Quotes of the day

posted at 10:31 pm on January 24, 2013 by Allahpundit

Statement by the President on the Opening of Combat Units to Women

Today, by moving to open more military positions—including ground combat units—to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens. This milestone reflects the courageous and patriotic service of women through more than two centuries of American history and the indispensable role of women in today’s military. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice, including more than 150 women who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan—patriots whose sacrifices show that valor knows no gender.

Earlier today I called Secretary of Defense Panetta to express my strong support for this decision, which will strengthen our military, enhance our readiness, and be another step toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals of fairness and equality.

***

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta, in lifting a ban on women serving in combat, said women have become integral to the military’s success and have shown they are willing to fight and die alongside their male counterparts.

“The time has come for our policies to recognize that reality,” Panetta said Thursday at a Pentagon news conference with Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Panetta said that not all women will be able to meet the qualifications to be a combat soldier.

“But everyone is entitled to a chance,” he said.

***

If you want to know just how far the debate over women serving in combat situations has come, look no further than Sen. Marco Rubio, a top contender for the GOP’s 2016 presidential nomination and a leading voice in the modern conservative movement.

For Rubio, the question is a no-brainer. “Women already are in combat to begin with. We should be putting our best soldiers forward regardless of their gender,” Rubio spokesman Alex Conant said Thursday evening.

***

For the next several months, and particularly over the summer, the services will reevaluate the standards they have in place for these combat positions, particularly the physical-fitness standards. A host of Defense Department officials swore to reporters on Thursday morning at the Pentagon that they’ll neither lower physical-fitness standards nor establish different standards by gender, something they say would violate federal law, anyway.

So the likely outcome of those tests is to find which jobs will remain excluded to women. An example a senior Marine official cited involved a loader on a tank crew. Loading a tank round requires a certain degree of upper body strength. You need to hoist a 50-odd pound, 120-mm round, removing it from its rack and loading it into the breach — here’s a video demonstration — all in a space that doesn’t really allow a lot of lower body strength to supplement. When the Army and Marine Corps explore job openings for women, that’s what they’ll test — whether a soldier or marine can do that, repeatedly, in relevant and realistic conditions, regardless of gender. (Although Dempsey mentioned one of his tank gunners when he was a division commander in Iraq was named Amanda.)

“For us it comes down to, it’s the physical standard and can they do it,” the Marine official said.

***

There is a problem with fitness that affects the military, but it doesn’t reflect on women alone. It reflects on Americans in general, says Barnett, who as a member of a group called “Mission: Readiness” signed a report on the dangers posed by obesity to U.S. security.

“We are too unfit to fight, is the term. We are definitely an unfit society,” Archer added in a telephone interview. “They need basic training to get ready for basic training. This is true of both males and females,” Archer said…

“When we study history, we find that women have coped with every aspect of war. Women have demonstrated the emotional courage to withstand the brutality of war, including during lengthy imprisonment as POWs under very harsh conditions in the Pacific and in European work and death camps; in very dangerous and stressful resistance fighting; in the face of rape and mutilation; and at the moments of their deaths,” Fenner writes.

***

In the US military, a woman’s service is not recognized, professionally or financially, the same way as a man’s. Because women have not been eligible for “combat role” positions—even though they were shooting and being shot at—they were denied access to certain career opportunities. The plaintiffs in a lawsuit the American Civil Liberties Union filed against the Department of Defense over the exclusion of women from combat roles offer great examples of this discrimination. Two of the plaintiffs in that case have received Purple Hearts, and two have received combat medals. One of the plaintiffs, Air Force Major Mary Jennings Hegar, a helicopter pilot, was shot down in Afghanistan attempting to evacuate wounded US service members. She engaged in a firefight with enemy forces and was shot before escaping. Women are already “getting their limbs blown off in war.” Panetta’s announcement will ensure they are recognized for it…

Most men cannot meet the necessary mental and physical requirements for service in combat. Any woman who can meet those standards should not be denied the opportunity because of an arbitrary gender restriction. Moreover, removing the restriction is not about celebrating militarism. The military has long been a path for historically disfavored groups to claim the full benefits of citizenship. Justifying discrimination against blacks, gays and lesbians, or women becomes much more difficult when they’re giving their lives for their country.

***

Most people seem to believe that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have merely involved driving out of a forward operating base, patrolling the streets, maybe getting in a quick firefight, and then returning to the forward operating base and its separate shower facilities and chow hall. The reality of modern infantry combat, at least the portion I saw, bore little resemblance to this sanitized view…

When we did reach Baghdad, we were in shambles. We had not showered in well over a month and our chemical protective suits were covered in a mixture of filth and dried blood. We were told to strip and place our suits in pits to be burned immediately. My unit stood there in a walled-in compound in Baghdad, naked, sores dotted all over our bodies, feet peeling, watching our suits burn. Later, they lined us up naked and washed us off with pressure washers…

Despite the professionalism of Marines, it would be distracting and potentially traumatizing to be forced to be naked in front of the opposite sex, particularly when your body has been ravaged by lack of hygiene. In the reverse, it would be painful to witness a member of the opposite sex in such an uncomfortable and awkward position. Combat effectiveness is based in large part on unit cohesion. The relationships among members of a unit can be irreparably harmed by forcing them to violate societal norms.

***

But is it a good thing? As a woman and a U.S. Marine Corps veteran, I’m not so sure. To those who have been agitating for this step, I say this: be careful what you wish for

Many women will find out in the long haul that combat entails unprecedented physical stress. As it is now, many women have greater duress on their bodies than men with the physical requirements and are discharged at higher rates from the duress on knees, hips, ankles, and joints. That reality will only be exacerbated in combat. Will physical performance standards be adjusted (that is, made less stringent) to accommodate women?…

It goes beyond physical limitations—the object of military culture is to defeat the enemy and kill anything that is a threat. There is a constant mode of aggression; I’ve seen too many women who enlisted and completed training, but soon learned they simply couldn’t face that dark reality on a daily basis.

***

Women have been in support roles. Driving supply trucks or flying helicopters, accompanying patrols as interpreters — some of them have come under fire, some of them have undoubtedly fired back, and a few may have engaged in fire-fights spurred by the need to defend themselves. But getting shot at is not “combat” — at least not the way the official military defines it. The Department of Defense defines a combat job as one in which a soldier’s primary duty is to seek out, engage and neutralize the enemy. This is a distinction that should be recognized. Special credit should be given. Operating in a combat zone requires bravery but seeking out and “engaging” an enemy requires even more bravery. Sorry, the U.S. military is — well, used to be — a meritocracy. It makes distinctions.

Now, (I think we can all stop pretending that there aren’t sex differences here) men like this seeking-out-the-enemy thing. Infantry jobs, jobs involving combat, have to be requested and young men will continue to enthusiastically request these positions. Will women? I doubt they will in great numbers. I think they will continue to swell the ranks of intelligence, management, medical, and logistical jobs, continue to do these jobs admirably, but avoid the combat roles. If so, the impact of this historic policy change may be insignificant. It may go down as more of Obama’s gestural politics.

***

Yet honoring sacrifice does not necessarily mean acceding to demands for social justice, and the real question should not be whether opening combat roles leads to greater job opportunities for women but whether placing women in infantry companies makes those units deadlier (or at least no less deadly) and more proficient in their core role — engaging and destroying the enemy in close combat.

Cemetery Ridge in Gettysburg, Pa., Bastogne in Belgium, and the Chosin Reservoir in Korea rank among the most hellish and brutal environments ever created by man. The idea that women in the ranks could have repelled Picket’s Charge, or the XLVII Panzer Corps, or the People’s Volunteer Army’s 9th Army just as well as men is more hope than anything else. I pray those hopes won’t ever be tested in equivalent environments, but if history is any guide, the test will come, and no amount of social justice can replace steely courage, superhuman endurance, and ironclad bonds of brotherhood.

Women and men are not interchangeable biological units. There will be consequences to this change, both expected and unexpected. Is “social justice” worth this very deadly risk?

***

Feminists routinely deny Eros — except when it suits them to exploit their sexual power. Only someone deliberately blind to human reality could maintain that putting men and women in close quarters 24 hours a day will not produce a proliferation of sex, thus introducing all the irrational passions (and resulting favoritism) of physical attraction into an organization that should be exclusively devoted to the mission of combat preparedness. Reported “sexual assaults” will skyrocket, and of course it will only be the men who are at fault. Any consensual behavior leading up to the “assault” — getting in bed with your fellow grunt drunk and taking off your clothes, for example — will be ignored, since in the realm of sexual responsibility, women remain perpetual victims, at the mercy of all-powerful men. Expect a windfall to the gender-sensitivity-training industry, which will be called in both before and after the entry of women into combat units to eradicate endemic male sexism.

Even if Leon Panetta intends to keep female fighting units sex-segregated, that distinction won’t last. Feminists will complain that female-only units stigmatize women.

Chivalry is one of the great civilizing forces, taming men and introducing social graces and nuance to what would otherwise be a brutish social world. It is already on life support, but sex-integrated combat units will provide the coup de grâce.

***

It’s predictable that members of Congress—including many who privately know better—will be intimidated by the forces of gender correctness from arguing against women in harness. It’s predictable that the media will unfairly attack critics of women in combat units as failing to respect the achievements and sacrifices of our servicewomen who have served and are serving in harm’s way. It’s predictable that few in our political and cultural elites will speak up for biology, for common sense, or for decency or honor.

This is therefore a moment of opportunity. The political leader who takes on this fight will be mocked and scorned–almost as much as was Ronald Reagan in 1977, when he challenged the bipartisan elite consensus on the Panama Canal Treaty. As it happens, I suspect this fight will prove more winnable in Congress than the fight against the Panama Canal Treaty. But whatever happens in Congress, will any political leader step up, as Reagan once did, to fight the good fight?

***

***



Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6

Good evening..:)

Dire Straits on January 25, 2013 at 2:40 AM

Dire! Hello, friend. I trust all is well with you.

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 2:44 AM

INC on January 25, 2013 at 2:43 AM

Goodnight, INC!

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 2:46 AM

I too must say goodnight, but I leave you with this.

uncommon sense on January 25, 2013 at 2:47 AM

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 2:44 AM

Good evening..:)

Dire Straits on January 25, 2013 at 2:48 AM

Adios: vaya con dios

Fred

jrsrigmvr on January 25, 2013 at 2:50 AM

Goodnight, uncommon. It was a real pleasure to see you again.

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 2:50 AM

Make men behave like women, and women behave like men. Lefty concept of ‘fairness’. What could go wrong?

tommy71 on January 25, 2013 at 2:52 AM

Dire Straits on January 25, 2013 at 2:48 AM

How about an oldie from Warren Z?

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 2:54 AM

Goodnight, Fred. Peaceful sleep and sweet dreams!

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 2:55 AM

Lou Reed: Dirty Blvd.

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 3:00 AM

Equal OPPORTUNITY, Grace. That’s our credo. We don’t know if some can make the cut. That’s up to them. But they deserve a shot.

John the Libertarian on January 25, 2013 at 2:16 AM

That is the sort of idea a child would have. This is not just a matter of giving anyone “a shot” but of having to redo an entire infrastructure and change everything for the sake of one or two that you think should be given a shot. You seem to have no understanding of the logistics behind co-ed units in the field and all over the place and seem to think that this is nothing but letting women take some test.

Try and think like an adult. There’s a lot more to this than just giving someone “a shot”. That would be like saying that you would allow tricycles on highways and wouldn’t have to do anything to accommodate the differences between them and the cars that would now have to share the lanes with a totally different sort of vehicle.

I’m sorry but your sort of simple-minded thinking about this really annoys me.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 25, 2013 at 3:00 AM

tommy71 on January 25, 2013 at 2:52 AM

Yet another word the Left has co-opted and twisted. Fair, fairness, fair share…puke.

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 3:02 AM

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 2:54 AM

Very nice..:)

PS..It is all good for me..Hope all is well for you an yours..:)

Dire Straits on January 25, 2013 at 3:08 AM

It’s been a long day. Way past bedtime.

Jim Croce: Photographs and Memories

Goodnight & God bless to all!

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 3:12 AM

PS..It is all good for me..Hope all is well for you an yours..:)

Dire Straits on January 25, 2013 at 3:08 AM

I’m good and my loved ones are healthy. I’m blessed. :)

Goodnight, Dire. Have a terrific Friday!

4Grace on January 25, 2013 at 3:15 AM

We’ve had some really horrendous things happen in our military history. Gettysburg, Shiloh, Belleau Wood, Bataan, Bastogne, Anzio, The Battle of Samar, Chosin, Khe Sahn. There are many more bad, deadly places we’ve been.

Now, imagine them all sprinkled liberally with dead women.

trigon on January 25, 2013 at 3:22 AM

Who cares? reinstate the draft and force the Service of every mother’s son and daughter. This is just another unthinking liberal attempt to further destroy the military.

rplat on January 25, 2013 at 4:23 AM


Tiny North Korea Sabre-Rattling(s),as expected…..

North Korea threatens to attack South Korea if it helps enforce a UN punishment for December rocket launch – @nytimes

23 mins ago from http://www.nytimes.com by editor
==============================================

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/26/world/asia/north-korea-turns-its-ire-on-south-korea.html?_r=1&

canopfor on January 25, 2013 at 5:53 AM

bad idea in my opinion….

not everything has to be equal between the sexes…

cripe

cmsinaz on January 25, 2013 at 6:06 AM

ot:

Barack Obama’s new ‘grassroots’ group tied to big liberal donors, corporations

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/barack-obamas-new-grassroots-group-tied-to-big-liberal-donors-corporations-86708.html#ixzz2Iz5zx3oH

shocka!!!

its always been tied to them you idjits, you just didn’t want to report it until now…

cmsinaz on January 25, 2013 at 6:09 AM

O/T: “What Difference Does It Make?” My Take.

kingsjester on January 25, 2013 at 6:45 AM

Does this mean that men and women will now have the same physical standards in the services? Currently – they do not. Females are expected to perform FAR LESS and are allowed to carry FAR MORE body fat than males.

If you want this to WORK – then it means that male and female Marines will not have to complete the 3 mile run in the same amount of time – no difference for gender.

Otherwise – this is simply another form of “affirmative action”.

HondaV65 on January 25, 2013 at 6:46 AM

Once the women actually qualify there will be fewer than 100.

So why bother?

profitsbeard on January 25, 2013 at 1:04 AM

Because it’s not really about woman in combat. Not really. It’s about something more serious than that. This is merely another step – admittedly a LARGE step, the Left has been emboldened by their success at their ability to steal two presidential elections in a row with no consequences – in the Left’s war on all the Biblical foundations of Western Civilization ( Remove not the ancient landmark which your fathers have set – Proverbs 22:28) and replacing them with their distorted vision of how the world should be.

This is merely a continuation of the Left’s war on God and anything that reflects either Him or His design. Differences between men and women? Can’t have that, the young might begin to assume there’s some real design or purpose to Creation. Everything must be relativized and molded into their vision of a Brave New World.

The only problem is that the unintended consequences catch up with you sooner or later.

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 6:57 AM

Wow…

It froze last night…

Ice everywhere…

Good morning all.

Electrongod on January 25, 2013 at 7:03 AM

Good take KJ

With a D next to your name you don’t have to be accountable or tell the truth

cmsinaz on January 25, 2013 at 7:06 AM

Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 7:02 AM

How the hell has it come to this? We really are dragging the bottom of the barrel.

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 7:07 AM

Stay safe EG

cmsinaz on January 25, 2013 at 7:07 AM

Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 7:02 AM

Imagine the night hags we’re going to get when the next Supreme Court judges retire or die.

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 7:09 AM

And wild beasts shall meet with hyenas,
the satyr shall cry to his fellow;
yea, there shall the night hag alight,
and find for herself a resting place.

Isaiah 34:14 RSV

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 7:10 AM

cmsinaz on January 25, 2013 at 7:06 AM

Thank you, ma’am!

kingsjester on January 25, 2013 at 7:15 AM

kingsjester on January 25, 2013 at 7:15 AM

Don’t you think “She should be ashamed” is a little mild?

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 7:18 AM

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 7:18 AM

Yeah, it is. But, at this point, I don’t see her and/or her boss being tried for treason….unfortunately.

Chump will lose his feeble mind…again, because I called her a liar…again.

kingsjester on January 25, 2013 at 7:26 AM

kingsjester on January 25, 2013 at 7:26 AM

I hear you, KJ. Actually, I’m surprised it even got THIS far.

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 7:27 AM

Chump will lose his feeble mind…

kingsjester on January 25, 2013 at 7:26 AM

Can’t lose what you don’t have.

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 7:28 AM

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 7:28 AM

True.

kingsjester on January 25, 2013 at 7:30 AM

There will be no justice on Bengahzi..
F&F or anything else this admin has done.
In this world anyway. The next…oh yes.

my take.

bazil9 on January 25, 2013 at 8:18 AM

Resist We Much on January 25, 2013 at 7:02 AM

Accurate.

bazil9 on January 25, 2013 at 8:25 AM

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 6:57 AM

It seems every time I come across one of your posts, I find myself nodding in agreement. Women have no place in combat–frankly, the entire military should be sex-segregated, as it once was, to avoid the problems that have become so commonplace that no one stops to think about the fact that putting men and women together in close quarters on long deployments is asking for all kinds of trouble.

However, given that we are not going to separate the sexes, we need to have an honest way of evaluating what works. If women are going to be in combat, they need to be in all-female combat units so we can accurately measure their effectiveness.

DrMagnolias on January 25, 2013 at 8:32 AM

DrMagnolias on January 25, 2013 at 8:32 AM

Well, thank you for that, Dr.

One of the problems I have with women in combat roles (remember, we’re talking about hunting down and killing other human beings and/or being hunted down and killed by others) is that it is inconsistent with the fundamental psychic makeup of women. Granted, it takes a psychic toll on a man as well, but God, in His infinite wisdom has designed the male human differently than He has the female, and when we mess with this order, the consequences are unknown.

Additionally, the acceptance of this development by a growing segment of the female population only demonstrates the success the Left has already made in conditioning women to continue behaviors and practices that will further undermine their capacity for contentment as women.

I have never seen our young women as confused and as discontented about their roles in life as I do today. And their role models are, for the most part, horrendous.

The current Secretary of State is a prime example.

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 9:05 AM

I spent more than 28 years in and around the military, mostly as a member of the Army Officer Corps. I saw what women think they must do in order to fit in with their male counterparts and feel a part of the male bastion of control. Sarah Palin is cut from the same mold as these women who were desperate to fit in with male colleagues – desperately trying to prove herself as tough as, or tougher than, “the boys” who are competing with her. Palin sets the stage with stories of her prowess in murdering wolves, moose and caribou from a helicopter platform vantage point, begging the question, “C’mon boys, don’t you think I am tough enough?”

The above is from a leftie trying to savage Sarah Palin. Like many other commenters here, he is a chauvinist — but he has no excuse. He’s a leftie, and chauvinists are always righties — right?

unclesmrgol on January 25, 2013 at 9:09 AM

You’re too nice, too enamored of history and tradition to realize that the rules have changed. Remember, I live and work in a town where, “Hello, he lied,” isn’t a joke; we men of the Left are perfectly comfortable lying, cheating, and stealing — hello, Senator Franken! — in order to attain and keep political power. Not for nothing is one of our mottos, “By Any Means Necessary.” You see, we’re the good guys, and for us the ends always justify the means. We are, literally, shameless, which is why Bill Clinton is now a multi-millionaire and Eliot Spitzer is already on the comeback trail.

This is a good peek behind the curtain. We are playing tennis and they are playing “knock out.”

Fallon on January 25, 2013 at 9:13 AM

Still not one good reason for this. Telling. The Military is not the same as the civilian world. The more the left tries to make it that way the worse shape the Military will be for it. John you are my friend. You are wrong.

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 9:05 AM

Additional thought:

Women are and have been the civilizing and stabilizing factor in social structures. If you want to corrupt a society, corrupt their women FIRST.

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Rubio is dead wrong about this. The guy is really losing my interest. He has done so consistently since he came on the scene.

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 9:59 AM

The Military is not the same as the civilian world. The more the left tries to make it that way the worse shape the Military will be for it.

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 9:50 AM

And, that appears to be the end result the left is looking for, a military in disarray.

Fallon on January 25, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Still not one good reason for this.
Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Because there isn’t one..
Just the same ol’ line..fairness and equality.
Hmmm..that always works out well.
See-aff action.

bazil9 on January 25, 2013 at 10:14 AM

unclesmrgol@9:09am: That hit piece on Palin was by an affirmative-action woman general, who was promoted because of the same political pressure to provide equal opportunity. One can only imagine what Patton would have thought of her. As was stated before, this (along with allowing homosexuals) is a deliberate attack on the esprit de corps of our military by promoting dissension and distrust among the troops,thus bringing us down to the mediocrity of the rest of the world. Obama has resented our greatness, and this is the result.

FirelandsO3 on January 25, 2013 at 10:25 AM

The folks supporting this that didn’t implement it are being played. The long term goal of this policy has nothing to do with equal anything.

Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 10:32 AM

Women are and have been the civilizing and stabilizing factor in social structures. If you want to corrupt a society, corrupt their women FIRST.

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 9:54 AM

Women’s Lib has done its job well. I figured out how inane they really were in my 20s, but only after having my first child. The importance of being pro-abortion in our society surfaces… If you want to find a bitter demented liberal, talk to a childless woman now in her 50s or 60s.

Fallon on January 25, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 6:57 AM

I love to see others points of view, and you’re take on things, is very poignant!!

FirelandsO3 on January 25, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Very well said!

There is somthing seriously sinister behind everything the dems do.

Most of you have figured it out!

I am lagging behind, it was 0′s first election that peaked my interest in politics, before then, I truly wasn’t bothered.

Since then I have seen a pattern emerge, it’s one of destruction, in my mind.

The left will say and do anything and make it sound so benign, the true harm of it will not be fully known for a few more years yet!

I have discovered much by being here and conversing and reading the comments… I thank you all!!

Scrumpy on January 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM

So the likely outcome of those tests is to find which jobs will remain excluded to women. An example a senior Marine official cited involved a loader on a tank crew. Loading a tank round requires a certain degree of upper body strength. You need to hoist a 50-odd pound, 120-mm round, removing it from its rack and loading it into the breach — here’s a video demonstration — all in a space that doesn’t really allow a lot of lower body strength to supplement. When the Army and Marine Corps explore job openings for women, that’s what they’ll test — whether a soldier or marine can do that, repeatedly, in relevant and realistic conditions, regardless of gender. (Although Dempsey mentioned one of his tank gunners when he was a division commander in Iraq was named Amanda.)

NO, SHE WAS NOT A TANK GUNNER. She was the turret gunner on a HMMWV, likely firing a M-240, M2 .50 cal, or a Mk19 automatic grenade launcher. NOT a 120mm tank gun.

And this sounds just marrrrrrrvvveeellllouuussss. So, women won’t be able to function as loaders, but it’s just skippy for them to be drivers, gunners or tank commanders? Well, let’s just see how that will work in the REAL WORLD. I was not on a USMC tank crew, but I served on Light Armored Vehicles, with a crew of three, not four. First off: the US Army has eschewed automated loaders on its tank not just for technical reasons, but because it’s damned difficult to maintain a tank with only three crew members. When you figure that frequently the Tank Commander is going to be off doing leadership functions while the rest of the crew is pulling maintenance, that instantly reduces you to a crew of three. Figure other crew may be off doing other chores as well, the number of people free to do the work of keeping the tank in fighting shape rapidly reduces. I’m very interested to see how a female tank crew member will handle breaking track. Let me guess: the men in the unit will be forced to do extra work not only on their own tanks, but on fellow soldiers’ tanks when there are only women available to work on those.
So, women can’t be loaders? Here’s how things work in the REAL WORLD, people. When you arrive at an armor unit from school, you are made a loader. It’s a sh!t job, but it allows a period of breaking in, and learning the vehicle. Kind of an apprenticeship program. The loader does all the crap odd jobs nobody else wants. Then, he graduates to being a driver, eventually a gunner. So, we’re going to put women on tank crews, but forbid them being loaders? That means that men who have been serving as loaders for a long time and DESERVE a promotion to driver or gunner, will be forced to continue to serve as loaders while newbie females come in from school and immediately move to the driver’s seat. What a great f***ing idea, Panetta.

quikstrike98 on January 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM

quikstrike98 on January 25, 2013 at 2:55 PM

quiksrtike, did you read that address to the graduating class of West Ppint by Ayn Rand? Particularly the last few paragraphs.

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Scrumpy on January 25, 2013 at 11:18 AM

Sinister’s the right word. Diabolical is too .

Cleombrotus on January 25, 2013 at 5:55 PM

Comment pages: 1 4 5 6