Marco Rubio backs women-in-combat decision
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.
Likewise, House Armed Services Committee Chairman Buck McKeon also came out in favor of the Defense Department’s announcement that the ban on women in combat would be lifted.
“After a decade of critical military service in hostile environments, women have demonstrated a wide range of capabilities in combat operations and we welcome this review,” McKeon said in a statement. …
But Rubio, in particular, represents the shift of many conservatives away from notions about women and other aspects of society that were orthodoxy for their movement a decade ago.
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
Marco Rubio 2016!annoyinglittletwerp on January 24, 2013 at 11:16 PM
Well, in the last few months Rubio has pretty much successfully killed any chance of being a presidential nominee.
The Notorious G.O.P on January 24, 2013 at 11:18 PM
Breaking: Marco Rubio gives up on 2016.
ChristieRubioMcDonnell
Ryan
Jindal
Perry
Paul
Walker
Next!
Gingotts on January 24, 2013 at 11:21 PM
Yet another politician who’s suddenly an expert on everything.
The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat
Drained Brain on January 24, 2013 at 11:22 PM
Oh please. This isn’t going to hurt his chances in 2016. What will hurt his chances in 2016 is Hillary Clinton.
SoulGlo on January 24, 2013 at 11:28 PM
Does he back equivalent Physical Fitness standards for men & women?
reddevil on January 24, 2013 at 11:31 PM
Well, of course he does – he’s just another short-sighted, pandering “progressive”. Let’s face it, Rubio is no different than obama – Rubio is an opportunist, he wants to be president, and he will say and do anything to achieve his goal – what is good for America is always an afterthought (if he ever thinks about America at all).
Disgusting. Republicans need to give up on the Rubio fantasy, before it’s too late.
Pork-Chop on January 24, 2013 at 11:34 PM
Never too late to see the light. Just give him another year and you’ll wonder what you ever saw in him
like I said in another thread he’s an idealist “conservative” and not one shaped by reality and experience.
AH_C on January 24, 2013 at 11:35 PM
LOL ok, SHe couldn’t even beat an unknown unqualified senator from Illinois.
The Notorious G.O.P on January 24, 2013 at 11:43 PM
I don’t have a problem with women receiving infantry training. I wouldn’t deploy them in offensive combat, though, unless they can carry their wounded 200lb battle buddy to safety.
But putting women in a position to be taken prisoner might not be in their best interest. I doubt they would be treated in exactly the same manner as their male cohorts.
But anyone honestly proposing this had never experienced real combat. It isn’t as glamorous as many like to think it is. There were no porta-poties on Iwo Jima. Troops often had to go without removing their pants. That’s just one example. War is nasty business.
crosspatch on January 24, 2013 at 11:50 PM
Yep. I’m all about having our women captured as POWs and raped mercilessly in front of other POWs as a a way of extracting information. Because equality is awesome or something.
/s
stvnscott on January 25, 2013 at 12:30 AM
What shift jive? This is what Republicans do: get less conservative in office. Well, most, that is.
Dongemaharu on January 25, 2013 at 12:33 AM
Rubio basically says we should put out best soldiers forward. If that happens to be all men so be it, if that happens to be a lot of men and a few women so be it. The key is that the standards should be the same and should not be changed or lowered just for women or anyone else.
Frankly that sounds conservative and American to me.
William Eaton on January 25, 2013 at 12:57 AM
This isn’t about maximizing individual unit effectiveness. It’s about maximizing the overall capacity of an all-volunteer system with multiple global commitments. You can’t alienate young women unless you’re prepared either to cut down on overseas commitments or start drafting young men. And who’s to say a female volunteer – anatomical handicaps and all – isn’t as useful as a male forced conscript? This is the arranged marriage of of neoconservatism and libertarianism. Guys like Rubio are the marriage brokers.
Seth Halpern on January 25, 2013 at 1:11 AM
Reality, and 10,000 years of history.
Conscription has been around since the dawn of history and we have never seen armies of women. Grrrl Power is just a Hollywood theme, it’s not reality.
sharrukin on January 25, 2013 at 1:16 AM
@sharrukin: There’ve been some thoroughly dysfunctional male conscript armies, too. But as I said, this is a political Hobson’s Choice, so yours is a moot point.
Seth Halpern on January 25, 2013 at 1:28 AM
No, it isn’t. Reality doesn’t just go away because men won’t volunteer in sufficient numbers, or conscription is politically unacceptable. Women aren’t capable of fulfilling that role, and the social and political problems don’t alter that.
sharrukin on January 25, 2013 at 1:33 AM
No culture that has thrust their females in offensive combat has lived to see modern times. DEFENSIVE combat, yes. I have no problem with women having infantry training, even sniper training that I hope they will never have to use but as the Russians learned in Stalingrad, it can mean the difference between holding on and not. That said, I do not want to see us putting women into offensive combat roles. Frankly, that is just stupid. It is hard enough for a soldier to possibly see a comrade tortured, it would be worse to watch that happen to a female for most people and the torture would most likely be more cruel than for a male.
Fine, take away the “ban” but simply don’t make any assignments.
crosspatch on January 25, 2013 at 1:39 AM
The whole concept is beyond despicable.
Knott Buyinit on January 25, 2013 at 1:48 AM
The plain fact is, combat arms get promoted faster, and that’s the only reason this is an issue.
The other plain fact is, women can’t cut it physically, mentally, or healthwise, in combat arms.
When these two facts collide, that’s when the fun starts.
Rebar on January 25, 2013 at 1:59 AM
So what happens the first time a woman claims to feel uncomfortable around her platoon because of the misogynistic locker room talk they partake in? Is the military going to swoop in and make harsh rules that forbid soldiers and marines from their causal crass banter? A really quick way to weaken our military is to destroy chemistry within units. You don’t want a bunch of infantrymen walking on eggshells every minute of the day because they might be punished for sexual harassment. When guys are relaxed around each other and engage in typical locker room banter they begin to form a strong bond. This bond is what makes a team work well together. No different than sports, only lives are at stake. Destroy that bond and lives are put at risk.
The Notorious G.O.P on January 25, 2013 at 3:10 AM
The country has gone insane. Homosexual weddings, trillion dollar coins, women in combat on the front line. The country is a joke.
Buddahpundit on January 25, 2013 at 3:48 AM
I’m no fan of Marco “I voted for the NDAA” Rubio but he is right, women are already in combat. The lioness Teams within the Marine Corps are a perfect example. They actually are attached to infantry and other front line operational units.
MoreLiberty on January 25, 2013 at 6:29 AM
Really? How did that happen if there was an exclusion? Another case of Congress (both Dim and Rep) not performing their oversight duties.
HondaV65 on January 25, 2013 at 6:41 AM
One of those Lioness leaders doesn’t agree.
http://www.mca-marines.org/gazette/article/get-over-it-we-are-not-all-created-equal
As a young lieutenant, I fit the mold of a female who would have had a shot at completing IOC, and I am sure there was a time in my life where I would have volunteered to be an infantryman. I was a star ice hockey player at Bowdoin College, a small elite college in Maine, with a major in government and law. At 5 feet 3 inches I was squatting 200 pounds and benching 145 pounds when I graduated in 2007.
In Iraq as the II MEF Director, Lioness Program, I served as a subject matter expert for II MEF, assisting regimental and battalion commanders on ways to integrate female Marines into combat operations. I primarily focused on expanding the mission of the Lioness Program from searching females to engaging local nationals and information gathering, broadening the ways females were being used in a wide variety of combat operations from census patrols to raids. In Afghanistan I deployed as a 1302 and led a combat engineer platoon in direct support of Regimental Combat Team 8, specifically operating out of the Upper Sangin Valley.
Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement. I understand that everyone is affected differently; however, I am confident that should the Marine Corps attempt to fully integrate women into the infantry, we as an institution are going to experience a colossal increase in crippling and career-ending medical conditions for females.
There have been many working groups and formal discussions recently addressing what changes would be necessary to the current IOC period of instruction in order to accommodate both genders without producing an underdeveloped or incapable infantry officer. Not once was the word “lower” used, but let’s be honest, “modifying” a standard so that less physically or mentally capable individuals (male or female) can complete a task is called “lowering the standard”! The bottom line is that the enemy doesn’t discriminate, rounds will not slow down, and combat loads don’t get any lighter, regardless of gender or capability.
sharrukin on January 25, 2013 at 6:56 AM
I agree with Rubio, now lets sign all these fine young ladies up for selective service.
DFCtomm on January 25, 2013 at 7:01 AM
meh the feminists and left has been pushing for this type of thing for years. let them have it. It’s an all volunteer force. Any women that can physically hack it are there by choice. And if anything horrific happens to one of these female soldiers in the next 4 years guess what, we won’t hear about it. the media won’t cover it while chocolate jeebus is president and like anything else the media will only find a problem with our female soldiers being beaten and raped by stone age barbarians when we have a republican in the white house.
bannor on January 25, 2013 at 7:31 AM
This isn’t a deal killer for me as far as Rubio 2016 goes.
That said, he isn’t my favorite candidate.
DRayRaven on January 25, 2013 at 7:57 AM
Another schmuck who thinks that the military exists for the sole purpose of pushing feminist ideology rather than fighting wars. Golly, could it be that…
1.) This will lead to a higher incidence of sexual assault within the military?
2.) A greater likelihood of the capture and rape of female soldiers?
3.) A breakdown in military discipline as soldiers are more inclined to go native, including the need to address the rotation-out of personnel no longer ready to serve due to pregnancy?
4.) A decline in military standards due to political pressures for “equal representation” rather than equal performance?
But none of that matters so long as women have an equal opportunity to have a nice metal slug firmly embedded in the back of their skulls. I mean, hey, what’s the worst that could happen?
Stoic Patriot on January 25, 2013 at 8:00 AM
If women are going to be in combat, they need to be in all-female combat units so we can measure their effectiveness honestly.
DrMagnolias on January 25, 2013 at 8:24 AM
Not a joke.
It’s a Greek tragedy.
itsnotaboutme on January 25, 2013 at 8:38 AM
Then, Marco is not a Conservative.
kingsjester on January 25, 2013 at 8:44 AM
If the same high standards, especially with strength and fitness, are maintianed it won’t be an issue. There would be very few females measure up and those that did deserve a shot. But, if you have to be able to do 10 consecutive pull-ups in full field dress then you’ve eliminated about 98% of females right off the bat.
tommyboy on January 25, 2013 at 9:29 AM
Repeated as farce….
tommyboy on January 25, 2013 at 9:38 AM
But Rubio won’t have the media trying desperately to pleasure him.
Washington Nearsider on January 25, 2013 at 10:01 AM