The Diversity Cult’s Attack on the Military

Center for Military Readiness (CMR) president Elaine Donnelly continues to challenge outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s elimination of the ban against women serving in combat. A 42-page report, “Defense Department ‘Diversity’ Push for Women In Land Combat” is a no-holds-barred assessment of the pitfalls that attend women serving in combat units. In a memo released Monday, Donnelly reveals why the report is necessary. “Secretary Panetta is making this move on his way out the door, cutting Congress, and the American people out of the decision-making process…Congress…should schedule long-overdue hearings that examine the full consequences of imposing gender-based ‘diversity metrics’ on infantry battalions,” it reads.

The report begins by revealing the Obama administration began accelerating the effort to increase military “diversity” in February 2012, when a Defense Department report officially repealed the “collocation” rule that had been circumvented without authorization since 2004. In other words, despite a 1994 ban on women operating in locations near combat units, the rule was being routinely ignored–for diversity’s sake.

As the Pentagon continued to move forward with its plan, it began following the recommendations made by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC), a committee established by Congress comprised of military and civilian diversity “experts.” In 2011, they released a report, “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century Military,” that sought to explain the rationale behind the push for greater diversity. “The Commission found that top military leaders are representative neither of the population they serve nor of the forces they lead. The extent to which racial/ethnic minorities and women are underrepresented varies across the Services, but the Commission found, on average, low racial/ethnic minority and female representation among senior military officers,” it stated.

Regarding women, this outlook reveals why the Pentagon feels it has become necessary to allow women to go into combat. The CMR report explains. “Since ground combat experience often (but not always) improves chances of promotion to general officer and senior enlisted ranks, the MLDC is recommending that female officers and enlisted personnel be ordered (not allowed) to serve in ‘tip of the spear’ units involved in direct ground combat.” Thus, the MLDC “has recommended that women be assigned to infantry units at the battalion level, primarily to promote career opportunities and promotions for a few female officers to three- and four-star rank.”

As CMR’s report rightly notes, this turns the entire purpose of what the military is supposed to be about on its head. Diversity is not being pursued to improve military readiness as much as it is being pursued to improve the career chances of what amounts to a handful of women in the higher echelons of the military command structure. As a result, the military is prepared to embrace the circular reasoning of “diversity metrics” designed to obscure the genuine differences that exist between men and women, in order to reach predetermined outcomes that allow more women to be assigned to combat units. This in turn enhances their prospects for career advancement, which will undoubtedly be used as rationale to promote the idea that no real differences exist between the sexes.

Thus we get the essence of radical feminism, the idea that man and women are equal in every respect, even if it means “fudging” some realities to get there. As the CMR’s report reveals, that’s exactly what the Pentagon has done, noting that physical capability tests measuring common skills “have been scaled back from six to three and adjusted to reduce physical demands and improve women’s achievement scores.”

The CMR report goes on to outline many drawbacks of women in combat, but the most significant aspect of it concerns a test conducted by the Marines to evaluate whether women could meet the same physical capabilities expected of men. They intended to collect data from 90 women as part of the evaluation process, but only two volunteered to be part of the grueling Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va. Both women failed to pass it. Speaking to Front Page, Donnelly reveals that several sources have given her information about the other aspects of the test. Yet she notes that the results of the test have not been released to the public, despite what Leon Panetta said yesterday when he officially announced the lifting of the ban:

Women have shown great courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield, contributed in unprecedented ways to the military’s mission and proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles,” Panetta said at a Pentagon news conference. “The department’s goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.

“If the tests conducted by the Marines confirm what Panetta said, then why haven’t they been released?” wonders Donnelly. “And if they don’t, then what is he doing?” Both questions deserve an answer, yet one suspects that the Obama administration has already provided it. Leon Panetta is a lame duck on his way out. As a result, the likelihood of him having to explain anything–including his role in the Benghazi debacle which this latest action pushes even further below the media radar–is virtually nil. Furthermore, putting women in combat has obscured the far bigger issue: this president’s appetite for naked power grabs is getting out of hand.

Elaine Donnelly reinforces that argument along with her own contentions in a statement released recently:

Following orders from President Barack Obama, lame-duck Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has recklessly announced unilateral nullification of direct ground combat exemptions that are important to the majority of military women who serve in the enlisted ranks. Secretary Panetta has excluded Congress and the American people from the decision-making process, and imposed a radical ‘diversity’ agenda on our military without disclosing the data and results of extensive research on the subject of women in land combat that the Marine Corps conducted last year. Congress should insist on seeing data gathered during the Marines’ research, and conduct immediate oversight hearings before harmful policies imposed by the outgoing Secretary of Defense become de facto law.

Thanks to the Left’s slanderous “war on women” campaign, which has paralyzed rational debate on such matters, don’t count on a single member of Congress rising to the occasion.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • objectivefactsmatter

    Regarding women, this outlook reveals why the Pentagon feels it has become necessary to allow women to go into combat. The CMR report explains. “Since ground combat experience often (but not always) improves chances of promotion to general officer and senior enlisted ranks, the MLDC is recommending that female officers and enlisted personnel be ordered (not allowed) to serve in ‘tip of the spear’ units involved in direct ground combat.” Thus, the MLDC “has recommended that women be assigned to infantry units at the battalion level, primarily to promote career opportunities and promotions for a few female officers to three- and four-star rank.”

    The insanity of collectivism is so easy to see by those not completely numbed by leftist indoctrination. This order will result in fewer female enlistments, then they'll order quotas. It will likely fall apart before that.

  • AdinaK

    "Diversity" is just another bugaboo code word for multi culti psychosis. Wherever evidence is ignored, all in order to satisfy progressive group-think, the fact of the matter is that many innocent people die.

    This crazy ethos has infiltrated the army, to such a degree that its readiness has been torn to shreds. Consider: if not for the "diversity" push from multi-culti cheerleaders, would soldiers for Allah have penetrated its ranks, thus killing many Americans –

    "Diversity" just for its own sake can kill.

    Adina Kutnicki, Israel –

    • LibertarianToo

      My aunt served in the Israeli military from 1948. Israel was a pioneer in allowing – wait, maybe requiring?- women to serve, and plenty of women have seen plenty of combat -however unimtentionally.

      • AdinaK

        Israel is barely the size of NJ, and women in combat is more of a necessity than anything to do with diversity. Of course, many aren't qualified physically so they are not placed in front line action.

        Even so, we have too many of our own resident multi-culti psychos!

        Adina Kutnicki, Israel

      • JacksonPearson

        There's a difference of women serving in a defensive vs. offense roles.

        For Israel, It's a matter of the tiny country's survival for women to serve. For American women, it's a matter of more money, upward mobility in rank, and the leftist notion of political correctness, of being so-called equal.

        What we're witnessing out of Washington, are more liberal insanity, to degrade our military.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "Melting Pot" means all immigrants fuse to make a coherent culture, though realistically things were not all that rigid.

      "Diversity" was used to provoke rigid people from rejecting cultural elements that immigrants maintained, like foods, trivial habits of dress and so forth, because that was judged as bigotry. To be fair, it some times was.

      Multi-culturalism was the buzz phrase for the beginning of the all out war against Judeo Christian (including secular offshoots) hegemony in the West, because they used it explicitly to teach that no single culture can be superior to any other. And because emotions are the final word on "value," arguments are only settled when the parties stop crying. And we're usually the first ones to dry our tears, having Judeo Christian morality and integrity driving our emotions at least some of the time. Unlike those in the victim classes who are as good at producing convenient tears as lawyers are at exploiting them.

      Now "diversity" is used as another PC-pressure attack word to push multi-culturalism, the denial that the West has any significant culture to defend. This shows how the leftists have a "progressive" agenda indeed, but it's not the kind of progress anyone envisions without having been indoctrinated to their leftist delusions.

  • Mary Sue

    what do they have to carry around, 150 pounds worth of gear? I wouldn't be able to freaking MOVE, and I am not a small lady!

    • JacksonPearson

      Special forces require advanced technical PsyOps awareness, and fighting skills training.

      There are NO women Navy SEALS. Why?…Because a select few of the best of the best of men can physically hold up to the rigorous entrance testing, let alone continuous demands placed on them. I don't exactly know what their dropout rate is, but I understand it's very high.

    • 11bravo

      Your basic pack you would carry around in combat is light. The food/water/and ammo is where the weight comes in. 45lbs total is a good starting point. Most feet start to blister at the 8-10 mile point with that much weight.

    • objectivefactsmatter

      "what do they have to carry around, 150 pounds worth of gear? I wouldn't be able to freaking MOVE, and I am not a small lady!"

      The article hints at the possibility that standards will be changed, their equipment will be lightened just enough for them to move around on the battlefeild, but they will be useless to perform lifting any additional equipment, or injured bodies once there. They will be replacing more capable soldiers but the politicians will say "We have X number of "boots on the ground."

      It's actually completely related to the change of mission mentioned in the other recent article. Leftists and of course 0'Bama want to take every opportunity to reduce the effectiveness of the military as much as possible. Every chance they get, they exploit, especially if they can pick up votes and contributions in the same effort. What is the only thing leftists ever worry about spending money on, ever!?

  • Mary Sue

    the only way they could put women in the combats like that is to bring back pack horses. Seriously.

  • pierce

    I am for women. They are quite capable. They are the ones pushing this combat position, but I am not sure they are ready to fight along side men. They only think they are ready, but they have no idea what it is like, nor the responsibility that goes with being on the battlefield.
    I say okay, if that's what they want. Just maybe they will prove us naysayers are wrong. They deserve the opportunity, like it or not.

    • V_O

      Pierce, as a mom of a female soldier, I assure you that "they" – women – the average femail soldiers – are NOT pushing the combat position. This is the agenda of a few females far up in rank that want their stars…. Female soldiers are very proud of their service, push themselves to achieve, and most are well aware of their limitations. They are well trained, physically fit, expert marksmen, good under pressure…. And can, in most ways, perform their duties as well as men. However, most of them are fully cognizant of the dangers they would put themselves and their units in should they be called upon to perform the more physical front line duties, for instance, picking up a 250 pound fallen comrade.

      This is NOT a military-wide female push for "equality." FemiNazis don't care about women at all… Only their own agendas.

      • Sky Soldier

        This is "lesbianizing" the military.

      • JacksonPearson

        Well stated. :o)

    • JacksonPearson

      I'm sure that America's enemies will be shivering in their head towels, when they hear of the U.S. sending their women to do the fighting. Women POWS will have a special place in American military history. /Sarc

  • ealha3

    Why doesn't Panetta cite the NBA, Boxing, Tennis, swimming, the Olympics generally, football, baseball, weightlifting, etc., etc., etc.? If it's diversity they seek, why not start here? Or is it something else, e.g., politicizing the military for the vote – as they have done with race, immigration, poverty and class warfare – all at the expense of our traditional American values of "all men (persons) are created equal" so that some can be more equal than others.

  • Edward Cline

    An astute person observed that it isn't about the military, it's about destroying the sexes, feminizing men and "butchifiying" women. It's about imposing their instrinsic, other-worldly, anti-reality, anti-life ideas onto people who don't have the intellectual ability to resist. As long as
    someone suffers, they're happy. And all this when the Army sends out memos saying prepare to pare down all essential services, prepare for massive cuts to Army funding.

    Just like the Nazi's who proceeded to divert railroad cars needed by civilians and the war effort in WWII to take Jews and others to concentration camps, the Obama admin ignores the economy/unemployment, ignores the military cuts taking place because of no money, and focuses on depriving us of guns, and of forcing women into infantry/front line combat. Totally wrapped up in their own warped, ugly, anti-matter world. We are in such trouble.

    • Winston

      Yes, it is all a part of the global scheme of the tactics by Socialists… create issues to divide the people….then keep the pressure on through lies and deception until they all succumb.

  • WilliamJamesWard

    The left in it's idiocy will get many people killed if this insanity goes forward. It is simply another
    link in America's armor that these people want to take down. Weakening America's ability to wage
    war and defend itself to show that there is no difference in men and women goes beyond stupid
    to the level of mental incompetence, something unacceptable where lives are at stake but with
    Benghazi as a model for the value of American lives the leftist regime shows the depth of it's
    perfidious disregard of us all and every aspect of our lives. Congress to act would be just that
    and act by toothless fops that play thier roles in a grand chorus of fiddles……..The people must
    take to the streets, veterans who still care should march on Washington…………..William

  • davarino

    So, you girls want to give it a go? Ok, but when the $hit hits the fan the enemy isnt going to back off to the same degree the military lowered the requirements. Your on your own and you better be able to carry your own weight or else you could find yourself isolated. Oh, and the way to make it in this outfit is not the same as you might try in the boardroom. Try buddying up with one of the guys to help carry your weight and the others get jealous. Now you have pissed off all the other guys. You think they will kill themselves to rescue you in a combat situation? Your whats his name's girl freind, let him rescue you. You have just destroyed the units cohesion, but Penchetta doesnt care, he's all about diversity.

  • davarino


    The military is not an EEOC matter. Its not a job opportunity, its an opportunity to serve your country. Its funny how women never pushed to be on the front lines during WWI, WWII, Korea, Vietnam, ….etc. Now people think wars are like video games. Their not, they are serious, and peoples lives are at stake. Why do you think they used to train so hard. They used to train soldiers brutally because they knew their lives were at risk if they werent the BEST. Now we have soldiers getting pissed off when a conflict breaks out because they didnt think they really would have to put their lives on the line. They thought of it only as a job. Well, the way you weed out those idiots is to make the training really hard, like they used to. NOW YOU HAVE DEDICATED SOLDIER, NOT PEOPLE LOOKING FOR A PAYCHECK.

    • bigbiz

      This whole hero's" fighting for our freedom is BS to begin with".When we were over in Nam they never called us heros' and we really thought we were fighting for freedom from communism.The vast vast majority of women join the military for the money,college, preferntial employment opportunities lifetime benefits and the ego boost from being called a "hero" just for joining and being stationed at Ft Lewis Washington or some air conditioned club med post in Iraq or Bahrain…or better yet Germany or Italy…a joke

      • davarino

        Im sorry maybe you missed the memo, but we were fighting for freedom for the Vietnamese but the left worked as hard as they could to hamstring us. They won, we left and the Vietcong took over and the killing began. Thanks John Kerry for aiding and abetting the enemy. But anyway, thats not the subject of this discussion. Unless you didnt read the article, the subject is about women in the military and whether or not they have what it takes and if they will just screw up the cohesiveness.

    • tagalog

      In my day, I NEVER saw one single woman agitating to be in a combat unit in Vietnam.

  • tagalog

    A nation that allows its women to fight as soldiers in combat is a nation that has lost part of its claim to being civilized.

    Forget the career issues, or the issue of upper body strength, or male soldiers exposing themselves to greater risk in order to protect the female squad member. All that stuff is smoke and mirrors. It's just not civilized to put women in combat. No matter what the women want.

    There's equality and then there's barbarism.

    • LibertarianToo

      Qualified women have the same right to fight and risk their lives for their country as do qualified men, without reference to your private notions of what constitutes civilization.

      • tagalog

        Except that it's widely reported (just do a little digging if you don't believe me) that the primary imptetus for women in combat among service people is coming from the career female officers and outside the mil, from the feminists.

        So your highly principled stance is made on feet of clay, my private notions notwithstanding.

        No doubt you consider it a mark of high civilization that a nation by law puts its women in combat. If they want to, of course. Of course, when a war breaks out and we start drafting women to be combat soldiers, that'll be the end of the voluntary nature of the thing, won't it?

      • bigbiz

        Not with my tax dollars and my son's life at risk they don't..Women are not warriors…never have been ..ever..they have periods and pms..OMG!!

    • Mary Sue

      I remember years ago, there was a thing on PBS or the Learning Channel, back when the Learning Channel was more like Discovery Channel, about the celtic warriors that fought the romans. They made the claim that they had women in combat and managed to beat the crap out of the Romans with women in the front lines. The Celts were also freaking crazy berserkers, so maybe they had them on PMS, I dunno.

      But warfare then isn't anything like it is now. Not by a longshot.

      • tagalog

        No one can deny that there are Boadiceas among us. The question is, are we going to change a world-winning armed forces policy for the sake of the tiny number of women warriors who exist?

  • Aussie

    The "Wimmin" might be happy about it, but hey guess what? the USA 's enemies will be doing cartwheels in anticipation of going into battle against a weakened Politically Correct Diversity Friendly US Military as soon as they can.

    • Mary Sue

      Boom, instant prisoners of war to be turned into smut slaves at the earliest opportunity. There aren't enough cyanide capsules in the entire world to fix that problem.

  • κατεργάζομαι

    According to Alinsky, the main job is to bait an opponent into reacting.

    ALINSKY RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (gun control, Benghazi, ObamaCare, late term abortion, debt ceiling, climate change, flu scare, et al)

    ALINSKY RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

    ALINSKY RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

    Keep in mind, Alinsky dedicated his book, “Rules for Radicals” – to Lucifer, the first “radical”

    • tagalog

      It just occurred to me that the three Alinsky "rules for radicals" that you have cited are rules that are just as appropriate for counter-insurgency forces, too. Never let up on them, ridicule them, and tailor tactics to please the people, among who we swim as with fish in the water (if you will).

      How the Alinskyites would cry "Foul!" if we did what they do to us, back to them.

      What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

  • George

    America isn't ready for the horror that is war to be inflicted upon our women. Not even the soldiers themselves will be able to tolerate the conditions in which we ask our troops to perform with women standing side by side urinating, defecating, guts blown out, dragging gear and bodies of comrades around, then sleeping together at night without sex for a 12 month deployment. Further, you have no idea what your are embracing; and from a pure performance angle a135# estrogen-filled woman isn't the same as a 220# man loaded with testosterone. Different hormones, different outcomes, different capabilities. Ask a woman to go wrestle an enemy sentry and slit his throat with a knife quietly and then hide the body, then moving on to the next sentry for another overpowering kill. It's not like the movies people.

    • tagalog

      When I looked at the picture at the top of this commentary, I noticed that the person carrying the wounded/injured G.I. was a man. I don't suppose that there will ever be a photograph of a woman G.I. carrying a wounded man on her back, do you? Well, in all honesty, there WILL be a few of those one-in-five-thousand Brunhildes who will be able to do that.

  • ffortnightly

    So now we may have to shoot our daughters in the foot? The top-level purpose to this is outrageous. Americans have no friends in the US government.

  • Allan

    We have always had women on the front lines. They are known as camp followers–and that is what these women will be.

  • Winston

    Putting women on the ground as infantry troops in war zones is opening a whole new can of worms. How many families and marriages will be destroyed by distrusting wives of their husbands in combat with women… and some may even be attractive enough for men to get attached to. Watch the number of pregancies on the battlefield go sky high…or will they provide abortion on demand in those military field hospitals?

    • Mary Sue

      they're already pretty high among women in the military and that's without front line combat stuff.

    • JacksonPearson

      Hey, battle field abortions will be a whole new industry for taxpayers to fund, and just think of the opportunities newly graduated doctors will have working for Planned Murderhood. /Special Sarkmark

  • poetcomic1

    For every woman on the front lines, ten young men will shy away from the new gender-bender military and assert their manhood elsewhere although I can't imagine what is left except crime and gangs.

  • Moishe Pupick

    F., 01/25/13

    Whoever decreed that "Diversity" is innately good? To the leftists, "Diversity" is a quasi-deity. All other considerations, such as merit and virtue, become irrelevant. General George Patton once said that the purpose of the military is to kill the enemy and break things. Our beautiful country is being subverted from within, and the tone is set in the Oval Office. I can almost hear Bill Ayers shouting, "Bring it all down, baby!"

    • Mary Sue

      to them it's the same as back when segregation was in effect. In their minds they're still taking back the white-only restaurants and water fountains.

  • Atlas_Collins

    When one thinks about "Diversity," one can't help but think about the meaning of the Latin word that is the etymological root of the modern English word.

    " … from Latin diversitatem (nom. diversitas) "contrariety, contradiction, disagreement …"…

    • Elaine Donnelly

      Thank you for checking the Latin root of the word "diversity." Good point.
      And thanks to the author for actually reading and reporting on the content of the CMR Special Report. It can be found in full at — Elaine Donnelly

  • Sonia

    I am a female. I feel that allowing women to serve in combat would be a distraction and lower the moral of male troops ,because good men by nature want to protect women. So, when they witness a woman shot and killed it would be a great distraction to them. However, the Commies want to desensitize the our men to their cultural values and reduce them To the likes of the Islamist you don't mind using women and children as human shields. Let's face it, men and women are not meant to be the same, and this is a good thing.

  • Ghostwriter

    I'm staying out of this one.

  • Rev1:3

    The only way to test women in combat is to create an infantry division comprised of solely women. From command to mechanics, cooks, supply and infantry. Give them a Hill in Afghanistan and they are to secure it, harden it, conduct daily patrols, interact with the locals and remove by force all opposing combatants. Due to current rules of engagement they won't be expected to win or make a difference but if they have higher than normal KIA's, WIA's and if they "lose" their hill by being over ran then this would show those with common sense it was just another failed policy of our traitor in chief!

    • tagalog

      No it wouldn't; they'd just say the women didn't have a truly fair chance to show their equality as combat soldiers. And, of course, there'd always be one or two warriors among the women who would claim that they weren't getting a fair chance and they'd get some sympathy.

  • Leland64

    Ladies! Welcome to the Infantry. I know you will find it challenging and rewarding. It's not like piloting an aircraft or standing watch on the bridge of a ship. Life in ground combat is a 24/7 whirlwind of extreme physical exertion,little rest, and life and death fights with the enemy. Days and weeks without a shower, no privacy, sleeping on the ground, humping food, ammo, water, and equipment challenges most men and is beyond the capability of most women. Take care what you wish for. The true test will come in combat.

    • Mary Sue

      DO NOT WANT.

    • tagalog

      …And drop for thirty. After you finish that, we need a few troops to do some unloading of crates of ammo; you're it. Then the platoon will be going to the range to qualify with the M-16. Then you can return to barracks to prepare for tomorrow morning's formal inspection. After we do our afternoon PT.

  • 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!

  • Guest

    Women should all be put in the front lines, then they can have the right to vote.

  • polnick

    Hiring women in the military has been progressive and they have been put to use performing many necessary jobs, but the least desirable work is performed not by women but men. My vast experience in the workforce has taught me that sexual favors are traded by females in order to get choice assignments; this is absolutely true and beyond dispute. It would be nearly impossible for an attractive and promiscuous woman to not rise up in the corporate ranks to the maximum of her skills. It would be rare for an attractive female to be assigned to the combat role of digging out a radical in the dark dusty basement of a Mosque.

  • Jack O'neil

    The Purge Continues – Stalin would be proud.
    Obama Fires Top General Without Even a Phone Call

  • Long Ben

    Craziness made manifest !

  • Geppettwo

    This is perfectly in line with Obama's desire to be a dictator. He's gone far down this road and continues to push the envelope convinced that Congress will be duly intimidated by his personality and his personal propaganda machine to sputter, whine and moan, largely unheard, outside of Washington for the most part, as they flop like dying fish on a sinking boat deck. No one among the current crop of congressional representatives, including those identified as Tea Party freshmen, have been able to break through the wall of silence established by the media that commands the largest audience. It's not referred to as "the main stream media" for no good reason. Until there's a chink in that progressive armor Obama will continue to defy the Constitution, the rule of law and the rules of ethical behavior as he goes about implementing what he believes is his vision for America. His "vision" is a nightmare but he and his progressive machine are convinced that he, their Messiah, will lead us to a better world. Draining this pustule of progressive rot is becoming a monumental task that will be increasingly difficult the longer Obama, “The One,” goes unchallenged.

  • Jose martinez

    There are certain Combat roles that woman can play, Armor,flying combat roles, Static defense roles ( Guard duty), Gunners on convoy's, But not Infantry Ground nor Airbourne.They will never be Special forces such as Seals,Forced Recon,Delta force Pathfinders,Rescue Swimmers they just do not have the phycisal strength. We need to get of this societal kick that all people are equal they are not no two men are equal, We are not created equal,accept as human Beings.

  • tagalog

    The Marine Corps study finds that women in combat units will slow operations down, with concomitant longer exposure to hostile fire.

  • Wreck

    When a person joins the US military, they are given the choice of what their career path will be. If a person intends to see front line combat, they usually opt for the infantry. If they make the choice to not be in these situations, they opt for a technical or support position. This is something that everyone who enters the military goes through at MEPS even if they were not made aware of this by their recruiter. If a female opts for a combat position, they know what they chose, even if they might not (just as the male counterparts) fully understand the brutality of warfare. Further, if they're not cut out for the physical requirements, that will be known to them long before they reach the battlefield, and likely will leave during training. This isn't the draft, this is a volunteer force, even if many of those who join had enlisted for the reason that they felt they had no other option, primarily due to poverty. Though, if we want to ignore all of that for some absurd reason of refusing to be objective in our thinking and going with the path of dogma, there's always the simple fact that the nature of modern warfare has changed to such a degree that there are no longer front lines for the US. To disallow females an official combat role in the military would require them to never leave the country, and that's just not how our military works, and would require complete segregation. We're simply at a time where our military has to move forward one way or another, and hope that the choice was the right one.