The new policy on women in combat is a disastrous mistake

I never believed this day would come. As MacDonald writes,

We have apparently arrived at the Golden Age, free from strife and the threat of foreign enemies. Little else can explain so gratuitous a decision as to place women in combat units. The downsides to such a policy are legion and obvious; the only reason to pursue it is to placate feminism’s insatiable and narcissistic drive for absolute official equality between the sexes.

Hillary, Pelosi, Valerie Jarrett, and Sandra Fluke are loving this.

Paul-Cincy on January 24, 2013 at 4:21 PM

Constant disastrous mistakes are what we do now.

Kensington on January 24, 2013 at 4:22 PM

You can anticipate every Obama policy move, especially as they relate to our culture. Stuff that would have been unheard of 10 years ago are commonplace today. From his inaugural address:

For we have always understood that when times change, so must we, that fidelity to our founding principles requires new responses to new challenges, that preserving our individual freedoms ultimately requires collective action.

No single person can train all the math and science teachers we’ll need to equip our children for the future. Or build the roads and networks and research labs that will bring new jobs and businesses to our shores. Now, more than ever, we must do these things together, as one nation, and one people.

A new vision of collective action, because … no single person can train all our teachers! This is the “new way”.

Paul-Cincy on January 24, 2013 at 4:31 PM

In a poll, 75% approve of women serving in combat. That’s a huge majority. What the **** are they thinking? The first comment at NR, it’s pretty intense:

KomradCal • 8 hours ago

−

My 25 years of Marine Corps service as an enlisted Marine and as an officer don’t, in and of themselves, make the “duty expert” on women in combat. However, my perspective comes from very real, daily personal observation.

Readiness is a squishy issue. We have metrics to measure it and standards set to attain it. Yet many factors impact readiness which aren’t measured by some item on an inspection checklist. I opposed gays serving openly but could have lived with allowing them to serve everywhere but infantry units. I oppose women serving there for the same reasons.

Sexual attraction is a huge distraction. I served in a unit with women Marines once and the way male Marines treated them differently was so blatantly obvious it jumped out at me every day. Newsflash. Women are different. Men are attracted to them. The greater the attraction, the greater the problems for the commander. The same is true with two men who are attracted to one another. Those things impact morale and readiness.

Can units still function with gays and women? Of course. They could also still function if we put rocks in their backpacks to weight them down. They could function if we limited them to five-round magazines or bolt-action rifles. The key is to MAXIMIZE readiness, not do the best you can with extra rocks put in your pack.

Women in infantry units will be just that and that doesn’t even address the physical differences. Some women shoot better than men. Many are smarter. Many are better runners. But almost none have upper body strength and the ability to finish a 25-mile force march with a 60lb pack and then fight a determined enemy. If one out of every 1,000 can, should we let her serve with men “just because?” Is promoting a social and political definition of “fairness” reason to justify lowering unit readiness? Of course not and this is nothing but a leftwing, feel-good decision to promote a political agenda.

I’m retired and my son, a Marine captain, was killed in Afghanistan in 2008. All I can say is both of us can no longer be harmed by these kinds of horribly bad decisions.

Paul-Cincy on January 24, 2013 at 4:53 PM