Obama Ignores Deadly Risks to Women in Combat

It didn’t take long for the Obama administration to advance a pernicious piece of its promised radical agenda. Two days after the president laid out his far-left vision during the inauguration, senior defense officials announced that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta will lift the military’s ban on women serving in combat. The move overturns a 1994 provision that prohibited them from being assigned to ground combat units. Panetta has given the various service branches until 2016 to come up with exemptions, and/or make any arguments about what roles should still reman closed to women. Thus, another bit of gender radicalism has been shoved down the nation’s throat through executive fiat — and this one is sure to have deadly consequences.

It is precisely those deadly consequences — especially for servicewomen — that are irrelevant to feminists and their enablers, who have long pushed the idea that men and women are essentially interchangeable. Nothing could be further from the truth, and combat is where those differences could produce deadly results. Ground combat is arguably the most physically grueling activity in which one can be engaged, and despite what the feminists would like Americans to believe about equality, science says otherwise: men have almost twice the upper-body strength as women.

This is a critically relevant consideration. According to a 2009 article in National Defense Magazine, a soldier on a three-day mission in Afghanistan carries approximately 130 pounds of gear, and efforts to lighten that load have not succeeded. This is primarily due to the reality that the essentials of food, water, and ammunition cannot be replaced with lighter items. Other equipment, such as sensors, tripods, cold weather clothing, boots, sleeping bags, flashlights, and protective eyewear, have all been made lighter. But the fact remains that the average soldier is expected to carry enormous amounts of weight, simply to better ensure his chances for survival. Furthermore, a soldier must carry that weight even during periods of intense fighting. The overwhelming majority of women are not capable of meeting such standards.

What is the Pentagon likely to do? In New York City, when most female applicants to the Fire Department were unable to meet the strength requirements, feminists filed a successful lawsuit, altering the standards so that a number of otherwise unqualified women could pass the test. Thus it is likely the Pentagon will pursue a similar strategy of “gender-norming” for the entire service that is already part of the Army Physical Fitness Test. That test requires proficiency in push-ups, sit-ups and a two-mile run. For sit-ups both genders have the same requirements. For push-ups and the run, the grading scale for women is easier.

Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, illuminates the folly of pursuing such double standards. “Revised ‘warrior training’ programs sound impressive, but gender-normed standards emasculate the concept by assuring ‘success’ for average female trainees,” she wrote in 2005, when the Army began a surreptitious program of putting women in smaller, direct ground-combat units. Donnelly then added the critically proper perspective to the mix. “Soldiers know that there is no gender-norming on the battlefield,” she explains.

There is also nothing that will eliminate the natural differences between men and women that play out in a number of other ways. Few things are more important for enduring the rigors of combat than morale and combat unit cohesion. It is ludicrous to believe that mixed units will be immune to the potentially de-stabilizing effects of sexual attraction. And as night follows day, sexual attraction leads to pregnancy. In 2009, Major General Anthony Cucolo, running military operations in Northern Iraq, was forced to deal with the serious downside of that reality. As a result, he initiated a policy under which troops who got pregnant–and the men who got them pregnant–faced a court martial and  possible jail time. Cucolo issued the directive because he was losing too many women with critical skills. “I’ve got a mission to do, I’m given a finite number of soldiers with which to do it and I need every one of them,” he contended.

Yet consensual sex is only part of the problem. A military report released in January 2012 revealed a stunning 64 percent increase in violent sex crimes within the U.S. Army since 2006. The most frequent sex crimes for 2011 included “rape, sexual assault, and forcible sodomy.” The report further noted that while only 14 percent of the Army is comprised of women, they represent 95 percent of all sex crime victims.

It stretches the bounds of credulity to believe that sexual tension, regardless of the legitimate or illegitimate motivation behind it, would be lessened under front line, life-threatening combat conditions. Nor is it inconceivable to think that close personal relationships of a sexual nature would make some soldiers take the kind of unnecessary risks to save a lover that might not only endanger themselves, but their entire unit.

There is another reality that feminists and their enablers fail to acknowledge. As it currently stands, there is little appetite demonstrated by women themselves for serving in combat units. Army Research Institute (ARI) surveys taken from 1993-2001 revealed that the majority of military women were strongly opposed to combat assignments–so much so that the ARI dropped the question from its survey the following year. Less than a month ago, a Huffington Post article regarding interviews with “a dozen female soldiers and Marines” revealed that they had “little interest in the toughest fighting jobs,” contending “they’d be unable to do them.” When the Marines asked women to go through their infantry training course last year, only two women volunteered. Both of them failed to get through it. No one volunteered for the next one. Army Sgt. Cherry Sweat, who did a tour in Iraq installing communications equipment, reveals a sentiment that most military women apparently share. “The job I want to do in the military does not include combat arms,” she said. “I enjoy supporting the soldiers. The choice to join combat arms should be a personal decision, not a required one,” she added.

Lory Manning of Women’s Research and Education Institute thinks women’s interest in assuming combat roles will be higher than anticipated. “If you asked someone in 1985 about going to sea, she would have been thinking: `Girls don’t do that and so I don’t want to do that,’” Manning contended. “But when push came to shove, they did it, they loved it.” That is a ridiculous comparison. Going to sea is hardly the same as front-line combat. Moreover, when “push comes to shove,” it is highly doubtful that there is more than a microscopic number of soldiers who “love” being in the mortal danger that combat engenders.

Unfortunately, such realities are no match for those who champion diversity. Putting women in combat units “reflects the reality of 21st century military operations,” said Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI), in announcing his support for the program. No doubt he and others see it as the next logical step following last year’s announcement, opening 14,000 combat-related positions to female soldiers. At that time, the Pentagon still insisted on keeping women out of direct combat roles, even as they noted they were committed to lifting such barriers eventually. At the time, they claimed that making such sweeping changes would be difficult in time of war. Another factor was the lifting of the “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy allowing gays to serve openly. Allowing women to serve on the front lines at the same time was considered one big social change too many.

No longer. The new policy expands the number of military jobs available to women from last year’s 14,000 to more than 230,000 positions. Part of the impetus for the change may have been two lawsuits filed last year challenging the combat ban, but according to a senior military official familiar with the discussions by the Joint Chiefs, the ultimate conclusion was that this is the time to “maximize women’s service in the military.”

Writing for the Washington Post three days ago, Elaine Donnelly reiterated her position that putting women in combat is a terrible idea, presciently noting that “even the if the results of the Marines’ research do not support unrealistic theories of feminists who consider land combat to be just another career opportunity, administration officials might press their egalitarian agenda anyway.” She further noted that the “Pentagon-endorsed Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) has called for an end to women’s land combat exemptions, based on a new definition of ‘diversity.’”

That egalitarian agenda, like so many other progressive agendas, may produce an unintended consequence. The 1981 Rostker v. Goldberg Supreme Court case exempted women from being part of the nation’s Selective Service System. America no longer drafts civilians into the military, but as Donnelly notes, the elimination of such combat exemptions will involve civilian women registering with Selective Service. She then makes a recommendation, not only anathema to the Obama administration, but one that only three days later was ultimately ignored. “Congress, which represents the American people, should not be shut out of this decision-making process,” she wrote. If the draft is re-instated, one wonders how the American public will take to having their daughters every bit as vulnerable as their sons to forcible conscription. A rising tide of Islamist terror in the Middle East and now in Africa could provide the answer.

Once again, elections have consequences. Barack Obama has made it clear that part of his progressive agenda includes forcing gender radicalism down America’s throat, absent any input from Congress. Once, the United States military was all about projecting lethal power around the globe to protect America’s interests. Now, it is all about promoting diversity, inclusion and equality of outcome, irrespective of military readiness and cohesion. For progressives, who have elevated political correctness above all else–national security included–such radical egalitarianism is cause for celebration. For Donnelly and countless other Americans, it is anything but. “No one’s injured son should have to die on the streets of a future Fallujah because the only soldier near enough to carry him to safety was a five-foot-two 110-pound woman,” she contends.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • Larry

    The absolute peak of female physical performance is only at the 90th percentile of male performance.

    That is why there is only ONE female basketballer in the the world who had dunked in a match (she's 6'8"), a feat that is performed regularly by male high school students clowning around in the gym that are anything up to 8 or 9 inches shorter.

    The USA womens' soccer team meets its match playing sophmore All State high school teams, and the womens 100m finalists at the Olympics would struggle to make the semi-finals of a state schools 100m sprint competition.

    Those are performance match ups by the absolute best women in their chosen physical fields that can be checked by anybody who wants to look up a record on google.

    Women are NOT capable of partaking in ground combat roles, for the simple reason that they do not have the physical strength and stamina to undertake those sort of roles.

    Otherwise they would compete with men in all sports, rather than the handful that require finesse rather than speed, strength, and stamina.

    • Science guy

      I believe that the scientific term for a female that is at the 90th percentile of male performance, is "a dyke".

      • SCREW SOCIALISM

        Dick Van Dyke.

      • Mary Sue

        oh? I thought it was a woman in need of an "addadichtomy" ;)

      • Larry

        Go away, you idiot.

        I have a multiple major degree in sports sciences, and top one percentile females are no more likely to be dykes than you are to have brains.

    • Alan

      How came they are doing just fine in Israel?

      • Parenthetical Phrase

        Women in the Israeli army are doing just fine because in the IDF they do not do the same work as men. Their role is indeed very important and they are involved in some forms of combat such as snipering and sniper instructors as well as other weapons instructors. Now there are even some women pilots, as well as non-combat soldiers. Have you ever seen pictures of Israeli women soldiers? Compared to American women soldiers, they are tiny. The physical training demands made of Israeli male soldiers would easily kill a woman, and they know it. As for cohesiveness and morale, I totally agree that women in combat with men would be a disaster. And I'm a woman. Let's face it: the sexes are equal in importance in the world and to humanity but are simply not the same in a number of categories. Physical strength is one of them.

  • Deerknocker

    It seems the Obama administration is hell bent on putting into practice every nitwit idea the left has conjured up in the last forty years.

  • von clausewitz

    Actually it is a good idea. Listen:

    You gather 72 lovely "soldierettes", and send them naked to the battlefield. Now.

    The Jihadis get confused, thinking they are already in heaven, and start removing their gear and clothes in order to claim their prize. THEN, our male soldiers jump out of the ambush, and kill them.

    Perfect.

    • Lillith66

      LOLLLLL!

    • objectivefactsmatter

      I'm sure that's what the 0 has in mind.

    • Glenn

      Let’s get serious here! It’s bad enough when a male soldier gets taken prisoner as it is. But when a female gets taken prisoner her best option may be a cyanide capsule.

    • http://twitter.com/LindasTony @LindasTony

      D-did you say, "BUSH"???

  • harrylies

    If men can be put in harms' way, why not women? Israel drafts both men and women. Women benefit from the Constitution just like men. People really concerned about the welfare of soldiers keep them home.

    • Larry

      Female combat soldiers have been tried in many different places in the last 100 years.
      All the countries that tried it have decided it is not a good idea.
      That doesn’t stop women serving in the military, but specific ground combat roles are not where they should be serving, as they aren’t capable of doing the job.

    • Asher

      I believe women can serve very well in the military, its the heavy artillary and heavy equipment that could hinder their performance.

    • Rifleman

      Because in many MOS's like the infantry, their lack of upper body strength can fatally limit the capabilities of their units. Upper body PT standards aren’t so much lower for females than males without reason. For the left politics almost always trumps reality.

      People really concerned about the welfare of soldiers allow them to do accomplish their mission with minimal casualties. They don’t deny reality and saddle soldiers with liabilities to make themselves feel good.

      • trickyblain

        Howdy RM, happy new year. Let's not pretend that the military won't have standards and limitations to this declaration like Israel does.

        • Rifleman

          Happy New Year Tricky! I get a weird screen sometimes after I post and I can't reply or edit on the thread on my ID logon for a while.

          I saw with how standards and limitations were bent for females in the 80s and 90s. They have to detail extra people to get the job done. You know I didn't mind two competent gals my age on the other end of whatever we were toting, but I could see it might be a problem in a fix.

          Ahhh, here's how they are going to do it, they'll just redefine "gender neutral standards."
          http://freebeacon.com/lowering-standards/

    • JacksonPearson

      There's a vast difference between offensive and defensive fighting roles.

      e.g., Because of their circumstance, the whole nation of Israel is armed for defense. However offensively, women will never match up with men, for field combat situations, or hand-to-hand combat. Special Forces today require special technical training and fighting skills, again, where women don't even come close to meeting the physical abilities. There are NO women Navy SEALS.

      Women can do many things equally to, and in fact better than men, But on this one, I'd say someone in Washington came up with another hair-brained idea, to again appease a few.

      • nina

        In this instance I beg to differ with the view that it is somehow induced by the government. I'd read that the women in the military were asking to be able to participate in combat missions. The reason for this is that men who do combat get higher remuneration, and are more likely to climb the military ladder faster. So again, it's the economy, stupid.

        • JacksonPearson

          Okay, I'll bite into your I beg to differ with bait…:
          IMO, there's a small number of clueless about the horrors of being in mortal combat, of really stupid women in todays military. Even more so of the idiots that are agreeing with Obama's turning America upside down by approving of them to participate in such tours of duty. Perhaps, if women were trained and qualify as good shots for sniping TEAMS activities…but nothing else. (Teams being emphasized)

          I'd have to assume, the upward ladder that you mentioned will be chuck full of street smart, wannabe, knuckle dragging, battle hardened, mentally scarred broads, with a proud chest full of ribbons, and medals … right? {{{sigh}}}

          I'll repeat what I wrote above, In case it went over your head:
          "Women can do many things equally to, and in fact better than men, But on this one, I'd say someone in Washington came up with another hair-brained idea, to again appease a few."

  • Richard

    Whether it is social conditioning or genes of whatever women in Western nations are timid and petty.
    Women scream and cry if they see a mouse or a spider, women get upset if they think their ass is too big and women get upset when other women turn up at the same party wearing the same dress they are wearing. Women do not play football or soccer with men. They do not wrestle or fight in mixed martial arts tournaments with men. Women do not start bar fights with men, female criminals do not use chairs or knives or broken bottles or baseball bats to attack men and women are rarely convicted of violent hold ups nor are they gunned down by armed police. Women do not roam the highways picking up male hitchhikers, overpowering them and raping them. Most women do not hunt or fish or enjoy camping. Most women have never used a shovel or an axe or dug a hole or cut down trees or worked in a mine. Many women are frightened of guns and scream at loud noises. Many women do not know how to fix a car or change a tire.
    So if women are sent into battle they will be ineffective.
    It goes completely against their nuture and their genes to carry large amounts of heavy gear, charge the enemy, gun them down or fight hand to hand, bayonet, stab or beat them to death.
    Can you imagine if women had been on the Western Front in World War I?
    In that war soldiers clearing trenches often fought at close quarters with grenades, knuckle dusters, knives and sharpened spade and their bare hands.
    War is no place for a woman to be.
    Simple as that.

    • Mary Sue

      Well, pare that down to "urban city women" and you're pretty much spot-on. With ruralized/farm women, it's a different story.

    • Mary Sue

      but yeah in any case, women in combat is a terrible idea.

  • Mary Sue

    Years ago Rush said this would work very well, IF all the women in the battalion were suffering from PMS.

    • trickyblain

      Ah, Rush. A shining example of manhood and bravery. Didn't he back out of serving our country because of a cyst on his a$$? Why yes, he did.

      • Mary Sue

        No, he didn't.

        • trickyblain
          • Mary Sue

            Have you ever had a cyst on your a$$? Vietnam was in a hot tropical environment where any number of weird and wonderful diseases can crawl in and take root. Going to vietnam and playing in trench warfare could have KILLED him. And not by bullet either. He didn't "Back out" he was disqualified by the medical personel of the Army.

            I had a great-uncle who wasn't taken for service in the Second World war because his eyesight was f***ed. Did he back out in a cowardly way? Hell no. If they won't take you, they won't take you, and that's no reflection on the person.

            Also fat people don't tend to do well in the military.

    • Parenthetical Phrase

      You bring up an important point. What does a woman combat soldier do when she's got her period and she has to change her "you-know-what"?

      • trickyblain

        Change it?

        • JacksonPearson

          You're a shining example of why dinosaurs survived for centuries, with walnut sized brains!

        • Mary Sue

          *facepalm*

          You haven't got a clue, have you?

      • Mary Sue

        There's always the diva cup. (ewwww)

  • cedarhill

    This is all scripted for release. Stories like these, every week or two or three will "take over" the issues for the week end. The ploy diverts away from what will at the end of the week when these are made.

    This time around, the MSM will NOT focus on the Reid using the nuclear option and thus be able to clear all Obama's appointments in the administration but to put life time left loons on the bench when he clears the huge backlog of Fed. Judge appointments. Might even peel off some RINOs for implementing the Chicken of the Sea treaty as well as the UN confiscate your gun treaty.

    Typical of the cold, calculating thnking of the Dems. They're always two and sometimes three step plotters.

    • Nick Yezhov

      "Generation Kill". Over the past 40 years the women of Amreican have killed 55 million of their own children through abortion. Why not turn them loose on our real enemies?

      • Mary Sue

        well, the preborn have been so dehumanized (and are so helpless) that doing one doesn't really help a person towards doing the other.

    • http://twitter.com/LindasTony @LindasTony

      Yep. Reid is playing chess while "Boner" is playing checkers….And the Repubs re-hired Preibus? WTF!!??

  • Asher

    I have to comment on this…Women are very capable of serving in the military and in some cases have very good instincts about the enemy…However this administration wants to put the baby makers in harms way so they cannot produce any more citizens….

    • Tim

      Can you go a month without showering, including having a period? Can you carry over 100 lbs on your back for 20 miles a day and still have enough energy to fight an enemy, possibly with a bayonet if your run out of ammo? Can you stop those who capture you from raping you repeatedly while in captivity, as capturing Muslim soldiers would guaranteed do? Can you do these things well enough to keep up with your male fellow soldiers and not let them down? If you can’t answer yes to those questions, you don’t belong in a combat arms branch of the military.

  • LibertarianToo

    The women that I meet that are 5'2" and weigh 110 lbs. are also 75+ years old and immigrated from Eastern Europe.

    Women who qualify, qualify. The fact that immediately the dyke jokes start just points up the reality that conservative republicans and findamentalist muslims are in complete agreement about the "role of women."

    • umustbkidding

      Have you figured out how to get rid of your menstrual cycle yet? Have you conquered mood swings on this subject? Considered how a child will have to face the world without a mom? Dad's I know how important you are as well but to have a child with both parents in the middle of the bulls eye is just unconscionable.

      Tell me can this regime do anything that isn't detrimental to it's people?

      • Larry

        Actually, children facing the world with a dad and not a mum do a hell of a lot better than children facing the world with a mum and not a dad.

        However, those having both do better than either of the above.

      • Mary Sue

        I heard they make a pill that fixes that now.

    • Overwrought too

      I don't believe American conservative republicans support female genital mutiliation, burqas, honor killings, marriage to preteen girls etc. I think "the reality that conservative republicans and fundamentalist muslims are in complete agreement about the "role of women" is slight overstated.

  • poetcomic1

    As a man and an American, I am so ashamed of my country.

    • trickyblain

      If that's the case, based on women in combat, you must be ashamed of Israel as well. Don't tell anyone on this site. They'll totally flip out and call you all sorts of names.

  • umustbkidding

    A society has fallen when it no longer protects women and children.

  • LibertarianToo

    Venus Williams. Justin Bieber.

    Who ya gonna call?

    • Rifleman

      Neither, it's a false choice.

    • ArmyRetired

      Libertarian, you're assuming Justin Beiber would complete training. I agree with Rifleman. False Choice

  • musterion

    I'm not generally in favor of women in the infantry, special forces etc. However, what are the contraints in armor and field artillery? Perhaps the services could require IUDs when on a combat tour.

    • Rifleman

      Maintaining armor and artillery requires upper body strength.

  • http://twitter.com/championofwomen @championofwomen

    The Pentagon can't and won't protect women in the military from being sexual assaulted and raped. They dishonorably discharge them when they report rapes. Why would I think sending them into combat is for their own good? http://www.theusmarinesrape.com/HideTheTruth.html
    http://theusmarinesrape.com/FaceBook.html

  • rbla

    Its 'their' army now. If they want to wreck it perhaps its for the best. When the inevtiable succession movements arise the feminized homosexualized affirmative action military will be ineffective in stopping them.

  • Western Spirit

    As a woman, and a strong one, I assure you men are much more suited to the military. No matter how hard we try we're still not as strong as men and we're built to be vulnerable whether we like it or not. And most of us don't like it, I don't.

    My mother used to say, "a man's strength is like an Oak and a woman's like a Willow. When the storms of life come the Oak breaks but the Willow bends."

  • g_jochnowitz

    Israel has always drafted women into its armed forces. If my information iis correct, they haven't served on the front lines since the 1956 Sinai Campaign, but they are trained to do so and may be asked to if necessary.

    • trickyblain

      There are border police and serve in combat battalions.
      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8518649.st

    • ADM

      They haven't served in frontline service since 1948, although recet Israeli Supreme Court rulings once again opened things up. It is, in general, a myth that Israel has let its women serve. The physical constraints apply as much to Israeli as American women.

  • Edward Cline

    Panetta's and Obama's moves here reflect as well hostility to women and femininity (complementing feminists' hostility to women in general). Mr. Ahlert makes all the salient points that need to be made on this issue. I frankly am not interested in seeing Rita Hayworth in combat gear and risking being captured by women-hating Muslims. They'd get the Lara Logan treatment. And surely the Islamists would make a project of capturing American women.

  • trickyblain

    Just wondering, has Ahlert written articles shaming the IDF for allowing women into combat roles (and drafting them)? Do all the folks criticizing Obama here for this action likewise vocally oppose the IDF position on the subject? If not, why?

  • BLJ

    More stupidity from the dumbest administration in American history. Infantry combat is extremely tough for a man let alone a woman. Risking more lives to make an ideological point is another example of Barry's horrible agenda.

    Than again maybe sending Michelle Obama into combat would be a good move. Her nasty snarl would probably cause the enemy to run away.

  • cxt

    People pair-up, its what we do as a species. Think about it, yor sitting in your foxhole, freezing in the heat and boling in the sun, eating crappy food and drinking crappy water, being shot at and attacked–EXCEPT the dude/dudette in the next foxhole over is lucky enough to have made a "special friend"–gender is irrelvent here. They have "someone" right there for them.

    They have someone and you don't–think how it made you feel in high school, think how it makes you feel now then try and imagine how corroisive that might be when lives are at stake……..

    Think what it might do if "you" felt you were getting the short end of the stick tasks while somebodies "friend" didn't. …or "seemed" not to.

    Women make highly effective fighters—-ask anybody that had to face snipers esp in Vietnam or the Russians in WW2. But there are serious questions that go to the fundementals of society here–questions that have not been addressed.

    • Drakken

      As a former scout/sniper myself, I can tell you those Russian and VC snipers suffered a 90% plus casualty rate. Adding females into the mix of combat is going to be a expensive lesson, that we as a nation can ill afford.

  • Vivek

    Make Love, Not War the hippie slogan of the 60s seems to be Obama's message

  • Moishe Pupick

    Th., 01/24/13

    Barack Husein Obama continues to attempt to weaken the USA from within. The women-in-combat

    policy is simply another example of radical egalitarianism. This warped philosophy means that everyone and everything is equal. Those who disagree will have angered the Gods of Holy Diversity and will need to be sent to a FEMA camp for re-education. Our Beloved Chairman is hellbent on disarming ordinary American citizens but sees no problem selling F-16 fighter jets and 400 Abrams tanks to The Moslem Brotherhood, a Nazi ally during WW2. It doesn’t take an Einstein or a Freud to discern what BHO’s

    endgame is. . . .

    • Rev. Roy

      That's right. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a Muslim duck that has already conquered the U.S.A. without firing a shot. Obummer has been well trained in Al Taquiyah, the Muslim art of lying to advance the cause of Islam, with the blessing and approval of muhammed and his Egyptian sun god Ra. (allah). As a Canadian who always loved the "good old U.S. of A.", it is difficult to watch her as she sinks into a moral morass of petty racism, social dependence on the state and the immorality of a sodomistic, sado-masochisic disfunctional entity. History has repeated itself and the point od no return has been passed.
      All that is left is for the balance of Biblical prophecy to play itself out and for those who have "ears to hear" to make the proper fairh and lifestyle choices that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has proferred them through His Son, Jesus Christ. The game is almost over and the King is coming !!
      Rev. Roy…..<><

  • ADM

    While generally in full agreement with the article's points, there are a few things not mentioned. All branches of the service have physically demanding moments. Sailors have to fight fires and carry comrades up ship's ladders, no different than what civilian firemen face: the notion that the Navy is not, on a day-to-day basis comparble to the infantry is true. It is, however, as demanding when the ship takes damage and one might spend 12-14 hours trying to control the damage and fight the fires i.e. it is similar when it matters. The Navy long ago re-defined tasks like stretcher carry (which on a ship must be accomplished by only two people because ship's ladders, hatches and passageways are too narrow for four). Lori Mannings' comments about women going to sea are both incorrect and dishonent: the evidence suggests women are less interested in long deployments afloat and women assigned to sea duty have higher than average pregnancy rates just prior to deployment. Manning is a long-time advocate of women in the military and she never says anything about the separate and lower physical standards for women, or the sexual issues.

    • Mary Sue

      I think what we're going to end up seeing is people left behind.

  • ADM

    One other point: it is not just feminists. The senior military leadership has ducked this issue whenever it has come up over the last 40 years, if not actively enabling it. Moreover, military feminists i.e. women in the military who want equal opportunity but not equal standards are fully in favor of this change. Overwhelmingly, they are officers. That they would support an idea that would endanger the lives of those they command or accept positions when they can't themselves meet all the standards should disqualify them from holding commissions. Alas, it does not.

  • Quickstrike06

    Fine. If this is what you want, then have at it. But from here on out I will demand that women are now required to register with the selective service upon reaching the age of 18. If it's good enough for my three sons to be called up, then it's good enough for your daughters to do the same. I suspect that if we make this demand heard across the country, Congress will have to take notice–parents everywhere will surely have something to say about the idea that their precious daughters could be called up to slog it out on the front lines as an infantryman or tanker.

    As with most policies coming from the liberal standpoint, the unintended consequences will eat our lunch. Fewer female enlistments, higher injury rates amongst females as they try to compete, failed careers of those who didn't make it vs. the intent of opening up women to more career enhancing MOSs, reduced reenlistments in male Soldiers as they experience the hypocrisy of lower standards and accomodations, etc.

  • Alan

    Women are already in combat here as in Israel. What is the problem?

  • revereridesagain

    g_jochnowitz's observation about the IDF's policy of training women for front line combat readiness only "if necessary" is pertinent here. Israelis, surrounded on all sides by superior numbers of fanatical enemies, must face the reality of one day having to fight for survival on their own soil. We have not been in that position since the Civil War. (Not even in WWII, near the end of which Japan was training civilian women to fight with sharpened bamboo sticks.) We have the luxury, one not to be taken lightly, of maintaining reality-based qualifications (e.g., "upper body strength") for front line combat positions. Panetta's move is a portent of the Obama regime's wider campaign to weaken and demoralize our military to the point where we might find ourselves confronting the likes of a recrudescent and nuclear armed Caliphate with an upper command echelon ambivalent about concepts such as "victory". I suggest it is as important to view it in this light as it is in terms of chivalry, femininity, "baby-makers", and "pairing-up".

  • Edward Cline

    The differences between the sexes, in civilian and military life, are what Obama, Panetta, and others in the administration wish to eradicate. Among other things. People think I exaggerate when I call Obama our Nihilist-in-Chief. He is out to destroy. That's all. He knows what he's doing. Don't call him ignorant, or delusional, or well-meaning. He is consciously evil. He knows it. And the truly delusional MSM lets him get away with it.
    http://ruleofreason.blogspot.com/2013/01/barack-o

  • Ghostwriter

    I'm not going to touch this one. It's too dicey for me.

  • 11bravo

    Hey MEN!
    If the founding fathers were to come back and see this…They would tie us to a pole in the town square and horse whip us ALL!! for cowardice! Starting with the joint Chiefs – and working there way down.
    Awesome, I not only live in a republic that condoned the killing of over 50 million unborn children, we now have our women fighting our wars for us/with us.
    We are done, our society has reached the apex of infantilism, and immasculation worthy of being snuffed out by Islam!!
    Great work Leon!

  • http://twitter.com/LindasTony @LindasTony

    …and who's going to want to go to war if their little "princess" might get inducted into the Army? Just another way to spread the pacifism. You gotta hand it to the commies – they're always three moves ahead.

  • http://twitter.com/LindasTony @LindasTony

    I would expect more of this… http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/wew/articles/95/costly

  • https://www.rebelmouse.com/sweatmiracle บาคาร่าออนไลน์

    You could comment on the changes on the blog. You may manifest its innovative. Your blog inquisition can boost your revenue .http://bmbet88.com

  • plokhq

    maybe obama have another idea
    http://phonelookuphq.com

  • robert bob lalas

    we don’t what obama think
    http://healthinsurancemain.com/

  • retardcons

    inside every conservative is a totalitarian, full of hate, bigotry, religious zeal and bullshit