A few thoughts on women in combat from a dinosaur

posted at 8:31 am on January 26, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

All this week I’ve been witnessing some of the end zone dancing taking place among various groups regarding the recent decision to allow women to fully serve in combat roles alongside the men. There are many variations on the theme, of course, but the editorial board at the Gray Lady probably summed the general sentiment up fairly well.

The Pentagon’s decision to end its ban on women in combat is a triumph for equality and common sense. By opening infantry, artillery and other battlefield jobs to all qualified service members regardless of sex, the military is showing that categorical discrimination has no place in a society that honors fairness and equal opportunity.

Equality is great, isn’t it? Respect and unbiased treatment of everyone regardless of gender or any other metric you’d care to name is a principle which I believe most of us can agree upon. And I still maintain that both men and women should be given a fair and equal shot at any job which they can adequately perform. And yet, when it comes to the idea of American women serving in combat roles on the front lines during war, I am a hypocrite. A throwback. A dinosaur.

There are several jobs where women are absent or underrepresented, almost exclusively in professions where the demands are extremely physical in nature. And while I don’t agree with the delivery of the message, Allen West points out a few items of note.

“I have to tell you, if this is the case, then why do we have separate hockey leagues? Women should be out there playing ice hockey with the guys in the NHL. We should not have a WNBA. I can’t shoot a three-pointer, but there are ladies who could certainly take me to the hoop. Maybe they should be competing with Kobe Bryant.”

This is the interesting part, and it should be noted that the new Defense policy comes to bear on this. In the professions listed by West, I will agree that perhaps women should be offered the same chance to play. (Are they?) But even in sports such as golf, the best female athletes thus far have failed to defeat top tier male players. I can’t really explain why. But if they wish to compete they need to demonstrate that they can perform at the same level, and if they can, then they should.

It has already been noted that this policy may not result of a flood of women into combat positions because of the simple reality that so many of them will not be able to manage all of the requirements to make it through infantry training. But when it comes to the military, even if they can manage the tasks demanded, should they be allowed? For me, there is simply something different. Yes, it’s true that that the average woman will have trouble lifting a 220 pound male soldier in full battle gear and carry him to safety, as some have noted. But it’s probably also true that we could find some who can. So if they can manage all of the physical requirements, why should they not be given this opportunity?

Because. And I’m well aware that this is the worst possible answer. But there is just something about sending women into combat on the front lines which I’m simply not ready, willing or able to accept. Even if we have women who are physically prepared for every contingency on the battlefield, I don’t want them in those roles. There is something primal about war which I believe inhabits the souls of men across America. When we go to war, one of the driving reasons behind it is that we shall “defend our women.” The thought of putting them directly in harm’s way runs contrary to every instinct, and the perils which would surely await our women as POWs is too great to bear.

So I’m a dinosaur. I do not apologize. It’s just how I was built, and I’m saying this not only as a veteran myself, but a man coming from a family of men who served in uniform almost to the last one. I just don’t want women in the infantry or other direct combat roles. I’m not saying they aren’t capable in some cases. I’m just saying I don’t want them to do it.


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 2 3 4

Equality in the Australian military:

Despite the expansion in the number of positions available to women, there has been only limited growth in the percentage of female permanent defence personnel.

In the 1989–1990 financial year women filled 11.4% of permanent ADF positions. In the 2005–2006 financial year women occupied 13.3% of permanent positions and 15.6% of reserve positions.

During the same period the proportion of civilian positions filled by women in the Australian Defence Organisation increased from 30.8% to 40.3%.[11] The percentage of female members of the Australian labour force increased from approximately 41% to 45% between June 1989 and June 2006.[12] In 2008 defence minister, Joel Fitzgibbon instructed the ADF to place a greater emphasis on recruiting women and addressing barriers to women being promoted to senior roles.[13][14]– WIKI

CW on January 26, 2013 at 10:17 AM

This policy does not encourage the best fighting force we can recruit, train and deploy. I was under the impression that a superior lethal fighting force was kinda the point.

Then again I remember when public servants were accountable to their employers…the tax payer.

workingclass artist on January 26, 2013 at 10:19 AM

It’s a very intense book.

I don’t think you could find 50 women in the Army today who could pass Basic Infantry with the men’s standards. Not that it matters since Gen Dempsey (may he fall off a reviewing stand and get trampeled to death by the a Army’s Marching Band) has said if not enough pass they should think about lowering the standards. Which doesn’t matter if you’re sitting a desk at the Pentagon but sucks if you’re a 200lbs guy in full combat gear and you’re relying on a 120 lbs woman to carry to cover if you’re wounded.

warren on January 26, 2013 at 10:02 AM

I take it you’re not a fan of Dempsey…I’m still not sure how much input he had about this whole thing with allowing women tho…but when he came out against Paul Ryan and his concerns he didn’t give me any warm fuzzy feeling either.

As long as that 120 lb woman can carry, aim, and shoot her weapon true, that’s what matters. I wouldn’t imagine that standards would be lowered for women or for everyone. That would be unacceptable of course.

Yeah I was doing a little checking on that book and it looks good. I much prefer a real book to a Kindle-type thing.

That’s another thing. We’re getting accustomed to one man making big decisions like this. We’re getting farther and farther away from these things being decided by acts of congress.

Besides, Panetta made this decision because Obama wanted him to.

JellyToast on January 26, 2013 at 9:49 AM

I’m sure Obama was behind pushing that. But yeah, I wonder if the Defense Secretary has always had this power or is it something more recent?

The SecDef sets internal policy, standards, and requirements. As it should be.

Can you imagine letting Congress deal with this level of micro-management? We could be invaded by Martians from Venus in the meantime, and nothing would happen until they had their vote. *L*

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 9:48 AM

Honestly…I wouldn’t trust congress to manage my lunch. It did seem to go smoothly tho when congress voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq, no?

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 10:22 AM

And…?
JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:47 AM

You tell me. Is this a sign of societal progress or decline?

And on what basis do you determine your position?

I’ll wait.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 10:23 AM

Hey Jazz, you should move the Palin thread over to the left, it’s starting to cause a conspiracy.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 10:23 AM

It did seem to go smoothly tho when congress voted for war in Afghanistan and Iraq, no?

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 10:22 AM

That would be due to the ‘bipartisan agreement’…AKA democrat cowards wanting a look-tough war and shaking Bush’s hand with one of theirs while using the other hand to slip marching orders to every fruitcake who would march against it for whatever cause.

MelonCollie on January 26, 2013 at 10:24 AM

For those ‘celebrating’ libs, I’d like to run them all through a 30 day crash course in Afghanistan. Then I’ll ask any survivors “Do you still feel like celebrating?”

GarandFan on January 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM

For those ‘celebrating’ libs, I’d like to run them all through a 30 day crash course in Afghanistan. Then I’ll ask any survivors “Do you still feel like celebrating?”

GarandFan on January 26, 2013 at 10:25 AM

Liberals say conservatives love war. But the truth is, conservatives hate war. And now liberals love women in war. I’m so confused.

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 10:27 AM

It’s really beside the point. The unspoken rationale for full gender integration is that the all-volunteer military must satisfy or at least actively acknowledge women’s career expectations so they’ll continue to enlist in sufficient numbers to free up men for combat. Hare-brained politicians aside, I doubt anybody inside the Pentagon seriously imagines we’ll be fielding all-female SEAL teams outside a Tarentino movie set.

Seth Halpern on January 26, 2013 at 10:33 AM

So I don’t know…but it would take a lot more than some chicks and a couple of gay dudes in any combat unit to diminish the top class effectiveness and troops of any branch of service in the United States military.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:15 AM

I didn’t agree with the repeal of DADT, but had I been in a foxhole at the Battle of the Bulge, I’d have much rather had a guy like Mark Bingham (United 93) next to me than any woman. So put me in the Flintstonian category with Jazz.

TxAnn56 on January 26, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Damn it, this is just a stupid idea. This experiment is just not needed. Our time and money should be on training the best combat soldiers in the world, not conducting a lab rat experiment. I am all for women serving our country, but let’s try to keep them out of combat.

SC.Charlie on January 26, 2013 at 10:33 AM

As a woman, when I was younger I would have said ‘if I can handle the work, I should be eligible for the job’. As an older woman, I see a lot of what is politically correct ideas being so much hot air, with few women up to a lot of the more stringent challenges.

If a woman has the physical capabilities of a man in the military and can meet the SAME standards that he does, and it not a drag on the group, let her do the job. Let her deal with the male dominated group, ideas, language, dirt, disease and risk of death.

But do not lower the standards. If she can’t drag a wounded, screaming comrade to safety, she doesn’t belong there. If she insists on female accomodations out in the field, has others lugging her gear, laugh in her face and send her back, behind the front lines. Lowering standards means increasing the odds that colleagues could get dead and that is not acceptable.

GeeWhiz on January 26, 2013 at 10:35 AM

All these threads on this topic. Still not one good reason.

Bmore on January 26, 2013 at 10:37 AM

As long as that 120 lb woman can carry, aim, and shoot her weapon true, that’s what matters. I wouldn’t imagine that standards would be lowered for women or for everyone. That would be unacceptable of course.

IF carrying, aiming and shooting a rifle were the only requirements than and only then woulds you have a point. But since I am willing to be that you have never been in the military, let alone ever been shot at or had anyone make a genuinely serious and prolonged attempt on you life… You have now earned the right to… STFD and STFU.

The surest and most certain way to destroy any military, is to fill it’s ranks with individuals who are physically incapable of performing the duties required. Because in the military, one incompetent individual never gets only themselves killed, they also get everyone around them killed as well.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 10:40 AM

Hey Jazz, you should move the Palin thread over to the left, it’s starting to cause a conspiracy.

Cindy Munford on January 26, 2013 at 10:23 AM

o_O

I almost miss the HA Palinmania from way back when…

You tell me. Is this a sign of societal progress or decline?

And on what basis do you determine your position?

I’ll wait.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 10:23 AM

What does a same-sex wedding at West Point have to do with military effectiveness re: women in combat or even DADT repeal? I mean, how has society “declined” because of it?

I base that position on the fact it isn’t even relevant. What do you base your opinion on?

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM

A personal anecdote — there was a group of a dozen military training in full gear on our local walking trail, 5 miles around, jogging. All men with one woman. The woman was being supported by a man on each side of her, with a hand under each arm, as they ran. Metaphor for women in combat?

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM

I base that position on the fact
my opinion that it isn’t even relevant. What do you base your opinion on?
JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 10:41 AM

Fixed.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Several years ago I had a huge argument with some liberal young lady about this theme. She did not want to understand the point that in combat the rules are off. The enemy does not want to worry about your rights. They want to kill you. And on that level, women will always have a disadvantage. When it gets down to bloody hand to hand combat, there is not a woman alive that can compete. Regardless of her strength and conditioning and training, her body can not take the punishment that a man`s body can. Sure, she can play with the toys, fly the jets, drive the tanks, etc., but she cannot compete when it comes to men.

Texas Aggie on January 26, 2013 at 10:47 AM

All these threads on this topic. Still not one good reason.

Bmore on January 26, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Then how about this one: Battlefields scare the sh!t out of sane people. When the time comes to go rushing into one, you’re going to have some guys who are reasonably terrified. When that happens, someone like an NCO is going to have to phyically grab some frightened boys and throw them into the Hell out there. I don’t think I’ve met any NCOs who could do that to a frightened girl without at least moment’s hesitation.

apostic on January 26, 2013 at 10:48 AM

When it comes down to it, conservative opposition is about this simple emotional fact “BUT WE DON’T WANT IT!”

libfreeordie on January 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Should read.

When it comes down to it, the leftist/progressive reasons are about this simple emotional fact “ WE WANT IT!”

libfreeordie on January 26, 2013 at 9:26 AM

Here little libby boy. Take a watch and listen to this video while you are on break time at Morehouse. You have done a crappy job of straitening those fine folks out. P.S. The line, the line starts to my left.

Language and visual content warning.

Bmore on January 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM

Because if a woman fully understands the risks and can pass the physical then why not, if she’s willing to go into combat against the world’s savages to protect her people, that’s a good enough reason for me.

Bishop on January 26, 2013 at 10:50 AM

IF carrying, aiming and shooting a rifle were the only requirements than and only then woulds you have a point. But since I am willing to be that you have never been in the military, let alone ever been shot at or had anyone make a genuinely serious and prolonged attempt on you life… You have now earned the right to… STFD and STFU.

The surest and most certain way to destroy any military, is to fill it’s ranks with individuals who are physically incapable of performing the duties required. Because in the military, one incompetent individual never gets only themselves killed, they also get everyone around them killed as well.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 10:40 AM

A) I’ve never gotten pregnant and had an abortion, nor has any man as far as I know…but we still have valid opinions on it, no?

B) Weak women won’t serve on front line battle if they haven’t gotten through the same training the men have. Again, when DADT was repealed so many just knew for sure that it would end up destroying the US armed forces with mass exodus and no straight guys signing up.

Still waiting on that to happen. And it’s the same with women serving in combat. I’m not totally sure this will work out; I’ve said that above.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Fixed.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 10:45 AM

Not going to expand on that? Or answer the question?

*yawn*

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM

I just don’t want women in the infantry or other direct combat roles. I’m not saying they aren’t capable in some cases. I’m just saying I don’t want them to do it.

. Who says conservatives hate women? They just want to protect their lady eyes from the horrors of war. Their liddle lady brains probably couldn’t handle it.

red_herring on January 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM

apostic on January 26, 2013 at 10:48 AM

This is a good point. When people break down in combat, as they will, who’s going to deal with a man the same way they’d deal with a woman? Why should they have to make that adjustment between the sexes. The way we interact with others under stress … we’re to completely ignore the issue of gender there?

I can’t help but feel that in such stressful situations, a man is a thing, an object, a tool, and we understand that, and he understands that, while the woman is a person, with feelings. Of course we all have feelings, but the man sets those aside for the job. If he’s severely injured and dying, he might put the job aside. He might not. But a woman in that situation, dying … who’s going to focus on the job and not on her feelings? There’s a valuable and powerful difference between the sexes.

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Who says conservatives hate women? They just want to protect their lady eyes from the horrors of war. Their liddle lady brains probably couldn’t handle it.

red_herring on January 26, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Nice post. Nice handle. Are the two related, much?

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 10:59 AM

Metaphor for women in combat?

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 10:43 AM

Metaphor my ass, that is exactly what will happen. You were seeing three thing when you saw that. 1) Ignorant ambition on the woman’s part. 2) The reality of the physical difference between men and women. 3) Human nature playing itself out as the men tried to carry her across the finish line.

When this happens in combat the old rules will come into play, a chain is only as strong as it’s weakest link. No amount of PC crap is ever going to change that. The weakest will fall first, and because they will inevitably be women, men will try to rescue them and it will be a repeat of the Israeli military’s experience when they tried to integrate women into combat infantry position back in the late 40′s and 50′s.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 11:00 AM

I can’t really explain why.

It’s easy, Jazz. Take a look at bell curves of physical characteristics for men and women and overlay them. The bells don’t match – the average woman is weaker than the average man. Where you find those women who can “match up” is way out at the end of their bell curve, and not quite to the end of the male bell curve. Once you exhaust the limit of their bell curve, there are still men out past there. Women (on the whole) will never be able to match up against men (on the whole) in the physical realm. (I will give kudos to women for child-birth, though – whew!) The fact is that ordinary men (with effort to reach their physical peak) qualify for combat, while only extraordinary women can.

As for the issue of chivalry – exactly right, Jazz. Welcome to the Dinosaur Club. Women have spent a lot of time labeling men as “Neanderthals” and such. They’re right up to a point. And, it’s for a reason: at some point in time, a man needs to remove the cloak of civilization and go all brutish caveman on another person or creature to protect that which he values. That’s not a bug, it’s a feature.

It’s why we make allowances (at least reasonable people do) for men’s behavior in the field* – cursing, being gross, being politically incorrect. It’s the way that we keep the lid on the brutishness – by letting a little of it out in small doses. Once they leave the field, we expect them to be gentlemen. Failing to understand this concept is one contributor to PTSD issues – if we don’t give the sufferer the tools to deal with that inner brutishness. It’s why civilian guys go hunting/camping/ have man-caves/etc. It’s an outlet for our inner-Neanderthal, so we can keep the lid on out in civilization.

And, for those of us who appreciate and adore the differences between men and women, that’s why we get this sick feeling when people start talking about women in combat. Our inner-Neanderthal is rejecting the idea that that which we protect is right alongside us, pretending to be a Neanderthal, too. It violates our understanding of the natural order of things. It strips us of something we hold dear: that women are so incredible and wonderful in ways that we men are not. If they become men themselves, then they lose that precious quality. And that’s where feminists have been pushing us for 40+ years, with women in combat undercutting one of the largest of the pillars of that specialness.

*This includes barracks when it is just the soldiers about.

GWB on January 26, 2013 at 11:01 AM

The problem with this conversation about women serving in combat is the liberal mentality: We are all for diversity. What they are not for is making the armed services as strong as they possibly can.

Texas Aggie on January 26, 2013 at 11:03 AM

apostic on January 26, 2013 at 10:48 AM

You haven’t met the right NCOs, then.

That being said, my worry is not women who are cut out to be 11-series (infantry, in US Army parlance). My worry is the removing of gender neutrality of all occupational specialties within Infantry Battalions and Companies. You might have female 11Bs who can do the job, but what about female supply clerks in an Infantry Company? What about female intelligence analysts at the Battalion S-2, or female personnel clerks at the Adjutant? They’ll not have asked to become Infantry. They’ll just be in an Infantry unit. But to have them dragging because they’re not up to the standards of fitness and readiness and simply not physically or mentally capable of getting to that standard is what may well lead to a breakdown in discipline and morale.

And while this applies to men who are non-hackers, I’d say that the gap between being a decent PT doing male (scoring, say, 240+ out of 300 on the men’s scale APFT) and being a decent infantryman (or scab in an infantry unit) is much narrower than the range from a female who passes the APFT and her being a decent infantry…person, or even a scab in an infantry unit.

And I’m fairly confident that when a female of a non-infantry MOS is bounced out of an Infantry Battalion (administratively reassigned) for not being able to uphold the standard, there will be some allegations of command discrimination, which probably won’t help discipline and morale much, either.

Sgt Steve on January 26, 2013 at 11:04 AM

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 10:45 AM
Not going to expand on that? Or answer the question?
*yawn*
JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Can’t have much of a discussion if you’re gonna poison the well right out of the gate, can we?

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Man, I really like your comment there GWB. And for the record, I am a Neanderthal. Company N-1 Neanderthals, TAMU. That probably means nothing to anyone but me. Even more so, I am an uncivilized Neanderthal. Men are men and women are women.

Texas Aggie on January 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

B) Weak women won’t serve on front line battle if they haven’t gotten through the same training the men have. Again, when DADT was repealed so many just knew for sure that it would end up destroying the US armed forces with mass exodus and no straight guys signing up.

Still waiting on that to happen. And it’s the same with women serving in combat. I’m not totally sure this will work out; I’ve said that above.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 10:51 AM

You are so full of shit. We already have witnessed what will happen. It’s been an ongoing problem for decades. In order to attract women, the physical standards have been lowered. This has already happened. In order to induce women to join the infantry those standards will again be lowered. How do we know this? Because it US the solution to the physical difference between men and women that has been consistently applied up until now.

As far as the mass exodus of personal from the military not happening, it isn’t because they don’t want to leave you imbecile. It’s because the government isn’t allowing them to leave. Moreover, to assert at this juncture in time that allowing gays to openly serve has not had a damaging effect is pure talking out your ass neck. There hasn’t been enough time yet for anyone to say what the effects of that stupid decision were.

Get this through your thick phucking skull, the Military is no place for social experiments.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Another important point … combat situations can’t truly be simulated. Every other type of civilian job can be, whether it’s plumber or engineer or garbage man or salesman. The difference with combat is you can’t simulate the situation where you’re truly fighting to stay alive, and to keep your fellows alive. Combat is the only job where your death is part of the deal. It’s a unique occupation. You only die once.

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 11:12 AM

And not only that, Paul, but when you are doing everything to stay alive, you want the guy next to you doing everything to stay alive, and you want him to be capable of doing it.

Texas Aggie on January 26, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Not really much of a rebuttal. You take your top 50 women fighters and I’ll take my top 50 Men fighters…. let’s roll.

CW

Heck, you could take 50 guys off the street

xblade on January 26, 2013 at 11:15 AM

Next, they’ll want to convince people that men have half the pregnancies and that giving birth is a gender-neutral activity. They’ll have PSAs warning boys that they might become pregnant if they have unprotected sex.

Don’t laugh. The left is totally untethered to reality these days and they truly think they could convince people that just as many men get pregnant as women. I wouldn’t be surprised to see movies and TV shows start to have men in the maternity wards. Next, male tampons will be for sale (and the government will be surreptitiously buying them to make it appear that men use them just like women).

Yep. This idiocy is going to play out until it crashes and burns and takes everything around it down, too. Affirmative action … to the death.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on January 26, 2013 at 11:16 AM

A few thoughts on women in combat from a dinosaur

…who knew dinosaur’s were smart?

KOOLAID2 on January 26, 2013 at 11:20 AM

libfreeordie on January 26, 2013

…go jerkoff at the ThinkProg site!…you like to come here when your mind is blank…go back to slapping… where the sound is off!

KOOLAID2 on January 26, 2013 at 11:25 AM

Can’t have much of a discussion if you’re gonna poison the well right out of the gate, can we?

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Can’t have much of a conversation when you won’t…converse. Maybe tell my how and why I’m “poisoning the well”? Usually when a person won’t answer it means they can’t answer.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 11:08 AM

The sophomoric name-calling doesn’t do much to help with any credibility and/or substance of your comments. If you can post a source for your points, I’d love to see that.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Can’t have much of a conversation when you won’t…converse. Maybe tell my how and why I’m “poisoning the well”? Usually when a person won’t answer it means they can’t answer.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 11:26 AM

Usually, perhaps, but not always. Sometimes it’s because one interlocutor wants to make certain that the rules of discussion are clearly understood by both participants BEFORE the discussion can proceed.

In this case, you present YOUR position as FACT, while allowing that mine is mere opinion.

At this point in the discussion BOTH positions are presented as opinion. The point of the discussion is to determine which opinion has the more compelling argument.

Now, perhaps you’d like to establish your argument that the issue of lesbians having a “wedding” in West Point’s chapel is irrelevant to the issue of women in combat roles, or would you like to take a position on whether it’s a sign of societal decay or societal progress?

Take your pick.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Let it happen…Soon as all of this stuff gets out of the way we can run the country. We need to make this stuff meaningless and stupid.

tomas on January 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Because if a woman fully understands the risks and can pass the physical then why not, if she’s willing to go into combat against the world’s savages to protect her people, that’s a good enough reason for me.

Bishop

Because they can’t pass the physical without lowering to a level where they can. That’s the point.

xblade on January 26, 2013 at 11:38 AM

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM

I coached boys and girls cross country and the boys and girls distance runners in track for several decades. When push came to shove I had to use different motivational techniques for them. If I needed a boy to step up I took him aside told him it was time to do the job in no uncertain terms. He would step up and inspire the rest of the boys to up their game. If I tried that with the girls the one I took aside would tank and the rest of the girls would be pis*ed at me for dissing them and would tank also.

As a veteran I can say without reservation that the military excels at motivation via KITA. It is the very rare female that responds well to this.

chemman on January 26, 2013 at 11:41 AM

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 10:51 AM

You need to read this,..all of it.

a capella on January 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

I may have said this before But I would quote the famed (female) anthopologist (circa 1960) who after studying women in various cultures for much of her life, remarking about women in combat. She told us not to do it because, “They’re much too vicious.”

Don L on January 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

It is more than the physical requirements. It is the constant female sickness, emotional frailty, crying under duress, complaints of “unfairness” (why to I have to charge the machine gun nest?), and the worst of all, the introduction of “it is now OK under the geneva convention to stab US women in the face with a bayonet” in every nations rules of war except ours, and if it became part of ours, the psychic damage it would do to our men would make it very very rough for our men to re-enter society, or even non-combat military life.

Do we want men to see women as people that they may have to gut like a fish on one hand, yet magically know when not to offend them by having a Maxim poster at one’s desk? Pretend they are equal yet tiptoe around them for fear of getting a complaint for creating a hostile environment?

Spartacus on January 26, 2013 at 11:45 AM

I can promise you, as others have said, the bar will be lowered to make sure women can get over it.

I was in the very first group of “integrated” (male and female) Military Police officers to go through basic and AIT together. As other (all male) companies were ahead of us (they had started before the integration movement was underway), we could see the difference. We would run 3-5 miles a day. The other companies? 6-8 miles. We had women dropping out before we were done.

Were they a distraction?

Oh, not unless you think 18-22 year-old males and females, separated only by an easily crossed bit of concrete could distract each other.

We had “trainee romances” and weddings. We had divorces (ending pre-Army marriages in favor of Army marriages. We had all manner of chicanery. It was a bit like college with more structure.

We also had females who could not throw a hand grenade (part of the training) or dig foxholes (part of the training.

Yet, somehow, they graduated.

Now, I did know one woman who could do everything a man could. One. In three years in the Army, I knew one. One.

I am confident the qualifications will be lowered. Women will not be required to perform “male” push-ups. Either that or the men will be offered the opportunity to do “female” push-ups. There will be a number of short-cuts taken.

At the end of the day, this is more about political correctness than it is about equal opportunity. Many are wont to say there is no difference between males and females. In their hearts, they know they are lying, but that won’t stop them.

This is a mistake which will create nightmarish situations for many in our Armed Forces for years to come.

diplomatsteve on January 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

B) Weak women won’t serve on front line battle if they haven’t gotten through the same training the men have.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 10:51 AM

What makes you think standards won’t be lowered?
I would say a good test of that would be to look at the closest civilian counterparts to the military. You know the police and fire departments. If I am not mistaken they have lowered their standards to get more women in uniform. So in my opinion it is only a matter of time before some women file grievances about not qualifying for military combat billets and the government in the name of equality will lower the standards. We mustn’t hold their careers back.

chemman on January 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM

as a woman i will say this , i support women in combat ina a very limited scope. i could NOT carry a 200 pound wounded man out of danger but i could function as a medic. the way the law was when i was in the army i could not even function as a field medic because as a female i was prohibitted from being within 100 miles of combat so i was left to sit on my arse here in the US. i think its a half baked idea because it opens up more problems then it solves but i do think that the rules should be rewritten to allow females into mobile mash units or other such support roles that are near enemy lines where they can be of use. i also wouldnt have a problem sitting and using a rifle to cover my buddy while he went out to get the said wounded soldier. so it really is a complicated hot mess for them to work on

katee bayer on January 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM

At the end of the day, this is more about political correctness than it is about equal opportunity.
diplomatsteve on January 26, 2013 at 11:46 AM

The Marxist liberals live in a self inflicted delusional fantasy land where GI Jane is not only real, but the norm. Where every woman is the equal to Resident Evil’s Alice (Milla Jovovich). Somehow it has escaped their perception that movies are not real, that very little portrayed in any movie come anywhere near being reality.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 11:56 AM

I don’t think you’re wrong Jazz. As a woman who worked in a male dominated profession for a few years, I can tell you that men just act different when there’s a woman around. Part of it is they think you’ll report them for hostile work environment. But its also they don’t entirely trust the females in their own work group to drag them out when the sh** goes down. I understand that though because the standards WERE lowered for the women. I just don’t think we ladies would have the mental separation involved for combat. I was a 911 operator for a few years and the crap I heard on the phone will haunt me for life. And these chicks wants to witness human destruction first hand?!

RadioAngel on January 26, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Any politician or General who tries to draft my daughters will be dealt with.Having said that two of my sons are combat vets with one still serving and I have a daughter in the US Army.THe point is they are volunteers. My daughter could wind up close to the enemy but that is still very different then going house to house hunting insurgents as my sons did.
I have two girls at home and they will not be subject to any draft these asshats come up with.
This is the tipping point for me.

Thicklugdonkey on January 26, 2013 at 11:56 AM

What makes you think standards won’t be lowered?

chemman on January 26, 2013 at 11:49 AM

His need to believe, that and that alone is all.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 11:57 AM

The “standards” are already being rethought by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/chairman-of-joint-chiefs-of-staff-if-women-cant-meet-military-standard-pentagon-will-ask-does-it-really-have-to-be-that-high/

So all those who say, “Well, if she can make it, let her do it,” they are already redefining what it takes to “make it.”

UnderstandingisPower on January 26, 2013 at 11:57 AM

As a veteran I can say without reservation that the military excels at motivation via KITA. It is the very rare female that responds well to this.

chemman on January 26, 2013 at 11:41 AM

Such is the problem of treating a woman in combat like one of the boys. Liberals will say differences in men and women are manufactured by society. Gender roles are made up and artificial, they’ll say. I reject that. Give a boy a doll and he’ll take the head off and play catch with it.

Despite the MSM, political correctness, indoctrination in college, I’m still a conservative. So we aren’t all just a product of society. If so I’d be a raving liberal. Liberals believe they can change the inherent nature of things by saying they’re something they’re not, or by calling them by a different name. I reject that.

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM

And these chicks wants to witness human destruction first hand?!

RadioAngel on January 26, 2013 at 11:56 AM

No they don’t, but there are a number of female career officers who are more than willing to see both men and women die if it means that they can advance their political and career ambitions. In other words, they are perfectly willing to shed other peoples blood to rise up the chain of command.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I served with women in Israel who would drop you like a bad habit. Others who were support personnel at best. They go where they can, and do what they should. Regardless of idiotic males or strident feminists. The military works it out as best they can, but in the end combat ensures fairness and suitability of position, or retribution for lack of the same.

Go extinct already on that point.

However, we can not have a situation where young men register for the draft but women do not. The justification for that is now gone.

Irritable Pundit on January 26, 2013 at 12:03 PM

katee bayer on January 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM

The Left sees every issue as all-or-nothing. If women can’t be infantry, then there’s obvious ‘discrimination’ going on. Liberals have no limits on their ideas, but are quick to impose them when the notion succumbs to the details.

I’m fine with women being fighter pilots because there isn’t much difference between the sexes in that capacity for the skills required to do the job. I even go so far as to feel comfortable with women as part of a tank crew and even the commander. That’s a team effort by definition, so I can’t see risk of a possible degradation of effectiveness.

The only reason we have hot potatoes like this is because libs are people of narrow vision, people who see only what they immediately want and will not look beyond. Then they move on to something else.

Sad, sad state of affairs.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:03 PM

I hope all male military personnel currently in the Marine Corps or in Special forces leave the military ASAP
They will soon be surrounded by the incompetent and incapable.
The requirements will be dumbed down and watered down in an effort to make sure women can get into the “elite” positions.

Get out of the military while you still can because an even more disgusting change is coming and the protection of the United States is soon coming to an end

Delsa on January 26, 2013 at 12:05 PM

The “standards” are already being rethought by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/01/chairman-of-joint-chiefs-of-staff-if-women-cant-meet-military-standard-pentagon-will-ask-does-it-really-have-to-be-that-high/

So all those who say, “Well, if she can make it, let her do it,” they are already redefining what it takes to “make it.”

UnderstandingisPower on January 26, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Dempsey is this generations Westmoreland.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/westmoreland-the-general-who-lost-vietnam

warren on January 26, 2013 at 12:06 PM

http://www.usariem.army.mil/pages/download/LoadCarriagePDF.pdf

That is a dot mil address. I would think Panetta would access to it.

sgmstv on January 26, 2013 at 12:07 PM

I find these threads amusing in the fact that many of the folks in support of “women in combat” have no basic understanding of what that actually means. People tend to confuse things such as convoy operations, and living out of a FOB with the actual act of Locating, Closing with, and Destroying the enemy by fire and manuever. You cannot base your whole line of thinking with COIN operations, which is basically what we have been up to for the past decade. If you design your force based on COIN, you are in for a rude awakening in places like N. Korea, China, and Russia. The reason why well meaning folks, I’m sure, even think this is a good idea is because we have not fought a Chosin Reservoir, Belleau Wood, Alligator Creek, or Bastogne in the past 30 years. Hell, a lot of folks I spoke with in the Marine Corps thought that what we were doing was true no holds bar high intensity combat. Funny thing was they always spent most of their tours in the confines of places like Al Asad or BIAP, meanwhile I was crapping in holes along the Euphrates in some Palm Grove. All of these “front line” women would be flown in for a few days, or we would have to go get them, then they would go back to their showers and Lattes at some mega base while we were still there. When they did go out on patrol it was while surrounded by platoons of male Marines, and I can assure you they were not carrying our load. I have respect for any female who joins the Marines or military in general. But to compare your average linguist, intell guru,or tire changer who comes out and does some female cultural interaction with the local population, with a hard pipe hitting Infantryman is insulting to say the least. Oh and final point on recent COIN operations, when that female MP takes her convoy on the road, those roads run through territory constantly patrolled and controlled by Infantry Battalions. Just need to clear up these mis-representations of what the picture really looks like when a female leaves the wire.

gator70 on January 26, 2013 at 12:08 PM

Such is the problem of treating a woman in combat like one of the boys. Liberals will say differences in men and women are manufactured by society. Gender roles are made up and artificial, they’ll say. I reject that. Give a boy a doll and he’ll take the head off and play catch with it.

Despite the MSM, political correctness, indoctrination in college, I’m still a conservative. So we aren’t all just a product of society. If so I’d be a raving liberal. Liberals believe they can change the inherent nature of things by saying they’re something they’re not, or by calling them by a different name. I reject that.

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 12:00 PM

There is an old Greek myth, where the hero was hidden and raised as a girl since he was very young to keep him from being killed as had been his father the king. When it came time for him to take the throne, a search was made to find him. But how?

One man came up with an idea. He traveled the land disguised as a merchant, setting up a table with dolls and swords. Then, one day, a girl came to the table and picked up a sword.

Greece had found her new, lost-missing king.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 12:11 PM

And I still maintain that both men and women should be given a fair and equal shot at any job which they can adequately perform. And yet, when it comes to the idea of American women serving in combat roles on the front lines during war, I am a hypocrite. A throwback. A dinosaur. – J.Z.

You’re none of those, Jazz.
Sure, let’s allow women to compete for the same jobs as men – beginning with BCT/Boot Camp. It’ll never happen. If and when women are required to attain the same standards as men, then maybe we can have this discussion. Until then, they are just a distraction.

For me, there is simply something different. Yes, it’s true that that the average woman will have trouble lifting a 220 pound male soldier in full battle gear and carry him to safety, as some have noted. But it’s probably also true that we could find some who can. – J.Z.

Name ONE.
This old 6’4″, 252lb. former grunt doesn’t want to depend upon a woman to cover me. Nor do I want any woman in a foxhole with me.
Some people just don’t get it. It’s no surprise that NON Vets are clueless.
I bet I can make any of them sob uncontrollably in less than 2 minutes.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM

Dempsey is this generations Westmoreland.

http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/westmoreland-the-general-who-lost-vietnam

warren on January 26, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I agree with you all the way. This whole thing is disgusting and our best and brightest soldiers are going to pay the price with their lives.

Get out and let the Amazon Brigade keep us safe. I am glad my father is not alive to see this.

Delsa on January 26, 2013 at 12:12 PM

i could NOT carry a 200 pound wounded man out of danger but i could function as a medic. … i also wouldnt have a problem sitting and using a rifle to cover my buddy while he went out to get the said wounded soldier.

katee bayer on January 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM

If you couldn’t carry a 200lb man out of combat, then you really couldn’t operate as a combat medic. And asking the guy next to you to do it pretty much validates the points that many folks here are making.

BTW, for Air Force Combat Camera crews (this was in the 90s), one of the minimum qualifications was to be able to lift 200lb over your head. This is for the folks who will simply be documenting the action, not (necessarily) directly participating.

GWB on January 26, 2013 at 12:13 PM

All these threads on this topic. Still not one good reason.
Bmore on January 26, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Nice observation!

Sherman1864 on January 26, 2013 at 12:15 PM

katee bayer on January 26, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Sure I will head out under fire to go get our buddy Johnny while you sit on your a**. Sounds like a great deal, I’m so sorry I retired and will miss this kind of B.S.

gator70 on January 26, 2013 at 12:17 PM

Let it happen…Soon as all of this stuff gets out of the way we can run the country. We need to make this stuff meaningless and stupid.
tomas on January 26, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Dumbest statement on the topic so far.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 12:23 PM

I may have said this before But I would quote the famed (female) anthopologist (circa 1960) who after studying women in various cultures for much of her life, remarking about women in combat. She told us not to do it because, “They’re much too vicious.”
Don L on January 26, 2013 at 11:43 AM

Richard Wurmbrand, the Romanian Lutheran pastor who was jailed and tortured for fourteen years under the Communists, spending 3 of those years 30 feet underground in solitary confinement, said that his most vicious torturers were the women.

But mind you, these are DISTORTED women.

Cleombrotus on January 26, 2013 at 12:28 PM

I have respect for any female who joins the Marines or military in general. But to compare your average linguist, intell guru,or tire changer who comes out and does some female cultural interaction with the local population, with a hard pipe hitting Infantryman is insulting to say the least. Oh and final point on recent COIN operations, when that female MP takes her convoy on the road, those roads run through territory constantly patrolled and controlled by Infantry Battalions. Just need to clear up these mis-representations of what the picture really looks like when a female leaves the wire.

gator70 on January 26, 2013 at 12:08 PM

EXACTLY!
and I am a girl…

Delsa on January 26, 2013 at 12:28 PM

No they don’t, but there are a number of female career officers who are more than willing to see both men and women die if it means that they can advance their political and career ambitions. In other words, they are perfectly willing to shed other peoples blood to rise up the chain of command.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I used to say that the best reasons against women in the RC priesthood were the women making the arguments. It was all about power and position, not service. As near as I can determine that hasn’t changed.

Zusnn on January 26, 2013 at 12:31 PM

This is a good point. When people break down in combat, as they will, who’s going to deal with a man the same way they’d deal with a woman? Why should they have to make that adjustment between the sexes. The way we interact with others under stress … we’re to completely ignore the issue of gender there?

But a woman in that situation, dying … who’s going to focus on the job and not on her feelings? …

Paul-Cincy on January 26, 2013 at 10:58 AM

The now serving openly homosexual man?

All these ‘social experiments’ are not coming about due to ignorance. It is all part of the plan.

pannw on January 26, 2013 at 12:31 PM

As for the issue of chivalry – exactly right, Jazz. Welcome to the Dinosaur Club.

A liberal friend of mine in San Fran complained about how no men gave up their seat for her on the bus, and that “chivalry was dead.” Well WTF did she think all of the feminism would get her? Can’t have it both ways. My head about exploded. Idiots.

Jackalope on January 26, 2013 at 12:32 PM

I know the Fire and Police Departments have lowered the training standards so women could pass the tests for entrance.
The lower standards allow not only less qualified women into the ranks but also unqualified men!
Very Sad!

Delsa on January 26, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Nice observation!

Sherman1864 on January 26, 2013 at 12:15 PM

Well thank you Sherman1864, this topic is nothing to laugh about.

Bmore on January 26, 2013 at 12:40 PM

Dempsey is this generations Westmoreland.

warren on January 26, 2013 at 12:06 PM

I guess equal doesn’t mean equal after all.

Joint Chiefs Chairman: ‘We Can Figure Out Privacy’ for Young Ladies in Frontline Combat, Including in Navy SEALS and Delta Force

“The other part of the equation, of course, is in order to account for their safety and their success in those kinds of units, we got to have enough of them so that they have mentors and leaders above them,” said Gen. Dempsey.

Translation: Lower the standards and put lives in jeopardy because God knows all that matters in this Amerika is fairness.

TxAnn56 on January 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

Read somewhere there were about 45 women that fought in the Civil War and there were many in the underground in WW II. I’m sure there are some women that would be great soldiers but there are men that do not make the grade and we should be careful about qualifying women because they are what they are, women. I’m a vet myself and I’ve seen men that looked like they could tear your head off and puke in your neck and jam your head back on that were weaklings. I asked a very good friend that’s a Korean vet who was the toughest, fighting’st savage soldier in the Korean War and he said, “An American GI but he’s got to be pissed off”. He further said once they get in that frame of mind they are almost bullet proof and very dangerous to the enemy.

mixplix on January 26, 2013 at 12:45 PM

The military will never lift standards up for women, because barely any of them will be able to hack it. What they will do is drop standards for everyone. This will meet their quota in combat arms. This will result in more deaths both men and women.

Bravo.. equality through death.

melle1228 on January 26, 2013 at 12:48 PM

But womyn know all about combat – their leader is Lieutenant General Hillary Clinton who was shot at in Kosovo and who handled the attacking forces at Bengazi personally. Let one of these womyn carry a 94 pound 155 projectile in each hand between guns. How about humping a MaDuce. Womyn have only been in combat as a rapee for the last 5000 years. Dhimocrapts always they can change biological or physical laws by ukase. Hey gal, look at that 155 on my site.

Now for jetboy. How did you get your moniker? Did you always prematurely ej? Do you fly turbine aircraft? Are you a soft red tomato?

Old Country Boy on January 26, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Sherman had it right; “War is Hell”.

Just remember that because war is not forgiving, chivalrous, caring, measured or yielding. It is awful, terrifying, evil, uncouth and without moral bearing.

This issue has been positioned as whether women can, when the real issue is whether they should. Have we really come that far where people don’t recognize the physiological differences between men and women? Simple, provable observations on strength and biology?

A military and it’s capabilities are based on standards. Generally, those standards are developed over time as a result of experience and what works. They are meant to best address battlefield conditions with vigor and wisdom to defeat our enemies. I don’t believe any of us can make a good argument they have not worked.

We will rue the day any of those standards are watered down for some persons grand social experiment. Let’s hope they don’t or else good men will get killed for someones fallacious utopian idea of gender equality.

Marcus Traianus on January 26, 2013 at 12:53 PM

b!tch, b1tch, b!tch, moan, moan, moan.

The fighting elite will always be merit-based. This isn’t going to change because you put some women folks on the front line. It doesn’t mean every Special Ops group have to be full of gays amd women. War doesn’t grade on a curve.

John the Libertarian on January 26, 2013 at 12:58 PM

TxAnn56 on January 26, 2013 at 12:42 PM

I can’t believe this. He’s really talking about women meeting SEAL and Delta physical standards? Good grief!

Gen. Dempsey indicated he believed that women would be able to meet the standards to serve in the SEALs and Delta Force and that privacy would not be an issue there.

“Yeah, when you look back at what I’ve said since I was the chief staff of the Army, what General Odierno has said, General Amos has said, I think we all believe that there will be women who can meet those standards,” said Gen. Dempsey about the SEALs and Delta Force.

a capella on January 26, 2013 at 1:03 PM

It doesn’t mean every Special Ops group have to be full of gays amd women. War doesn’t grade on a curve.

John the Libertarian on January 26, 2013 at 12:58 PM

Yeah, it really does. Top brass are talking about equality in outcome already. Remember, this is all about career movement and promotion quotas, not maintaining or improving quality of armed forces.

a capella on January 26, 2013 at 1:07 PM

The military should put all women and gays into an infantry division that is sent where the fighting is hottest. Problem solved.

Machismo on January 26, 2013 at 1:10 PM

Marcus Traianus on January 26, 2013 at 12:53 PM

The Marxist Liberal thought process is emotive rather than rational or logical. It is why the law of unintended consequences always bites their asses off. Because they “Feel” as opposed to reason. In the end, they will get good people killed, and it will be for their own personal gain.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 1:11 PM

As for the vid…the Army Rangers are a special/elite force apart from general infantry. If a woman can make it through that, I wouldn’t want to be on her bad side. But I’m honestly not sure if special forces like the SEALS or Rangers would be considered under the new rules of women in combat.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:35 AM

http://sofrep.com/7125/chicks-go-to-ranger-school/

“It was clear that nobody’s opinion was being solicited. The message came from the Chief of Staff of the Army, and the order seems to have come from echelons above him: Ranger School will admit women within a few months. And the women willpass, whatever it takes.

Solaratov on January 26, 2013 at 1:13 PM

The fighting elite will always be merit-based. This isn’t going to change because you put some women folks on the front line. It doesn’t mean every Special Ops group have to be full of gays amd women. War doesn’t grade on a curve.

John the Libertarian on January 26, 2013 at 12:58 PM

You are making a fatal and false assumption. That assumption is two fold. a) that quota’s will not exist requiring a certain percentage of women or gays be included in combat infantry or special ops teams and b) that the physical requirement will not be degraded in order to facilitate those quota’s being filled. Reality of how both women and gays have already been treated in the military exposes just how false that assumption is.

SWalker on January 26, 2013 at 1:18 PM

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:35 AM

Oh, and Army Special Forces was named as one of the fields that will be opened to women.

Solaratov on January 26, 2013 at 1:19 PM

I posted this in another Headline

Attended a boot camp graduation years ago. They sell videos to the families of the young punks qualifying on guns, obstacle course, taking tear gas etc.

You could see when the females had to go over the wall they struggled. They do not have the arm strength. Asked the (male) graduate if the obstacle course was difficult. He said it was ridiculously easy, because they scaled it back so the females could pass it.

Our society gives women the advantage in domestic disputes. If she alleges threats, the guy has to go to anger management. This is not totally unfair. Men are more aggressive, they are bigger and stronger. And women are wired to protect the little ones. I don’t have a problem giving them extra protection they demand

But they don’t deserve the extra points they are getting in the military. They will displace a man if used in combat. We are becoming as stupid as the Stalinists, who also replaced reality with political correctness. Stupidity is not a way to win wars

entagor on January 26, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Federal agencies once had to hire from the upper percentile of civil service tests for basic literacy plus job related skills. I got hired this way. There was a lawsuit at my site alleging discrimination because all the minorities failed a test for promotion. Judge agreed and they were all hired. I had to cover a lot of these folk.

Now civil service is gone. No one is (allowed to be) better than his neighbor. The fake continues

entagor on January 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

The “top Brass” are all brown shoes.
Never served a hard day in their lives. Wouldn’t know what to do if they had to.
Got where they are by jumping politically up the ranks.
They earned NOTHING!
And they are running the show for those who would subvert our Military thereby leaving us un protected!

Delsa on January 26, 2013 at 1:20 PM

eant to add:

A lot of similar things were said when women were allowed into West Point and the US Naval Academy over 30 years ago.

JetBoy on January 26, 2013 at 9:41 AM

And the physical standards at all of the service academies were lowered to “accommodate” women.
At first, women’s standards were lower than men’s…but that hurt their little fee-e-e-lings.
So they lowered the standards for everybody.
Now, nobody’s feelings get hurt.

People will die – but at least their feelings won’t be hurt.

Solaratov on January 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Equal work for equal pay I say. If women are earning an am ount equal to the guys th
e only fair thing to do is have them die at an equal rate. While we are at it,m give the men an equal chance to get out of the war zone for pregnancy.

Bernfp on January 26, 2013 at 9:43 AM

And, why will women get to “choose” to go into a combat unit…or even into combat?
Men don’t. Men are assigned to combat arms based on the ‘needs of the service’…no matter what their enlistment contract says.

Solaratov on January 26, 2013 at 1:30 PM

Because nothing is more fair than pitting a woman up against a man on the field of battle.

Lily on January 26, 2013 at 1:30 PM

gator70 on January 26, 2013 at 12:17 PM

and you sir are acting like an arse. I dont consider firing on the enemy and revealing my position in order to cover a wounded man while another member of my team is dragging him to safety sitting on my ass. apparently you do not understand the concept of team work. and yeah i may not be able to lift 200 pounds over my head but i can stitch an open wound and keep your sorry arse alive till we reach a Mash unit oh and i also know how to operate and set land mines and other high explosives so i guess i am not totally useless am i ? i never said i WANTED to go to combat im just saying that there are a LOT of shades of grey here. and ill tell you flat out THERE IS NO ONE ON EARTH MORE VISCIOUS THAN I AM IF YOU MESS WITH WHAT IS MINE! as a mother i would die for my kids in a nano second and as a soldier i felt the SAME way about my squad. mess with whats mine i wont just kill you i will hurt you in ways you will never get over. THATS why women dont belong in combat. because when we turn viscious we are far more nasty then men in general it just takes a hell of a lot more to get us to that point

katee bayer on January 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

People will die – but at least their feelings won’t be hurt.

Solaratov on January 26, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Except for the agony of Americans who needlessly died (and of the harm to their families) for sake of safe sanctimonious limousine-liberals and their notions, when they have never been without insulation from all they demand from everyone else.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 1:31 PM

I know plenty of women who could kick your ass on a rifle range or in air to air combat or any number of other ways.

lexhamfox on January 26, 2013 at 9:44 AM

As pilots, women do just fine. They can, in fact, take more g-forces than most men.

On the rifle range…you might remember that paper targets are NOT shooting back at you, trying their damnedest to kill you.

Sure, women can do just fine in a controlled test environment – but that’s a far cry from the mccoy.

People are going to die in far greater than “acceptable” numbers because of this.

Solaratov on January 26, 2013 at 1:36 PM

Liberals always aim for the lowest common denominator.

Ignoring other things they do and for which they generally aim, that pretty much defines them.

Liam on January 26, 2013 at 1:38 PM

A few observations, if I may.

I was at Benning when the first class of women went through the airborne school. They had their own special PT formation and were held to lesser standards than their male colleagues.

Prior to the first Gulf War, 7th Army in Europe was raped of men in non-deploying units to fill the slots of women who refused to deploy in those units going to Saudi Arabia.

Most soldiers not in the infantry do not realize how brutal life can be at times in a combat unit. Not every man can measure up and most women can’t.

Color me a dinosaur. I don’t want to carry my rucksack and anyone else’s that can’t perform to my level.

Special Forces Grunt on January 26, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4