January 24, 2013, - 4:09 pm

Women in Combat Already Failed – Ever Hear of Jessica Lynch? Or Alexis Hutchinson? Or Chick Marine Infantrymen?

By Debbie Schlussel

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.

Spot on.

Tags: , ,

53 Responses

This has everything to do with winning elections and absolutely nothing to do with winning wars.

I_AM_ME on January 24, 2013 at 4:32 pm

    Why is it that so many ideas that are “Good Politics”, are
    absolutely bad policy? Could it be that the people who decide such things are idiots?

    John Illinois on January 25, 2013 at 11:51 am

Debbie and Sean
Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and Nathan Bedford Forrest would have loved this situation 150 years ago. They would have conquered up to the Great Lakes and Vermont.

Confederate South on January 24, 2013 at 4:56 pm

Its symbolism over the substance.

We won’t have much of a military anyway by the time its shrunk.

And out-going SecDef Panetta has a shrewd sense of timing.

Give the man some credit – he really knows when to stick in the knife!

NormanF on January 24, 2013 at 5:01 pm

    Social engineering in camo. Pinpnetta and his sock puppet, Casey, on instructions from the demander-in-chief, continue to downgrade the military and its capabilities. Everyone remembers Casey’s (I cannot bring myself to call him “General,”)comment right after the ISLAMIC MURDERS at Fort Hood, “I hope this event doesn’t set back diversity in the Army and in our country.” You think Pimpnetta was bad? Wait until the quisling Hagel takes over. With the trio of Kerry, Hagel and the third quisling, Brennan, our country will continue to be sold down the river. F-16 and Abrams tanks to the Muslim Brotherhood? The state department, under the “Leadership” of Clinton sent money – BIG money – to Hamas? Does anyone think that our country is being run and positioned by islamo/communists – or am I the only one? Next, after we get the women-in-combat fully implemented, will be “Balance” in promotions. Affirmative action – in action. Anyone remember the affirmative action female Navy pilot who was given chance after chance, lowering of standards, etc., to become a pilot? Unfortunately, she eventually killed herself after multiple attempts to land a jet on the deck of a carrier. Just like our unionized, government ron “Education” system……..can’t pass the test? Can’t qualify? No problem! We’ll just keep lowering the standards to achieve “Equality.”

    Victoryman on January 25, 2013 at 10:13 am

Debbie and everyone here, last night on facebook, one of my female friends and I had a discussion on this topic of women serving in the military. Both her and I agreed that they shouldn’t serve during combat on the battlefield, it’s totally impossible for a female soldier to lift up a male soldier who out weighs her by atleast 100 pounds.

Lookit, I’m for women serving in the military, but only in either the Air Force or the Navy or be a contractor. In the Air Force, to fly jet planes, in the Navy to either work on the submarines or do computer work. And if anyone favors women serving during combat on the ground does NOT care for females and are inside misogynist inside!

“A nation is defined by its borders, language & culture!”

Sean R. on January 24, 2013 at 5:03 pm

    I have a woman friend—my wife’s college roommate, who was a math major in college and is a Major in AirForce intelligence. She serves two purposes: 1) she does her non-combat job well and 2) she frees up a man to go on the lines.

    That’s reasonable. But Lefties are not known for being reasonable. If a woman can outfly a man, or outpunch a man who is a combat pilot or a combat soldier, we can consider that on a case by case basis.

    But lowering standards? That’s a recipe for disaster. Jessica Lynch shouldn’t have been allowed anywhere near a battlefield, much less get medalled for incompetence.

    By the way, Italkit, I agree with you—the Haredi should serve, even if it’s just cleaning toilets out in barracks. They are a disgrace. The greatest rabbis also had JOBS. The Rambam was an MD.

    Occam's Tool on January 24, 2013 at 7:28 pm

      The Spanish Sultan’s personal physician, as I recall.

      skzion on January 25, 2013 at 9:40 am

Only have women in front lines when they have PMS.

Jonathan E. Grant on January 24, 2013 at 5:06 pm

I was thinking of an even more frightening question on WHY they are doing this (and it’s hard to think there would be any other reason than PC Libtard pandering…which is a FAIL from the get-go…).

I noticed yesterday Assad (in Syria) is very desperate and has begun recruiting women (but not for direct combat…YET). He’s gradually losing so it’s come to that.

So I ask, is the USA also desperate for soldiers who will fight for Obama-Putin that they HAVE to do this now? And they can use PC pandering feminazi crap to cover up the absolute need for more soldiers, inept or not?

I agree 100% with DS on females in combat. It’s disgusting and I hope under Obama-Putin they DO bring back the draft. It’s what this country deserves. They elected him, and elections have consequences. And Obama-Putin is hot for the “Arab Spring” and that alone has been a disaster with many, many unintended consequences (by those who don’t understand Jihad).

Skunky on January 24, 2013 at 5:19 pm

I agree with Skunky that they are doing this to pander to all the feminist morons. I notice, too, that this is coming immediately after the liberals criticized Obama for not having enough women in his new cabinet & other governmental selections. Granted this would have happened anyway, but I guess this is his peacemaking offer to them.

He seems to be doing something special for each part of the base that elected him: complete open borders for the Hispanics (and who knows who else), gay marriage and no barriers to gays in the military, and now, no barriers to women. And a general flood of new entitlement spending.

And this is a good time from his standpoint to do all these things, because the Republicans are in complete disarray and most of them don’t really disagree with anything he is doing. Much easier now when there is no opposition.

Little Al on January 24, 2013 at 5:37 pm

why be an assclown,debbosux? Can’t argue with the obvious.

vuulfie on January 24, 2013 at 5:38 pm

    I have no idea what you actually tried to say vuu. I guess that comes with being unable to come up with an intelligible nickname.

    Worry01 on January 24, 2013 at 6:14 pm

But that Demi Moore movie proved a tiny woman could beat up a Navy Seal and carry a wounded soldier! Clearly none of you have seen the movie.

It wouldn’t shock me if they were using that movie as their guideline and its downright disgusting that American soldiers could be put in jeopardy because of this nonsense.

And good luck to those patriotic women if they are captured by Abdul the horrible in a hot zone….its bad enough what they do to the men.

alex on January 24, 2013 at 5:39 pm

I see it as a deliberate effort to make the military more dysfunctional, and thus less deployable.

Worry01 on January 24, 2013 at 6:12 pm


    You are correct. The liberals who support this make no secret of their desire to use this tactic to make us less likely to go to war. Basically, everything they want to destroy, they make it co-ed. But note that there isn’t any move to force elite women’s colleges to let men in …

    Gerald on January 24, 2013 at 6:26 pm

That’s a myth that Israel has to draft everyone. Having women in combat at this point is still a leftover from the secular, Soviet inspired governments of our founders. My husband was in the IDF 22 years ago as a recruit at age 39. Something very unusual for an American oleh (immigrant, they can usually get deferred out) and it was Gulf War 1. But as soon as the emergency was over, they gave him a permanent discharge. He didn’t even have to do reserves. If we really didn’t want women in the IDF, we’d raise the draft age which is now 26, especially for immigrant men, make the yeshivaniks serve and send the women home or to non-combat positions. The only difference is that with this being such a small country, we are all on the front lines in a ground war and we citizens will have to do some fighting to survive.

Italkit on January 24, 2013 at 6:20 pm

Even if women were as good in infantry and other combat roles as men – and they aren’t – I would still be against it. While I have no problem with women competing in athletics and participating in some other traditionally or stereotypically male realms, I unreservedly, unapologetically believe in what feminists call “gender roles.” Barring emergencies of course, some things in a society should be reserved exclusively for men and likewise some should be reserved for women. If you disagree, let us see a man have a baby, or let us see a woman impregnate another woman. From small scales like individual homes and families to larger scales like neighborhoods, cities, ethnic/racial groups and large swaths of this country, the chaos that has resulted from men and women abdicating and rejecting their “gender roles” (sorry I do not know another term for it but the feminist one) is apparent, yet no one talks about it. (We would rather blame it on guns, public schools, lack of social programs, institutional racism, capitalism, etc.) It has gotten to where even social conservatives won’t talk about it anymore (because doing so would mean having to criticize the dysfunctional family of Sarah Palin among other considerations … you even had Ann Romney selling out her religion by promoting single mothers at the Republican Convention).

We are just heading down the downward spiral. Have been since Roe v. Wade. Or possibly before.

Gerald on January 24, 2013 at 6:23 pm

One reason women would be an asset to the US Military: PMS! Even the most timid of women can become Hell-on-Earth then. That would be the perfect time to put any high power weapon on them and unleash them on our enemies or waterboard the enemy. They could be more deadly than the brain-washed Taliban! When it’s all over, just put them on desk duty for another 28 days until its ‘game on’ again.

Lee on January 24, 2013 at 7:00 pm

So with this action, will women have to register with Selective Service when thy turn 18? The current law seems discriminatory against men. Which politician is going to champion this egregious oversight? This is the next hurdle that women must “overcome”.

“If you are a man ages 18 through 25 and living in the U.S., then you must register with Selective Service. It’s the law. According to law, a man must register with Selective Service within 30 days of his 18th birthday.”

Mitch on January 24, 2013 at 7:02 pm

    Mitch, you ask a very interesting and intriguing question! A very good one!

    Skunky on January 24, 2013 at 7:25 pm

Lot’s of good points. FYI – Just as it is today, you pass the test – you get the job. Gender neutral requirements means a number of women (same as men today) will NOT get that highly sought after combat position. No standards are going to be lowered, nor will men have to pick up any slack left by women.

Visteo on January 24, 2013 at 7:08 pm


You must be a comedian. “No standards are going to be lowered…” Let’s just say your statement is correct. Here’s a scenario for you: As a commander in charge of recruit training, would you want to testify before some liberal House or Senate committee and tell them that the high number of female recruit wash-outs is because they can’t meet the current training standards. In the minds of liberals, if women are failing, it can only be from sexism and discrimination! Todays Generals are way too politically aware to expose themselves to the anger of the powers that be and shorten their careers for the principal of maintaining standards. This is not about making the military a more formidable and effective fighting force, it’s about infiltrating what liberals view as a “Men Only” club. And if they can damage the effectiveness of the US military in the process, well that’s just another reason to push it forward.

Mike on January 24, 2013 at 8:14 pm

    Mike, I disagree. I think integrity and honesty run a bit higher in the military. I don’t think a General will want to explain why lives were lost due to a woman’s inability to perform.

    A General, testifying in front of a Liberal commitee, will have enough brains to bring an 85 lb 50 cal and a 95 lb washed-out woman for a visual demonstration. He will then offer the comittee an opportunity to lug the 50 cal around. Generals are not afraid of committees.

    In the military, minorities have been integrated for a long time. I’m sure you can find claims of descrimination, but it appears not be the problem that it is in the public realm.

    I’m sure you think every Black General got there because of his color….not his abilities. Right?

    Visteo on January 24, 2013 at 9:34 pm

    Mike, Visteo is one of our blog trolls. Best to ignore him.

    skzion on January 25, 2013 at 9:45 am

Interesting article that contains an explanation on why even physically exceptional women cannot keep up in a combat infantry environment.


DavidJ on January 24, 2013 at 8:20 pm

After destroying the health care system, harming the real estate industry, and encouraging black on white violence by not addressing it, can’t be surprised. Along with the debt, and arming/financing the muslim bro hood, his radicals are doing what they’ve been dying to do for a long time. Destroying America. Some women cops are good, but after dealing with them in the workplace, I’m left with the opinion they’ll get people hurt and killed in combat. Piñata is such a lib and doing his masters bidding. It’s only gotten worse since I got out of the USAF. My Marine son informed me that female USAF members are known by the alias of “Marine mattresses”. The different branches do work together in various roles. Yeah, things go from bad to worse.

samurai on January 24, 2013 at 8:52 pm

    Sorry samurai, your Marine son would be royally dressed down by my hard-core, USAF Lt. Col., ret., wife. (Trust me, I’ve seen it). She was/is no nonsense when it comes to defending her country. She’s only 5’3,” but could, and would, command a fighter wing and have no qualms about bombing muzzies, or other enemies, to hell.

    We both agree that women should only be allowed on the “front lines” if they can cut it. But NEVER, ever, refer to the rolls they have in the military as less than substantial…, mattresses?. Kids do make some silly comments, but I suspect his was in the “macho” mode that kids in the military do.


    WilliamMunny on January 25, 2013 at 6:14 pm

Romney and Obama spent the last two weeks of the campaign bragging about their feminist credentials. We should have seen this comming.

Brian on January 24, 2013 at 10:04 pm

Draft them against their will in time of war like they do to all men, and they will have earned their equality. If we treat women differently, they are not freaking equal. My mother was a US Marine during WWII. So was the old man.

#1 Vato on January 24, 2013 at 10:12 pm

So glad I am not a woman of today. I think feminists have lost their minds. Women have invaded fire and police departments, all sports including football and boxing, and now want to go to the front lines and fight. I blame women. An entire generation has been reared on this nonsense and will soon reap the results of their stupidity. Good luck GI Jane and when you’re gang raped by the enemy, please don’t whine.

cjc on January 25, 2013 at 12:30 am

My fear with this edict, is that it removes the final bar to shielding women from the draft. No self respecting metrosexual faced with a draft will long endure the absence of facials and “mani/pedis” in boot camp without bringing a constitutional challenge on equal protection grounds. Already, the Selective Service Registration of men only is ripe for challenge. For that matter, it may not even take a challenge if the intent of the government is to put all young Americans in uniform in “times of crisis of course”. Imagine the disruption to young families if both mom and dad are drafted. I suppose the government will have to provide “boarding schools” to care for and educate the children of such drafted parents. Hmm, wonder what they might teach the little darlings.

There is an agenda here. In time it will be revealed. I do not believe it is merely to give Combat Infantry Badges to women.

Pete on January 25, 2013 at 9:42 am

Jed Babbin wrote a column about this yesterday(I believe). He ended by saying it was now up to the Republicans in Congress to bar the use of any authorized or appropriated funds for DoD to implement the Panetta policy. Since they control the House, it seems a logical thing to do. Will “Weeping” John Boehner do it?

The article is at:


john nicholson on January 25, 2013 at 10:01 am

    What, and take away this “victory” for women. I don’t think the idiots in the Republican Party have the testosterone to do it. All probably having a group cry as you suggest.

    Pete on January 25, 2013 at 10:20 am

we had this discussion on paltalk and all those guys that agreed with you were called male chauvanist pigs

martin on January 25, 2013 at 10:02 am

I’ve seen a few comments on this thread espousing the combat effectiveness of women with PMS. I know it’s meant to be humorous, but I think it widely misses the mark. Combat is an environment that stretches the limits of one’s endurance on every front, lack of food, sleep and hygiene combined with extreme stress, demands on physical strength, mental acuity and team tactics. It is that place so foreign to the civilian world where you either get it right or you die. There are no “do-overs” and no apology can rectify failure. This is not the environment where a woman suffering from PMS will excel

Pete on January 25, 2013 at 10:16 am

    Great posts, Pete. Lots of food for thought in them.

    Skunky on January 25, 2013 at 10:29 am

      I actually agree with Skunky on that comment ;-). Nice job Pete. I think your points are exactly what will restrict the number of women allowed into combat forces.

      Visteo on January 25, 2013 at 1:01 pm

Only morons don’t get how afu this is. Having served for 30 years, I had a ringside seat to this DACOWITS-driven PC BS and could spend too much of the day citing personal observations. Suffice to say I concur with everything Sean said.

Putting women in combat roles is a disaster waiting to happen and it will be apparent fast whenever we have to fight another first-world force and things get ugly.

Shifting gears:

Anyone notice that Panetta’s announcement came out of the blue?

Think it might have been timed to deflect attention from Hillary’s faux-emotional/angry testimony re Benghazigate and all the unanswered questions there?

Ditto the gun control debate. Smoke screen for Benghazigate.

Methinks the deception behind Benghazigate is a far more damaging story to this president than we can imagine.

Just sayin’…

CG on January 25, 2013 at 10:21 am

The various leftist fembot/eunich vermin must be patting themselves on the back now with this asshat move by the Obamanation via Phucknetta. Having been in the Navy on ships with and without women onboard putting them in combat situations is a disaster of epic purportions waiting to happen. Now don’t get me wrong on my last ship for instance there were some exceptional women that I was proud to serve with but for every one of them their was at least 9(two in my division) that weren’t worth a plugged nickel. They just couldn’t or wouldn’t keep on the various drills that would save your life out at sea. Drills like firefighting, man overboard and security. You’re in full gear in all of these drills and if you can’t do it then when the fit hits the shan what do you think will happen. I would like to know that if I’m hurt would my female shipmate be able to pull my keister out of harms way or will she “bag ass” and leave. And need I remind everyone that this is on a warship. Could you imagine being in a forward area like Ashcrapistan foxholing it with a female soldier. Hopefully she will cut the mustard if something went down but why have that worry in the first place. I’m sure the men that were serving with Jessica(wrong way)Lynch thought the same thing. Also if the knuckleheaded National Command Authority thinks that this is a great idea then there needs to be one set of physical standards. We wouldn’t want everything to be unequal and unfair right. Like other posters have said if something bad happens there are no do overs. BTW for you liberal trolls and naysayers that pop up on this site like whack-a-moles I’ll make you a deal. I’ll stop ragging on your heros Obungler,Pantynetta and Hillary(what difference does it make) Clintonite if this happens. A female sailor using the same standards as the men becomes a SEAL. I really don’t see that happening in the near future.

Ken b on January 25, 2013 at 12:45 pm

If we are to have women in combat, wouldn’t it be a good idea to learn from the experiences of other nations that have had them? I’m no expert on the I.D.F. (Israel Defense Force) but am aware that they have women in combat roles. Due to the successes of the I.D.F. it might be a good idea to learn from them how to implement the idea of women in combat if that is what we are going to do. I really don’t see where it is necessary right now to have women in combat, since we are not in a total world war. I am a firm believer in having as many people as possible, men and women, trained in basic combat skills in case we do have a national emergency. I also question the motive of the Hussein Obama administration for this change. Decisions regarding the armed forces should be based on national security needs, not social programs and politics.

RT on January 25, 2013 at 2:53 pm

    RT, despite what some Israelis have said, my understanding is that Israels does NOT have women in frontline combat roles.

    However, Israel hasn’t won a war since ’73, so I’m not sure it’s the best example to follow.

    skzion on January 26, 2013 at 6:24 pm

Good article that details the reality of war and being on the front lines.


Mitch on January 25, 2013 at 9:32 pm

Can we stoop any lower? That is… can our supposed representative government stoop any lower? It is hard for me to believe that there is a consensus to put women on the battlefield. This is a potential nightmare.

That said, assuming full equality, The raised draft issue warrants immediate discussion. If a draft is ever re-instated, there could, by law, be no discrimination. Now some math.

In WW II, approximately 60% of our forces were draftees. This equates to 250,000 draftee deaths of the 418,000 who died. That is 125,000 dead women. And I suggest that the proportionate deaths would show women in the lead. And these are just numbers. What about the reality of the pictures of women ripped to shreds storming the beach at Normandy? Or slogging through the jungles of Pacific with malaria, dysentery, ringworm and beriberi? Or how about the Bataan march? Would we have tolerated this? In the aftermath we would likely have sent Roosevelt to trial in Nuremberg.

50,000 deaths in Vietnam. 34% were draftees.

I want to hear Obama say his daughters have a right to go into combat. Or maybe in the event of our next world war, he can use them as an example of patriotism and let them be the first women to be drafted.

Looks like chivalry is truly dead. So are the brains of the political establishment.

JRay on January 25, 2013 at 11:06 pm

I see women in aviation billets, administrative (medical, legal, manpower management, ops/planning etc.)positions, and other support classifications. However, a 50lb ruck, 35lb base plate, 9lb M-16A2, and 12lbs of 5.56mm is already”gender neutral” period. Oh, forgot the 2 2 quarts and 5qt reservoir of water.
Is it me, or are all the “females” being pro-Pinetta spokesmen (no typo) appear to have squared jaws, protruding foreheads, and deeper than normal voices? …and the women who are speaking out against the dictate are being portrayed as “frail,” “lady-like,” and “weak”?
My mother was a “Corps-Wave” in the late ’60’s; one of the MANY women who debrided wounds, cleaned the Vietnamese crap off of wounded Marines, changed burn bandages, assisted in Medevac triage et al etc at the then “Bethesda Naval Hospital”, lived in the FEMALE barracks, and swore an oath to defend etc…until my oldman returned from I Corps, Quang-Tri, Con Thein with 1/1, Charlie Med, married her and she became pregnant with your’s truly; adios Petty Officer thanks for your service. She is 5′ 3″, 145lbs, and kicked my ass EVRYTIME i screwed up, but she ALWAYS knew that men fight the wars and women support the male mission(s) period. “If a girl wants to play with the boys, then she is to be treated as a boy,” is something I heard frequently.
ALL of this crap will end as soon as Betty Jane is captured, videoed, sexually assaulted, broadcasted, and smitted across the neck…or until a “female” is annointed as Chairman Joint Chiefs of Staff…bank on it. Think Reno, H Clinton, Napalotano, and Sebilias (sp?).

Sik_Boy on January 26, 2013 at 11:26 am

I wonder what the real reasons behind this are. I don’t think it’s to get more votes: democrat voters are mostly anti-army. It could be a move to further weaken the military, and if women soldiers are killed in battle, it would raise public opinionagainst the military.

This is probably a good time to remember the women pilots of WW II, who flew fighters from the factory to the takeoff airbases. They were first-class pilots. A few were killed in crashes. Until just recently, none were publicly honored.

ZZMike on January 26, 2013 at 9:47 pm

As I understand it the Israeli women in combat thing is a myth.
“Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”

“Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2001/08/10269/#oqirlEOgkBRupi8Q.99

Jedediah on January 26, 2013 at 9:50 pm

I prefer that physical standards for combat not be lowered. It can only erode our national security.

That being said, I prefer there be no barriers to women as long as they can keep pace 100% with men.

I find it irritating that Americans constantly use the refrain: “They do (fill in the blank) in Israel”. In this instance, Israel’s policy is based on more than the mere need for manpower (as Debbie notes). Israel does not (contrary to the psychotic beliefs of anti-Semites) project its military power abroad. Israeli soldiers defend their homes against neighbors waging war against the nation. There is no comparison to the U.S. military; none.

For the U.S. military, there ARE some combat specialties that women might easily perform equal, if not better than men. All that means is that I prefer no barriers to women in combat arms units in the U.S. military; nothing more. The standards shall not be lowered and I prefer that women’s combat arms units be segregated from men’s. I believe this promotes healthy competition and allows the military to evaluate women’s combat arms units in a more objective fashion.

So there’s my take on all this. Don’t know if anybody agrees but thought I’d just throw these ideas out there.


There is NO Santa Claus (aka TINSC)

There is NO Santa Claus on January 27, 2013 at 11:29 am

You gotta expect this when a society/nation becomes top-heavy with girlie-boys.

joesixpack31 on January 27, 2013 at 11:23 pm

And oh by the way, The marines currently serving better watch out, Marine leadership is planning a reduction-in-force (RIF) of 20k men. This is how they can force in female combat chicks. All should be given a lesson on Jessica Lynch’s experience then let them decide if they want to be on the front lines.

jake49 on January 28, 2013 at 3:14 pm

women in combat would be good for only one thing!

bruce on February 1, 2013 at 3:27 pm

This has an interesting argument indeed. It is very obvious to me that you have a very subtle hint of sexism in your personality. The way that you constantly use small time examples as massive points is non-sense. Do not get me wrong, I don’t want women in the military either, but not for reasons that are as sexist as this. I mean come on. Jessica Lynch was knocked un-conscious, she was not failing to read a map. The women that was driving was known as Lori Piestewa. She took a wrong turn. Are you suggesting that men are not capable of taking wrong turns? Not to mention, her Jeep exploded, she was knocked un-conscious. Men can get knocked un-conscious as well. She was taken as a prisoner of war, I think that does deserve minor compensation. Never the less, It seems that your opinion is much too biased since your father was in the military. I agree with you though. I do not think women should be in the military either. You had a very good point that standards should not be lowered. I think If a women could pass a test of equal strength as a man, there is going to be a lot of testosterone for one, and for two she should be able to join. I doubt that many will pass, but even still you shouldn’t deny them a chance simply because they have a vagina.

Brandon on April 9, 2013 at 3:12 pm

It is a touchy subject. Not everyone is already a mother when they join the military and also what woman wants to be told this day and age what they can’t do? If a woman is infantry that’s more bodies the military has. I do not think we are ready for that t step yet but with the progress the US is making who is to say it is not slowly approaching…

Alexis Hutchinson on May 28, 2013 at 5:24 am

Leave a Reply

* denotes required field