soldiers at the front lines, otherwise, the rear-lines will see MUCH MORE combat than at any other time in American history!

This is a failure of leadership by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. They are too busy trying to curry favor with the President than to stand and explain the purpose of the military is about winning wars with the least amount of American casualties! This decision will lead to more deaths of more Americans and the Joint Chiefs of Staff will NEVER admit that it was due to these asinine “equality” changes!

I pray for America’s future!


6 posted on 01/24/2013 5:36:39 AM PST by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Considering that we try not to leave people behind, the weaker will inhibit the stronger from accomplishing the mission.

When the female’s endurance limit is reached, the troops will have to help them forward.

Makes the situation more dangerous and disadvantageous for the forward troops overall.

Exactly the type of thing the commie in chief appreciates.

And, loosely along these lines, I was wondering, when the O’s danced w/military folks at the inaugural ball, did they select gay service members?


7 posted on 01/24/2013 5:39:10 AM PST by fruser1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

The ability to draft our daughters and put them on the front lines to die in foreign wars and pointless peacekeeping missions along with our sons does not strike me as progress.
When I first heard the serious proposals of women in combat in the 1990s, I thought it was a liberal way to make people want to oppose war - because you don’t want 19 year old pixies getting blown up.


8 posted on 01/24/2013 5:46:56 AM PST by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

Comment #10 Removed by Moderator

To: John Leland 1789
I cannot attest to the efficacy of women in combat roles. Neither do I deny they may have a role to play. The record, however, is painfully clear. During Dessert Shield and subsequently, Desert Storm female service members, when suddenly faced with wartime deployment, rushed into pregnancies in an effort to avoid service. Their ranks were reduced to the extent less that 35% remained fit for duty for Gulf War 1. Would the same hold true today?
11 posted on 01/24/2013 5:58:30 AM PST by PowderMonkey (WILL WORK FOR AMMO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

The military isn’t ‘the military’ anymore.

To the government, it’s just another government job. It’s like a larger version of the post office, just with higher operating costs.

To the American people, war is a sporting event. Hopefully we win, but if not, it was probably nothing big. The ref was blind, bad calls by the coach, maybe need to shake up the roster a bit, but hey, better luck next war!

To the generals, war is what you wage over your budget and your political fiefdom. Victory is clawing your way up from Assistant Vice Deputy Post Commander to Vice Deputy Post Commander. Defeat is being passed over for promotion.

In short, whatever you remember (or imagine) about the military is gone, and what’s left is about to shrink. Of course, it won’t be the bureaucracy that shrinks. They’ll cut troops and tanks before they lay a hand on a desk. That’s just where we are now as a nation.


12 posted on 01/24/2013 6:07:48 AM PST by Steel Wolf ("Few men desire liberty; most men wish only for a just master." - Gaius Sallustius Crispus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Then it is NOT an OPTION, for some to “choose”.
They will go where they are ASSIGNED!

Men can’t “decline” front line service.

Then neither can women.

IDIOTS!


13 posted on 01/24/2013 6:10:03 AM PST by G Larry (Which of Obama's policies do you think I'd support if he were white?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Steel Wolf
The military isn’t ‘the military’ anymore.

To the government, it’s just another government job. It’s like a larger version of the post office, just with higher operating costs.

To the American people, war is a sporting event. Hopefully we win, but if not, it was probably nothing big. The ref was blind, bad calls by the coach, maybe need to shake up the roster a bit, but hey, better luck next war!

To the generals, war is what you wage over your budget and your political fiefdom. Victory is clawing your way up from Assistant Vice Deputy Post Commander to Vice Deputy Post Commander. Defeat is being passed over for promotion.

In short, whatever you remember (or imagine) about the military is gone, and what’s left is about to shrink. Of course, it won’t be the bureaucracy that shrinks. They’ll cut troops and tanks before they lay a hand on a desk. That’s just where we are now as a nation.

Spot on assessment, unfortunately.

14 posted on 01/24/2013 6:14:40 AM PST by TADSLOS ( "I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."-George Mason)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

What do feminists think is going to happen to female soldiers captured by islamic terrorists? Geneva Convention treatment? Yeah!


15 posted on 01/24/2013 6:32:09 AM PST by golf lover (goingf)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: PowderMonkey
I cannot attest to the efficacy of women in combat roles.

Allow me to opine; I so attest. I served in the Army, many years ago, when the Armed Forces initiated changes in physical training and testing of soldiers (for the more equitable treatment of women.)

Once upon a time, the whole purpose of Basic Training for soldiers was to take a mass of normal young men, subject them to a rigorous physical routine, and punch out as many quality militia men, within 8 weeks, as possible. One of the many tests of these new soldiers' abilities was the PT exam which consisted of the Inverted crawl, the Run-dodge-and-jump, the Horizontal ladder, Sit ups, and 2 mile run. If you took 100 typical, High School Seniors (men) and put them through the training regimen, the easily reached goal was to pass 85, or more, into combat service. In time of War, spitting out quality troops is essential.

Why, then, was this training and the rigorous PT exam eliminated? Because the women couldn't do it with anything approaching the men's success rate. Out of 100 women High School Seniors, maybe 5 could pass the test after training. The numbers didn't justify the expense and time for the amount of final product.

In the final analysis, the politicians reasoned that the problem lay in the training and testing, not in the conclusion that the women were too far away from soldierly expectations as to be impractical to mainstream with the men.

16 posted on 01/24/2013 6:43:28 AM PST by Thommas (The snout of the camel is in the tent..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: District13

...”Not to mention that women have periods. So they’re in the heat of the battle and start bleeding and having severe cramps. “Oh, excuse me, boys, while I go and powder my nose.”...

My sister was down with severe cramping every month. She was not able to do anything but suffer during those times. This is a move from hell for women, children and our nation. The diabolical have taken over and war is coming. At some point people will decide life is not worth living under the jackboot.


17 posted on 01/24/2013 6:54:51 AM PST by jazzlite (esat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Great letter.


18 posted on 01/24/2013 6:54:56 AM PST by Servant of the Cross (the Truth will set you free)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: tbw2

You are spot-on target with that. The purpose of this move is to make it politically impossible for us to send troops into combat ever again.

When they interview old 60’s radicals like Bill Ayers they always asked if they’ve changed their minds on anything since those days. And the most consistent answer is “in hindsight, I would not have ended the draft”, for that very same reason.


19 posted on 01/24/2013 7:09:16 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Thommas

The next war will be all drones. No need for ground troops. The “front lines” will be 10,000 feet in the air. The only casualities will be the occassional drone shot down.

The “front line” troops job will be checking IDs at check points.


20 posted on 01/24/2013 7:41:26 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: USAF80
The next war will be all drones. No need for ground troops. The “front lines” will be 10,000 feet in the air. The only casualities will be the occassional drone shot down.

If you truly believe this, I have some oceanfront property near Amarillo, Texas that I will sell you for a STEAL!

It was only a few short years ago that our President, George W. at the time, stated that we would us the air power with shock and awe to rattle loose the grip on the Iraqi people and that we would then basically walk into Baghdad without much of a fight. How did that workout for us?

To win wars, you MUST have front line men on the ground securing and maintaining the land and the people - otherwise, those who are assaulted by our drones inadvertently will be as opposed to us and our ideas as those we were actually shooting at!

The next World War won't be nuclear, it will be block to block, street to street and house to house - ask those returning from Iraq and Afghanistan! We cannot simply bomb our way to victory! It takes boots on the ground to quell the resurrection and to supply and support the survivors; again failure to do this will result in MORE hatred, not less (see Obama policy for proof positive of my statements)!!
21 posted on 01/24/2013 9:11:19 AM PST by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

Somehow, I can’t believe that the US Public could stand to see women storming the beaches at Omaha and Iwo Jima, while watching them being cut down by enemy fire.

If they do, I believe the Feminazis who demand this should be press ganged into the service to lead the charge.


22 posted on 01/24/2013 9:12:59 AM PST by Ruy Dias de Bivar (Click my name! See new paintings!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: John Leland 1789

If this is about “equality”, then when are we going to get rid of the WIC program? What about maternity leave? Alimony?


23 posted on 01/24/2013 9:25:20 AM PST by meyer (When people fear the government, you have Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

next up- free gubmint abortions on base..


24 posted on 01/24/2013 9:31:11 AM PST by newnhdad (Our new motto: USA, it was fun while it lasted.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExTxMarine

Generals are always fighting the last war. The “drone war” is what we have now. It’s clean, surgical and only the “enemy” gets killed.

If you look at new weapons system aquisitions a lot is for unmanned aircraft. My buddy sent me a pic today about the unmanned resupply helicopter.

House to house, nah. Keep a drone overhead 24/7. They have to come out to get supplies then you can pick them off.

Massive tank battles, with who? Storming beaches, hadn’t happened since Korea.

Lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, forgotten already.


25 posted on 01/24/2013 9:38:21 AM PST by USAF80
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: USAF80
Lessons from Iraq and Afghanistan, forgotten already.

So too forgotten where the "storming beaches" lessons of WWII - UNTIL Korea. And in Korea these "forgotten" lessons were indispensable in the reversal of the plight of that theater of combat.

If you did not know, Saddam Hussein specifically left a bulk of his forces on the beachfront of Kuwait because he was afraid that the U.S. Marines would be making such a beach landing. The threat thereof helped make the route of his forces that much easier.

Again, killing people from afar does not change the overall climate of the people of the land we are bombing! That takes boots on the ground and forces to counteract the stupid thoughts and teachings of the offspring of those people we already killed. Otherwise, we will have to go back in 15-20 years to do more drone killings. Then another 15-20, and then another. It is a cycle sure to repeat itself if we DON'T have boots on the ground.
26 posted on 01/24/2013 10:52:54 AM PST by ExTxMarine (PRAYER: It's the only HOPE for real CHANGE in America!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Thommas
was the PT exam which consisted of the Inverted crawl, the Run-dodge-and-jump, the Horizontal ladder, Sit ups, and 2 mile run.

That was the old 500 point test, before they adopted the 300 (350?) point test, which is inferior.

27 posted on 01/24/2013 1:11:53 PM PST by ansel12 (Cruz said "conservatives trust Sarah Palin that if she says this guy is a conservative, that he is")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson