Crickets. This was the sound of America reacting to news earlier this month that all military positions, including ground combat, will be opened to women.
It is axiomatic that the White House, not just this one, makes controversial announcements when people are otherwise distracted. Usually, this means late Friday afternoons when there isn't much time for the media to make trouble. This particular announcement came on a Thursday, the day after two vicious killers opened fire on a holiday party in San Bernardino.
Ever since, all eyes have been on the assault and aftermath, as well as the antics of Donald Trump, while the notion of women in combat faded from the nation's peripheral vision.
Arguments against this move are many, some of which I touched upon in a previous column that focused on women's unequal opportunity to survive because of various physical differences. This time, I submit another crucially important but politically incorrect proposition: Men's lives will also be put at greater risk if women are in combat.
More
DelMarVa's Premier Source for News, Opinion, Analysis, and Human Interest Contact Publisher Joe Albero at alberobutzo@wmconnect.com or 410-430-5349
17 comments:
As long as they don't change the qualification standards to accommodate gender integration, it shouldn't be an issue....only a few will be able to meet the current standards - and I'm OK with that.
Retired Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant!
835 why do you care your retired.
9:00 - I still love my country...and the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Coast Guardsmen, and Marines that are willing to risk their lives to ensure our continued freedoms.
Don't you? Or are you so in to the politically-correct / equality initiatives that fly in the face of common sense?
Retired Marine Master Gunnery Sergeant!
I care about having a girl on my patrol , yes I said girl.
Sgt.2nd infantry division recon..
Guessing neither of you took advantage of the GI bill to get an education after getting out of the service.
Women in combat put EVERYBODY at risk.
9:23. That was incredibly rude. I guess your having an education dismisses you from having manners.
9:23
Hillary must be your idol , education has nothing to do with common sense , survival of the fittest , ever heard of that?
If memory serves didn't the Israelis try this experiment several decades ago and found that the number of male injuries went up because they instinctively try to protect the women?
I know women that can shoot just as well as men, if not better, and they can run circles around many men too but when under engagement most women simply do not have the physical strength of that of a man (adrenaline issues aside). I agree with TOP (the person who said that so long as they can pass the current standards then let it happen) but do not lower the standards simply for equality's sake. This will put a lot of our war fighters in even more grave danger.
I have a serious problem with what the nation's response might be when one of our female combatants is captured, tortured and raped by her captors.
What will the nation's and people's response be when that raped and tortured and eventually murdered woman's body is dragged through dusty streets by Third World politico-religious zealots? How about when her body is hung by its ankles in the village square of some rocky, Godforsaken desert nowhere, the target of rocks thrown by savages?
Will we see photos? You bet. Video? Ditto. Pictures and interviews of her husband and kids and parents and friends, etc.? Definitely. It will be a media free-for-all, making tons of money and excellent air time for advertisers, military providers, politicians and media.
The first woman who experiences this will become a default hero (heroine), regardless of her actual performance under fire. Her face will be everywhere. Her name will be part of our language and culture. They will be rallying points for whatever mischief the government wants to unleash.
While this is surely an exercise in gender equality, it's ill-suited to the current social and political conditions outside of our borders, and in no way will improve them. It will be ugly. It should be much better thought out.
99% of women do not have the strength of a man, which puts everyone at risk.
Rude is keeping women in the kitchen, cleaning the house and raising children. You big talking retired military tough guys go tell Rousey and Holm that they can't do anything that you can.
Every woman in Israel must complete a tour of duty in the military. Some are special forces too. American women must be weak if they can't handle it.
Why even integrate with existing troops?
Create gender-specific battalions, companies and platoons to really give the notion of "we can do just as well as you can" a true test.
Separating the two would take many of the administrative challenges out of the mix (male-female fraternizing, etc.) and provide a level playing field to determine the strengths and weaknesses of each group, rather than having an exercise in how each gender accommodates the other in mixed groupings.
Sounds sexist, doesn't it? But let's be real and accept that each gender has its physical limitations and behavioral differences, and that those have to be appreciated either as assets or liabilities. If they are assets, all well and good and thank you very much. But if they are liabilities, risking lives to achieve a social balance and satisfy an ideal is not a good trade.
Careful what you wish for ladies. With you being allowed in combat god forbid the time when the draft comes back. Remember ladies this is what you wanted.
Next thing you know, they will want to drive, vote and own property. This needs to be stopped before it gets out of control.
damn few "Rhonda"s in combat.
Post a Comment