January 24, 2013, - 4:09 pm
Women in Combat Already Failed – Ever Hear of Jessica Lynch? Or Alexis Hutchinson? Or Chick Marine Infantrymen?
It’s sad that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta announced that he’s making it official that women are allowed in combat roles in the U.S. Armed Forces. But if we’re honest with ourselves, we’ll admit that women have already been in combat roles for the U.S. for years. And it’s long been a failure (just like we had three chick Secretaries of State and each of them has been a failure).
Last year, I wrote about the female U.S. Marines who tried to become infantrymen. Only two of them made it through the requirements to enter the program (probably because they were given an extra leg up merely because they were women). And both dropped out because they couldn’t keep up. They simply couldn’t meet the standards. And so, now, the Marines are going to lower the standards for the Marine infantry training so that more women can enter the program and at least one of them can pass. It’s a disaster. And it’s the same disaster that’s set up to occur with the newly opened combat positions to women. The standards will be lowered for women to succeed. That’s what’s happened in every single area of the American military in which women have been allowed to enter.
And then there are the cases in which women in the U.S. military failed miserably and distracted male troops from their actual duties. Take Jessica Lynch, for instance. She got lost, couldn’t properly load or operate her weapon, then she was kidnapped by Muslims and sexually assaulted. And this was despite the training that she got in how to do these things correctly. Then, male soldiers who wanted to protect her honor and save her put themselves in harm’s way in a way they never would for fellow male officers. Their fellow male officers would also know how to read a map and properly use their weapons. And they didn’t get awarded Bronze Stars for incompetence, as Lynch did.
It’s what we call affirmative action for vulvas. And it just doesn’t make sense in a fighting force that should be focused on winning, not social experiments and satisfying the NOW hags. Imagine Lynch’s conduct on steroids with women in combat positions in full force.
Then, there is Alexis Hutchinson. She’s a single mother who got charged for skipping her Army deployment to Afghanistan. Her excuse: there was no one else to take care of her illegitimate kid. But even with the women in the military who do have a caretaker for their kids, their kids have a good chance of losing their moms to combat-related deaths. It’s where people die, where over a hundred American women who served have already died.
Do we really want more of America’s mothers and daughters dying out there? Is that what equality is all about? And if it is, will women now have to register for the draft? Will we draft women and force them to serve and get captured and raped by Islamic terrorists merely because some feminists think this is what “real equality” is about? That’s where we’re headed. It’s a slippery slope and we’re halfway down it already.
Also, even aside from the issues of single mothers, there is the issue of women in close quarters getting pregnant and being sent home, which is an enormous expense and cost to America. During the first Gulf War, ten percent of the women on a particular ship, the USS Acadia, had to be shipped home because they became pregnant while on board. The same thing will happen on the battlefield. Not to mention in combat. While today’s modern combat involves drones and not much hand-to-hand combat, there are times when opposing soldiers are shooting each other from close proximity as if it were the 1800s. It’s hard enough to take time out to reload a weapon. But what if a woman needs to stop to change her tampon? It’s not sanitary. It’s not safe. And it’s just stupid.
My late father, an Army veteran, used to note that Israel has had women in combat for a long time. But, like me, he opposed women in combat for the very reasons I’ve noted here. And as he always said, we are not Israel. And Israel doesn’t really have a choice. They have to draft everybody.
And, on the important missions, whether it was the bombing of the Osirak nuclear facility in Iraq or the front lines of wars in Lebanon and HAMASastan, Israel sent men in and the women were far behind. Plus, Israel never lowered its standards to put women in certain combat units, such as pilots.
That’s not how it will work in America. And we will waste American lives–of both men and women–in order to live up to the feminist fantasy of how we should conduct wars.
More on this from reader and friend Sean, who spent much of his career serving our country in the U.S. Armed Forces:
Well that’s nice. Panetta just comes out without any warning, and just lifts the ban on women in front-line combat roles. I can’t wait for the feminists to start crowing. They’ll say “but women already have served in dangerous combat zones, where the term “front line” really doesn’t apply anymore.” True enough. Oh by the way have you noticed that we’re suddenly talking a lot about sexual assaults in deployed areas? But that’s not really the point. We’re talking about putting women in Infantry and Armor units. Can a woman carry a .50 caliber machine gun (84 pounds) and install it in its mount on a combat vehicle? Probably not. Can a 100 pound woman buddy-carry a 220 pound wounded comrade to safety under fire? Probably not. Can a woman lift a 125mm High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) round (53 pounds) and mandhandle it into its storage location on the M-1A2 tank? Probably not. Which means in each of those cases some man will be forced to pick up the slack and increase HIS load to make up for it. And he won’t be able to complain about it, because that’ll be sexist.
They’ll say “but I know some women who are 6 feet tall and are stronger than many of the men I know.” Well, okay but let’s face it, most of the women making that statement only know men with cheesy little goatees and wear socks and sandals. Again, that’s not the point, only because those Amazon women are in the 99th percentile for size and strength, and – let’s be honest here – we’ll have some unspoken quota to meet for getting more females in front line units. That quota will be more than the incredibly small number who might meet the physical standards required for front line combat.
A military is like a guard dog (the guys at blackfive.net refer to them as sheep dogs). Do you want a nice, fluffy little Paris Hilton-style purse dog, or a big Rottweiler who can rip apart an intruder? Even if the ripping never happens, one will be a much bigger deterrent. That’s not very socially acceptable for the dithering dilettantes inside the Beltway and in the halls of academia, but it’s necessary. With the way we are immasculating our military (and I say “we” because the American public is complicit in this by voting these knuckleheads into office), we won’t be able to deter aggression against the USA, let alone our friends abroad.
But you know what? The “whole women on the front lines” is not a big deal anymore. After all, between Sequestration, the previous draconian cuts that Obama and Congress put in place, and the fact that Chuck “Assclown” Hagel will likely be the next SecDef, we won’t be able to field and train a military that can defend our own borders, let alone the rest of the world. So really, it doesn’t matter if we have women in front line units. They won’t be going anywhere in the next 4 years anyway.
But I want to see what the over/under line is for how long it’ll be before we have a murder case where a gay soldier kills a female soldier because he found out he and she were dating the same bisexual guy. It’s only a matter of time….
I’m SO glad I retired.
Tags: US Armed Forces, women in combat, women in the military