Ted Cruz “goes there” on proposal to force women to register for the draft

posted at 10:41 am on February 8, 2016 by Jazz Shaw

One of the lesser noted moments from Saturday night’s GOP debate was the conversation the candidates had about forcing women to register for the draft now that they’ve been approved for front line combat service. Most of the hopefuls quickly lined up to vigorously burnish their Absolutely No War On Women Here No Sir No Way credentials by saying they could see making such a change. Ted Cruz, on the other hand, while recognizing the valuable contributions that women make in the military, seemed a bit more hesitant. After the dust had settled he commented on it further, leaving little doubt as to where he stands. (Politico)

Ted Cruz on Sunday said he opposes requiring women to register for a potential draft, breaking with Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, all of whom indicated support for opening up the Selective Service to women during Saturday night’s debate.

“I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was, ‘Are you guys nuts?’” Cruz said Sunday, speaking at a town hall here. “Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it.”

To applause, Cruz went on to note that he is a father to two daughters, and he wants them to follow their dreams.

I’m used to taking plenty of flack from around the political sphere over my views on women in combat roles, so feel free to pile on, but I had to resist the urge to stand up and cheer when Cruz came out and said that. At least for the time being we seem to be stuck with new mandates which will allow qualified female soldiers to take on front line combat roles, despite protests from the Marines after lengthy periods of testing. That’s unlikely to change while this administration remains in power and so be it. But the draft?

First of all, the odds of the draft being put back into use are virtually nil at this point. Sure, it’s possible that things could change in some hopefully unlikely, dystopian future, but I hope most of us won’t live to see it. So why increase the paperwork load and expand the system to force young women to register? Besides, it’s not like we’re having any trouble recruiting enough female volunteers for all of the non-combat roles which need to be filled. So let’s move on to the actual combat roles. Traditionally, that was the area where we had the most trouble filling the ranks back in the days of the draft and we wound up conscripting some men for the job. Nobody is talking about putting women on the front lines unless they can pass some extremely rigorous testing and the number who can manage the task is vanishingly small. What point would drafting women serve?

And none of this addresses the fundamental issue of forcing women into combat in the first place. Is there anyone who thinks the political will exists to start pushing them into combat against their wishes? I completely agree with Ted Cruz. This is, for lack of a better term, nuts.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air



Trackback URL


Constitutionalist on February 8, 2016 at 6:16 PM

No you didn’t.

First you wrote Trump’s plans, then you wrote you interpretations of his plans.

I call that mind reading, or wild a$$ guessing.

Barred on February 8, 2016 at 11:07 PM

He such a weasel.
urban elitist on February 8, 2016 at 10:56 AM

urban elitist?

rogerb on February 9, 2016 at 7:16 AM

I don’t think women should be in front line combat roles.

But with that said, if you’re going to demand equality, that’s exactly what you should get. You should have to do the same quals to the same standard, and if they’re subject to the draft, you should be too.

The meaning of the word “equal” is not subjective.

GrumpyOldFart on February 9, 2016 at 10:39 AM

Of course Cruz is 100% correct. Forcing women into combat would be immoral – this is a position held by the vast majority of Americans.

Pork-Chop on February 8, 2016 at 11:13 AM

Pushing one’s moral principles on the society is the main reason why so-con candidates are about as popular among independents as genital herpes. Who gave you, or Ted Cruz, a friggin’ right to judge what is moral and what isn’t?

Rix on February 8, 2016 at 11:24 AM

Laws are all about morality. Theft is illegal because everyone agrees it is wrong. Murder likewise. And fraud.

And refusing to bake a cake for a so-called gay wedding can get you a massive fine, because the people enforcing the law believe it’s immoral to reject homosexuality on moral grounds. Of course, our laws actually provide for free exercise of religion, and do not actually make homosexuals a protected class, but the elitists have simply decided to interpret those laws differently, because they believe that particular religious tenet is immoral.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 9, 2016 at 10:58 PM

Cruz is right, of course, and the fact that some people want to argue it is evidence for a decline in our civilizational values.

If women were treated exactly equal to men, and could be drafted and sent to combat, our entire culture would be harmed, because women are the only ones who can have children, and are by nature the preferred primary caregivers for children. Someone’s got to stay home and both have the children and raise them.

But there’s another aspect to this. Registering for the draft is not the same as being in combat, so it doesn’t follow that allowing women into combat roles should now mean all women must agreed to be registered for the draft.

It’s one thing to allow women to go into combat roles, if they can meet the standards. Women who can meet those exacting combat standards will be exceptional. If you shove a typical male draftee into infantry training, he can be trained to meet the standards in a reasonable amount of time. Put women in the same position, and well over 90% would find it not possible. That’s just basic biology. Those who find it possible were already exceptional.

So how does it make sense to draft women into combat roles that few could possibly succeed in?

Of course, the argument for the other side is simple: “You said you wanted equality.” But did most women even want that kind of “equality?” It seems to be mostly the realm of activists, and journalists who would never in a million miles go into combat in the first place.

We really shouldn’t punish all women because of the radicals who refuse to accept basic biology.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 9, 2016 at 11:08 PM

katee bayer on February 8, 2016 at 12:50 PM

ABSOLUTELY agree. Lower standard put us at a disadvantage. Unless they make the requirements for combat MOS the same as the males and even then, I thinks it’s a bad idea. Males and females should be on separate bases or at least different battalions as well for the sake of the males. A female can ruin a male’s career if one of them looks at her the wrong way (or she perceives being looked at inappropriately). And I say that as a female.

hopeful on February 8, 2016 at 2:48 PM

Unfortunately, the lowering of standards is inevitable. Otherwise, you’ll announce the opening of combat jobs to women to great fanfare, but a couple years later people will start grumbling that there aren’t enough women in combat, so the military must be discriminating. After all, if women are 20% of the military, but only 3% of combat roles, then the grand experiment is obviously a failure.

This would lead to political pressure to explain why more women aren’t in combat, and the inevitable result will be to decide that the stated standards are just set too unreasonably high. The only way to get more women to participate will be to make it easier for women to participate. The end will be either lowering the standards for everyone, or creating a separate and lower standard for women.

There Goes the Neighborhood on February 9, 2016 at 11:22 PM