Scarborough: The blood will be on the Pentagon’s hands if it lowers standards for women troops
JOE SCARBOROUGH: Steve [Rattner], there is a difference. There is a difference physically, for the most part, in what men are able to accomplish and what women are able to accomplish out on a battlefield, on a football field, around a track. Again, this is not shocking. This is not open to debate. And by the way, I just want to be very clear because I’m sure people are freaking out right now, I’m not saying I don’t want women in combat. Women can be in combat, but I’ll be damned, if we find out that the Pentagon is lowering standards for politically correct reasons, then you know what? Then the blood of the dead americans in future battles will be on their hands. That’s what we’ve got to make sure doesn’t happen.









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
Truer words have never been spoken by a complete idiot.
jawkneemusic on January 25, 2013 at 12:40 PM
broken clock
cmsinaz on January 25, 2013 at 12:40 PM
You just know they’re going to do it….
BigWyo on January 25, 2013 at 12:41 PM
My mind automatically poisons the well for anything that this imbecile says.
besser tot als rot on January 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM
But they will do it in the name of diversity.
Cindy Munford on January 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gen-dempsey-if-women-can-t-meet-military-standard-pentagon-will-ask-does-it-really-have
jawkneemusic on January 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM
How many women have died already as a result of direct fire combat injuries? Other countries have long had women serving in direct combat, but the US might not like it as much when the first women die – or worse (depending upon the field). Will be I testing to see when/if the Pentagon rescinds this order.
Logus on January 25, 2013 at 12:43 PM
There’s no other possible reason to do it, you gutless wonder.
To destroy the US, an enemy would thrilled to get half of the Obooba agenda implemented.
~
The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat
A Pentagon push to mix the sexes ignores how awful cheek-by-jowl life is on the battlefield.
By RYAN SMITH
America has been creeping closer and closer to allowing women in combat, so Wednesday’s news that the decision has now been made is not a surprise. It appears that female soldiers will be allowed on the battlefield but not in the infantry. Yet it is a distinction without much difference: Infantry units serve side-by-side in combat with artillery, engineers, drivers, medics and others who will likely now include women. The Pentagon would do well to consider realities of life in combat as it pushes to mix men and women on the battlefield.
Many articles have been written regarding the relative strength of women and the possible effects on morale of introducing women into all-male units. Less attention has been paid to another aspect: the absolutely dreadful conditions under which grunts live during war.
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.
Enlarge Image
image
image
Reuters
U.S. Marines rest in an amphibious assault vehicle.
I served in the 2003 invasion of Iraq as a Marine infantry squad leader. We rode into war crammed in the back of amphibious assault vehicles. They are designed to hold roughly 15 Marines snugly; due to maintenance issues, by the end of the invasion we had as many as 25 men stuffed into the back. Marines were forced to sit, in full gear, on each other’s laps and in contorted positions for hours on end. That was the least of our problems.
The invasion was a blitzkrieg. The goal was to move as fast to Baghdad as possible. The column would not stop for a lance corporal, sergeant, lieutenant, or even a company commander to go to the restroom. Sometimes we spent over 48 hours on the move without exiting the vehicles. We were forced to urinate in empty water bottles inches from our comrades.
Many Marines developed dysentery from the complete lack of sanitary conditions. When an uncontrollable urge hit a Marine, he would be forced to stand, as best he could, hold an MRE bag up to his rear, and defecate inches from his seated comrade’s face.
During the invasion, we wore chemical protective suits because of the fear of chemical or biological weapon attack. These are equivalent to a ski jumpsuit and hold in the heat. We also had to wear black rubber boots over our desert boots. On the occasions the column did stop, we would quickly peel off our rubber boots, desert boots and socks to let our feet air out.
Due to the heat and sweat, layers of our skin would peel off our feet. However, we rarely had time to remove our suits or perform even the most basic hygiene. We quickly developed sores on our bodies.
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.
Yes, a woman is as capable as a man of pulling a trigger. But the goal of our nation’s military is to fight and win wars. Before taking the drastic step of allowing women to serve in combat units, has the government considered whether introducing women into the above-described situation would have made my unit more or less combat effective?
Societal norms are a reality, and their maintenance is important to most members of a society. It is humiliating enough to relieve yourself in front of your male comrades; one can only imagine the humiliation of being forced to relieve yourself in front of the opposite sex.
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.
Mr. Smith served as a Marine infantryman in Iraq. He is now an attorney.
~
Visit the link, just to see the photo. Imagine one woman in this vehicle with that group for 20 hours, unable to open the door.
Akzed on January 25, 2013 at 12:43 PM
Not sure where Mr. Scarborough has been, but standards for women were drastically lower when I was in the Army, and that was during the cold war.
For example, to get into a basic train company I had to do at least 12 pushups, and to graduate I needed to do at least 72. For women it was ONE pushup to get in, and 12 to graduate.
More: I personally saw zero male recruits who failed the pushup test in my company, and at least a third of a female company fail theirs.
If females were held to the same standards as the average male recruit, there wouldn’t be a platoons worth of them in the entire military. And I’m not even talking about the elite units like Rangers or SEALs.
Rebar on January 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM
I’d rather poke my eyes out with a hot iron than agree with Scarborough, but he’s dead on target with that statement.
reddevil on January 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Civilian control of the military, Joe. Therefore, it would be on Democrats’ hands, as they are the ones bullying the military to do this nonsense.
Christien on January 25, 2013 at 12:45 PM
Of course, EVERYONE, even leftist-lib-talker Scarborough, knows that standards will have to be lowered, because physically, women are not equal to men. This is simple fact. Allowing women in combat is going to be a complete disaster for America, which is why obama is doing it.
Pork-Chop on January 25, 2013 at 12:46 PM
I’m not impressed if a woman can meet the standards. There’s a lot more to performing than meeting some standards. And again, mixing the genders in killings fields is a recipe for failure in itself. This is such an awful decision.
I think he’s dead wrong there.
Paul-Cincy on January 25, 2013 at 12:48 PM
No, there won’t be blood on the Pentagon’s hands… bureaucracies exist to prevent blood from getting on anyone’s hands.
I’m happy for the change though… it just confirms(as how Alasdair Macintyre stated with regard to going to war for the nation state) that the military is just a utility and is worthy of no more praise or glory than your mailman.
ninjapirate on January 25, 2013 at 12:51 PM
General Robert Barrow, 27th Commandant of the United States Marines Corps, explains why Joe Scarborough is wrong.
h/t LaughterJones, from the Allen West thread on this.
Christien on January 25, 2013 at 12:51 PM
are those other countries armed forces just as bad a$$ as the USA?
cmsinaz on January 25, 2013 at 12:52 PM
What difference does it make?
Good Lt on January 25, 2013 at 12:54 PM
In two years he’ll be calling the Pentagon sexist for not having enough females in combat roles.
Flange on January 25, 2013 at 12:57 PM
Wars aren’t about winning or losing to the left, they’re about dead troops you can use as leverage against your political opponents. Women make better leverage.
29Victor on January 25, 2013 at 12:59 PM
Lemme get this straight.
If I am a woman in the military and I want to go to the front lines, now I will be able to.
If I am a man in the military and I want to get out of combat duty and go to a nice safe job in the rear. . . too bad.
Yup. That’s equality in the military.
Wander on January 25, 2013 at 1:00 PM
If history with police and fire departments across the country are any indication, then standards for women in combat will eventually be lowered. Eventually, someone will file a lawsuit claiming gender discrimination because there aren’t enough women as 4-star generals.
JimLennon on January 25, 2013 at 1:01 PM
My dad fought in WWII. He took schrapnel through both legs. He did not want his sons to have to experience war. He loved them and wanted them protected from the horrors of war, if possible. (Dad was a medic.) He would have been proud of and supported them if they had been drafted or chose to serve in the military, but it was not something that he wanted for them.
Hearing Tammy Duckworth promote women serving in combat brought my father’s preferences back to me. I don’t know, something hit me strange about her exuberance for other women going to war…
Just the idea of women being drafted and going to war was one of the main reasons that the Equal Rights Amendment (1972) failed.
Fallon on January 25, 2013 at 1:02 PM
The good news about destroying the military is that hyper-statists like Obama will be less equipped to keep 300 million people together if some decide they’ve had enough.
crrr6 on January 25, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Our founders would consider him treasonous.
katy on January 25, 2013 at 1:04 PM
Nonsense. It will be the (R)s fault. Witness Hillary/Benghazi:
rogerb on January 25, 2013 at 1:06 PM
Given the drastic reduction in standards for POTUS – as exemplified by the Muslim Brotherhood supporting and runaway spending demagogue BHO – reduced standards in the military is inevitable.
Basilsbest on January 25, 2013 at 1:08 PM
WOMEN PERMITTED TO JOIN COMBAT UNITS ON THE FRONT LINES JUST LIKE MEN?
THEN WOMEN REGISTERED IN SELECTIVE SERVICE JUST LIKE MEN!
They damn well better add females to the Military Draft Registration requirements too then if they’re actually going to go through with this asininity.
I can’t wait to see the precious little daughters of Congressman and Senators — much less Sasha and Malia Obama — and especially the precious little daughters of the Libtard Electorate registering for the draft then ending up conscripted to war along with our young men.
After all – it’s only fair.
SD Tom on January 25, 2013 at 1:11 PM
No, that’s incorrect. The socialists learned from Chile in 1973 that they need to dismantle conservative, nationalistic militaries, because otherwise they face the risk of an army revolt. What a budding dictator wannabe will eventually try to do is create a “parallel” army under his personal control made up up of flunkies while cutting funding and dismantling the regular army. These will essentially be gangs of thugs and murderers whose job it is to terrorize the populace and keep them under control.
Eventually the regular army will be too weak to resist and will either be completely dismantled or absorbed by the dictator’s personal army.
Doomberg on January 25, 2013 at 1:12 PM
I was speaking to the physical requirements. That is where the debate starts and ends. I think he’s dead right because women won’t be able to meet the same physical requirements.
reddevil on January 25, 2013 at 1:13 PM
He is right, like a broken clock, every so often. Obama is pushing this for domestic reasons, to force Republicans and Conservatives to come out and say women should not be in combat. That way progressives can continue to play to unmarried women that Conservatives hate women and want them to know their place. I am also sorry to say that it works.
This is why conservatives politicians should not fall into the trap. Fight to keep standards high and there won’t be many women who will make it through anyway, but at the same time the democrats can’t use the sexist charge domestically.
This is politics folks. It is meant to be a divisive tool to hurt conservatives and distract people from more important things. Just say the smart thing and ignore the rest….we can always change it back once republicans get the white house back.
William Eaton on January 25, 2013 at 1:14 PM
Along that same thought, allowing women to serve in combat positions in the U.S. Army may ultimately be good for conservatism. When the libs finally decide to use the Army against American citizens in the South, Midwest, and Mountain states, it will be so incompetent that it won’t pose a threat to the citizens it wants to subdue.
TxAnn56 on January 25, 2013 at 1:15 PM
Well, Joe should know. He’s got the blood of at least one woman on his hands.
teacherman on January 25, 2013 at 1:18 PM
I hear what you’re saying. Like women in the NFL. There might have been a place-kicker once, I’m not sure. But my point is just because a woman CAN meet the standards doesn’t mean she should be allowed in combat. Men and women aren’t widgets to be measured against some standard for Quality Assurance when it comes to putting them under the intense psychological, emotional, physical pressure of war. Not to mention the many problems with unit cohesion that have been mentioned. And Wander’s point that women can elect to fight and die, and men don’t have that choice.
SD Tom brings up Sasha and Malia having to register for Selective Service? Obama is so narcissistic that the thought of that might make him reconsider the whole plan. He does seem so wrapped up in how things affect him, and seeing things from the point of view of his own experience. I’m so tired of him bringing up Sasha and Malia when making a case for some policy position. It just shows his outlook is warped.
Paul-Cincy on January 25, 2013 at 1:40 PM
Israel, France, Germany, New Zealand, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Norway, Serbia, Sweden and Switzerland
The only one on that list that would qualify would be Israel, though a couple others might not be too far behind.
Logus on January 25, 2013 at 1:41 PM
Agree logus…only Israel
cmsinaz on January 25, 2013 at 1:48 PM
Joe, your MSNBC colleagues will crush your like a grape for this. You lay with dogs, you get fleas.
michaelo on January 25, 2013 at 1:49 PM
In my humble opinion these low dog commie Democrats long range plan is for 8 or 10 “U.S.A. lady Marines get caught by say mad dog islamic fighters”, they next appear live on islamic TV picked up by the commie msm lap dogs and every American has to see them gut cut live on TV.
They will do this to get Americans to quit fighting at all.
Their goal is for U.S. to roll over for the world wide commie rule and tax kingdom.
We are the only thing in their evil way.
We are the only effective and lethal fighting force left intact on the planet.
Fight.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 25, 2013 at 2:07 PM
As someone said to me, its gonna suck when you get shot at that female soldier can’t carry or drag your 210 lb body half a klick.
But hey, Forward.
CorporatePiggy on January 25, 2013 at 2:11 PM
These clowns have no idea how ridiculous they are:
Valerie Jarrett @vj44
“Step toward harnessing the talents & skills of all our citizens” — President Obama on opening combat units to women: wh.gov/y779 about 20 hours ago
Valerie Jarrett ✔ @vj44
If there’s one thing we should all agree on, it’s protecting women from violence. Congress needs to pass the Violence Against Women Act. 8:42 PM – 23 Jan 13
Akzed on January 25, 2013 at 2:21 PM
All these threads later, still not one good reason for this.
Bmore on January 25, 2013 at 2:22 PM
Bmore,
The commie Democrats have reasons for this evil, not good reasons, evil reasons.
APACHEWHOKNOWS on January 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM