Seven Reasons Why Women-in-Combat Diversity Will Degrade Tough Training Standards

Reprinted with permission from the Center for Military Readiness.

To read David Horowitz’s article, “The Feminist Assault on the Military,” click here.

Gen. Dempsey Says He Will Question Standards That Are “Too High” 

The Department of Defense is protesting (too much) that when military women are allowed (actually, ordered) into direct ground combat battalions, they will be held to the same standards men must meet today.  This claim is not compatible with another major social goal of the Defense Department, what former Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen used to call “diversity as a strategic imperative.”

There are seven major reasons why the Obama Administration, including compliant members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, are being less than candid about the consequences of policies that lame-duck Defense Secretary Leon Panetta ordered on January 24.

1.  Pentagon Feminists Will Not Accept Men’s High Standards

The tipoff came during the January 24 Pentagon news conference conducted by Panetta and Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  Gen. Dempsey said that if “a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain…why is it that high?  Does it really have to be that high?”  Since the stated goal is “set women up for success,” the answer will be “No.”

It does not matter what Pentagon officials and women-in-combat activists are promising now.  For the following reasons, incremental pressures to assign women to fighting infantry battalions eventually will drive qualification standards down.

2.  “Critical Mass” Means Many Women, not the Exceptional Few

Speaking the language of social engineers, not combat veterans, Gen. Dempsey admitted the need to introduce a “critical mass” or “significant cadre” of women into previously-all-male units.  This phrase, usually interpreted to mean a cohort of 10-15 percent, cannot be met with a few exceptional women who “only want a chance.”

To insert into direct ground combat units even half of the women needed to achieve a “critical mass,” commanders will have to incrementally modify the male-oriented program of instruction so that female personnel, including unwilling enlisted servicewomen will “succeed.”

3.  Group Rights, Not Individual Rights

High, uncompromised standards simply are not compatible with recommendations of the Pentagon’s own Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC), a mostly-civilian commission set up by feminists in the Congress and the Pentagon.  In 2011, the MLDC called for elimination of women’s land combat exemptions in order to achieve non-remedial gender-based “diversity metrics” − read, “quotas.”  The Defense Department endorsed the MLDC’s egalitarian report at a Pentagon news conference on February 9, 2012.

The MLDC report admits that the new “diversity management” involves fair treatment, but “it is not about treating everyone the same.  This can be a difficult concept to grasp, especially for leaders who grew up with the EO-inspired mandate to be both color and gender blind.” (p. 18)

This “new diversity” concept is a radical departure from the military’s honorable tradition of recognizing individual merit − the key to successful racial integration long before the civilian world.  The “new diversity” is not about individual rights; it’s about gender-based group rights that will result in discrimination against deserving, well-qualified men.

4.  Diversity Czar, Career Penalties Will Drive Standards Down

The MLDC Report that the Department of Defense endorsed last year recommends that a “Chief Diversity Officer (CDO),” reporting directly to the Secretary of Defense, be established to monitor accountability for “diversity management.”  (MLDC Executive Summary, p. xvii)  The new Diversity Czar will establish a new feminist power base in the Pentagon that will make career promotions at all levels contingent on “diversity leadership.”  We know this because the Defense Department-endorsed Military Leadership Diversity Commission says so:

“To ensure that the diversity effort continues, demonstrated diversity leadership must be assessed throughout careers and made, in both DoD and the Senate, a criterion for nomination and confirmation to the 3- and 4-star ranks….Successful implementation of diversity initiatives requires a deliberate strategy that ties the new diversity vision to desired outcomes via policies and metrics….military leaders at all levels can be held accountable for their performance in diversity management and rewarded for their efforts.” (MLDC Executive Summary, p. xviii, emphasis added)

Male field commanders and combat trainers will know that the opposite, of course, also will be true.  They will be rewarded for declaring “success” for the women-in-land-combat social experiment and penalized for not doing so.

There is no incentive for ensuring that elite training standards for fighting battalions remain high and uncompromised.  No one should expect field commanders to do what members of Congress so far have failed to do.

5.  “Gender-Free” Training is Not the Same as “Gender-Fair” Training

The same advocates who demand “equal opportunities” in combat are the first to demand unequal, gender-normed standards to make it “fair.”  General Robert W. Cone, who heads the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) admitted this in an interview with the Defense Department’s house-organ American Forces Press Service.

Said Gen. Cone, “Soldiers — both men and women — want fair and meaningful standards to be developed for accepting women into previously restricted specialties.  I think that fairness is very important in a values-based organization like our Army.” 

Really?  Direct ground combat is not “fair” or “equal.”  It is not even civilized.  Will America’s potential enemies in Iran, North Korea, or North Africa treat our soldiers with “fairness?”  Most people believe that the purpose of the Army is to defend our nation’s interests by deterring war or fighting to defeat our enemies if deterrence fails.

Then the TRADOC leader’s statement rose to new heights of absurdity, reflecting group think that should alarm every member of Congress and pro-defense Americans:

“‘Besides physical ability,’ Cone said, ‘Army officials will look at “traditional impediments” − the attitudes regarding the acceptance of women into previously male-only jobs….The Army will take ‘proactive measures to mitigate resistance to women going into these specialties,’  the general said.  ‘We want the right environment for women,’ he said.”

According to a January 24 memo issued by Army Chief of Staff Gen. Raymond Odierno, the TRADOC Analysis Center is leading a study that will examine the institutional and cultural barriers related to the process of gender-integration in previously all-male units, “in order to develop strategies to overcome these barriers.”  To advance the Pentagon’s “diversity” agenda, TRADOC’s analysis likely will target tough training standards, and men who support them, as “barriers” to progress in the New Gender Order.

General Cone, who leads TRADOC, is the guy who is supposed to determine whether women can and should be assigned to infantry, armor, artillery, and Special Operations Forces like the ones who fought to the death on battlefields from Pointe du Hoc to Mogadishu to the liberation of Baghdad and Fallujah.  His statement assigning priority to gender integration indicates that he is likely to devalue and discriminate against direct ground combat soldiers like those who fought those battles, and who may be harboring attitudes that  might be construed as “resistance” to the “diversity” agenda.

6.  Unannounced Lowered Standards will Be “Equal” But Not the Same

The mandate to achieve “diversity metrics” and a “critical mass” of women in combat guarantees that standards will be changed, modified, or gender-normed, eventually making ground combat training “equal” but less demanding for men.  We have already seen how this will work by examining what the Marine Corps did with one of several phases in their research project regarding women in direct ground combat.

As reported in the recently released 42-page CMR Special Report, titled Defense Department “Diversity” Push for Women in Land Combat, requirements in the Women in Service Restrictions Review (WISRR) that the Marine Corps initiated in April 2012 were quietly changed and made less demanding without notice.  (pp. 15-17)

In a presentation before the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) in September 2011, a representative of the Marine Corps presented slides indicating that as part of the Marines WISRR, male and female volunteers would be asked to perform six “common tasks” to test physical strength and stamina.

But when the actual tests got underway in 2012, as part of the “USMC Assignment of Women to Ground Combat Research Plan,” six tests were reduced to three.  The toughest ones were quietly taken out, and the remaining three were made less demanding.  All male and female volunteers who participated went through the same training exercises − but they were not the same as originally planned.

The original presentation to the DACOWITS in September 2011 promised that “[r]esearch must be deliberate, transparent, and conducted in a manner that will be responsive to senior leadership and external requests for information on short notice.”  (Slide #9, emphasis added)  The Marines have nevertheless denied formal requests for documents and information related to the “common tasks” tests.

The only change that might explain this was the February 9, 2012, Pentagon news conference in which Defense Department officials endorsed recommendations of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

In September 2012 the Marines conducted a test of two female officers who volunteered for training on the exceptionally tough 13-week Infantry Officer Course (IOC) at Quantico, VA.  Standards were maintained and the women washed out, along with 25% of the men.  The experiment did not work out, but the two female officers deserve respect for trying.  More than 90 volunteers are needed to gather sufficient data on the IOC, but none have stepped forward.  [Update: Two more female officers will try the IOC in March.]

The next Commandant will be selected under criteria set by the Diversity Commission and the Obama Administration.  Since that general will be required to support MLDC priorities, it is likely that quiet changes will be made in the IOC program of instruction so that a sufficient number of women can pass the course.

Standards will be “equal,” but not the same as they are now.  The same thing will happen in Army Ranger training, which Gen. Odierno has said he wants to make co-ed.

7.  Compromised Standards Will Increase Resentment and Harassment Problems

When Pentagon officials start competing with each other to please feminists, the media, and diversity fanatics, pure nonsense often is passed off as enlightened wisdom.  Witness General Dempsey’s astonishing claim that women’s exemptions from direct ground combat, which the majority of women in enlisted ranks want, somehow have contributed to problems of sexual assault in the military.

This is a peculiar throwback to false arguments made in the Navy’s post-Tailhook scandal period, when the remedy for alcohol-fueled misconduct by male and female aviators partying at a Las Vegas convention was thought to be gender-integration in naval aviation.

Twenty-two years later, that theory is being put to the test.  Women are as close to the fight as they can be, but rates of sexual assault and abuse are soaring with no end in sight.  According to a chapter in a recent Army “Gold Book” report, titled “Sex Crime Trends,” violent attacks and rapes in the ranks have nearly doubled since 2006, rising from 663 in 2006 to 1,313 in 2011.  Even worse, the Army reported that violent sex crime was growing at an average rate of 14.6 percent per year, and the rate was accelerating. (p. 122)

Resentment aggravates hostility, which often is expressed with violence that is always wrong and disruptive to everyone serving in close-knit battalions.  The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, noting testimony from Air Force SERE (Survival, Evasion, Resistance, Escape) trainers charged to prepare potential prisoners of war, expressed concern about the de-sensitizing effect of policies condoning violence against women, as long as it happens at the hands of the enemy.

The commission also received survey results indicating that a significant cohort of men, called “egalitarian sexists” or “hostile proponents,” were in favor of co-ed combat because it would expose women’s weaknesses and punish them.  Years later, our military may be experiencing a cultural shift that already has degraded certain standards of civilization, summarized by the commission with a simple statement: “Good men respect and defend women.” (Commission Report, p. 61)

In training programs today, men routinely are given permission, and sometimes orders, to treat women with roughness.  Young men taught by their parents to “never hit a girl” are disadvantaged by this cultural dissonance, which may be impervious to other programs intended to reduce sexual assaults and abuse of women.

Nothing causes resentment like the awareness of double standards imposed in pursuit of “equality” and non-remedial “diversity” that overrides respect for individual merit.  At the “tip of the spear,” this resentment will vitiate team cohesion, a critically-important cultural factor that depends not on social relationships, but on mutual dependence for survival in the close fight.

As CMR has reported in a Special Report titled “Chilling Trend of Sexual Assaults in the Military,” human relationship problems ranging across the spectrum from assault to inappropriate romantic affairs are having a destructive effect on morale and readiness.

Given what is known about human relationships in war, it is far more likely that sexual assaults will increase when chronic problems evident in all other communities are extended into direct ground combat battalions.  The cause will not be women — it will be poor judgment and flawed leadership among White House and Pentagon officials who are putting gender politics above the best interests of national security and the troops they lead.

What Is at Stake

All “tip of the spear” fighting forces − infantry, armor, Special Operations Forces, artillery, and Navy SEALs − execute missions that go beyond the experience of being “in harm’s way” in a war zone.  All are trained to close with and attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action under fire.  Given this definition of direct ground combat, it is not accurate to say that women have been “in combat” on the same basis as men.

Combat effectiveness in war cannot be taken for granted.  Nor can it withstand relentless pressures to lower standards in order to meet “diversity metrics.”  It is not right to impose on elite combat units the weight of social complications that will result in more casualties, more deaths, and even failed missions due to higher injury rates, and issues of non-deployability and  sexual misconduct that have gotten worse in all other military communities.

Most military women do not want this, and they are not to blame for the folly of policy makers such as Secretary Panetta and the Army’s top leaders.  All are following orders from our irresponsible Commander in Chief, who is trying to cut Congress and the American people out of the decision-making process.

Under Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, members of Congress − not the President, the Defense Secretary or even the Joint Chiefs of Staff − have the responsibility to make policy for the military.  Congress should fulfill this responsibility by exercising diligent oversight, to include a full and public review of all research data gathered in the past year.

It is long-past time for Congress to intervene − the readiness and effectiveness of our fighting forces, and national security, are at great risk.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

  • harrylies

    Most men today are like John Wayne in World War Two. He didn't serve. A lot of women realize they benifit from the Constitution, and are willing to defend it, with their lives if needbe. If people object to women being cannon fodder, why are they not upset about men?

    • mrelchuco

      A society that places young women in the front lines of combat where they can have body parts blown off or captured by the enemy and endlessly raped or sold into sexual slavery, is a society so degraded that it doesn't deserve to survive. any man who does not intuitively understand that truth is not a real man but a eunuch. A nutless wonder.

    • patron

      Why do trolling scumbags support the murder of US troops by spreading lies of war profiteering?

      This is you:

      "If only Saddam Hussein and his rapists sons were still in power, everything would be okay."

    • tagalog

      John Wayne didn't serve in World War Two when we had involuntary conscription, commonly termed "the draft." Today we have an all-volunteer armed forces.
      That's the difference between men like John Wayne and the men of today.

      The all-volunteer armed forces has its cultural drawbacks, but one thing it IS, is an armed forces that respects liberty. Despite that, women in combat should be discouraged, because one day we'll have a war that requires involuntary conscription again, then women in combat will no longer be voluntary.

    • Drakken

      Obviously you never served a day in uniform, as one who has, lowering standards to please the leftist do gooders make for a lot of body bags to be filled. As we used to say In Uncles Sams Misguided Children, the more you sweat in training, the less you bleed in war. Obviously these lessons are going in the trash heap in order to usher in a new era of PC madness. When the next war comes to pass and the boody bags and flag draped coffins come in by the thousands all of you do gooder liberal/progressives will have no one to blame but yourselves, God may have mercy on you, but history will condemn you for your short sighted stupidity, God help us all !!

    • Ziggy Zoggy

      John Wayne once punched out his very large buddy Ward Bond-through a solid wood door. Show me a woman who can do that and your idiotic comparison between men who don't serve and women who do serve will still be idiotic. Just because wussies like Obama have never been man enough to serve doesn't mean we need more Shannon Faulkners. Grrl power is strictly for comic books, Hollywood, special needs cases like you and other eunuchs.

    • MaryS, CA

      We have one of the best trained militaries in the world. We are out there training the military of Iraq and Afghanistan and someday they will come back to bite us in the ass, but to put a woman out there on the front lines with a man, two things are going to happen. (1) We are either going to lower our standard of training for both the men and women or (2) we will not raise the standard of training for the women and that will be a tragedy for both. I would not want my husband, son, grandson to be out on the frontlines and being attached by Muslim Jihadists or anyother army for that matter, having shells coming in around me, my men being killed and injured and having to depend on a "Demi Moore" G.I. Jane to get my ass out of the killing field. There is not way that any woman could life a 180+ injured man without putting the rest of the
      Company at risk. The first time women start coming home from the Killing Fields all blown to pieces and put in boxes sent back to their husbands, fathers, children this country will go ballistic, There is a place for women in the Military but it is not out there on the Front Lines.
      We have pilots, that's great, nurses, doctors, support, but a woman is open to all kinds of, how should I say this "unfortunate" assaults when she is put in the middle of a group of men who are out to kill, and that's what war is all about. Do we want these women coming home and caring for their little one's? I don't think so. I was always active and athletic when I was growing up and I was in H.S. in the 1950's and always wanted to be a fighter pilot but that was not feasible then. WE have them now flying in the Military, but on the front lines NO. Mary711

  • cedarhill

    This is a prelude to a National Service Act. Call it the Return of The Draft. An altogether intended consequence. Pick your path to get there but the choic will be either military or the AmericaCorps or such. First thing right after school. Intended to finish the molding process through group cohesiveness training.

    • tagalog

      And it will be sold to the public, as the Nazis sold the Hitlerjugend and the Soviets sold the Komsomol, as a means to build public-spirited citizens.

  • IMHomo

    I despise the Left. When the girls on the front lines fail, who will get blamed? Not the diversity-nuts, who will scream that the leaders didn't incorporate women correctly. This is just as the Left has argued about the USSR and its socialism–"They didn't do it right!" We need broads on the front lines like we need a bunch of homosexuals on the front lines. Oops, number 44 allowed for kweers up front also. How long before that drab camouflage is scuttled in favor of purple and pink?

  • geneww1938

    Wait a second, If you want to be a surgeon and have no manual dexterity, you would never be certified. Not because of discrimination but because there are standards to protect our patients. Likewise, you want to be a QB on a football team you must be able to throw and run with the ball … Discrimination is not a factor. We can't say because your a "wanna be one" the standard are changed just for you.

    The army also has standards to protect each other in combat and to provide optimum effectiveness in executing a mission. This is not discrimination. You want to be part of the team, met the standards.

    • Quickstrike06

      Right…but one of the major issues brought up in the article is the inevitable dumbing-down of those standards. The effort is not to keep the military at a high standard, and able to defend the nation. It is to ensure "fairness," even at the cost of reduced standards, and thus a less well-protected nation.

  • maletarget

    There will be a lot of male soldiers falsely accused of harrassment by radical feminists in the army.

  • LibertarianToo

    "The “new diversity” is not about individual rights; it’s about gender-based group rights that will result in discrimination against deserving, well-qualified men."

    Yes, that gender-based group rights thing which has been the rule up till now will finally have to give way. Since the gentlemen are now 100% of the non-descriminated-against, it will take a whole lot of descrimination to get to the point where we have to trouble ourselves about "deserving men" losing out.

    • reader

      " it will take a whole lot of descrimination to get to the point where we have to trouble ourselves about "deserving men" losing out"

      Do you even realize that you're giving yourself away with this social enginnering nonsense? Some libertarian.

  • doubleblack

    Isn't it fun to watch the United States bend over and grab its ankles.
    This suicide isn't going to be painless.

  • TexRanger

    Just like our schools had to be dumbed down when segregation took effect, the training of the soldiers will have to be reduced so women who are only about 50% as physically fit as men can keep up which will thrill the enemy on the battlefield!!!!! Like putting junior high football players on the field against professional football players.

  • TexRanger

    Barack Hussein Obama, our homosexual/Muslim/Communist/anti-America president, will do anything to destroy America.

  • ADM

    Everything in the article makes sense except its failure to recognize that standards for every part of the military other than infantry, armor, artillery and special forces have already been gender-normed (i.e. lowered) to accommodate women and achieve the critcal mass. Ground combat is uniquely demanding in that the demands are continuous and inherent rather than occasional (as in shipboard damage control), but the basic need for people fully capable of the physical demands in all services are imperative: the lives of the ground forces are not inherently more valuable than those of any other branch of the services. Cohesion, trust, teamwork, readiness and effectiveness apply globally. Fighting this battle requires taking on the measures already taken in other parts of the military and educating people about their consequences.

    • Elaine Donnelly

      Hello Admiral,

      You are correct about the need to address gender-normed scoring and training programs that are inconsistent with total" equality" in direct ground combat (DGC) units. Take a look at differences in the male and female obstacle courses at the Officer Candidate Course at Quantico. In these photos, you can see bars twelve inches lower on the female side and special "assists" to help in climbing the red walls.… If combat exemptions are to be dropped, all forms of training should be made equal, but for seven reasons listed on the second article posted on our website,, that will not happen. Best, Elaine Donnelly

      • ADM

        Thank you Ms. Donnelly, but I think you missed my point. Standards have already been lowered in all other areas and this needs to be brought public because it is as much of a problem for branches of services other than ground combat. It is illogical to say that women are performing well – thereby implying they have met equal and unchanged subjects – in these other areas, or to say that direct ground combat is so special that it alone should be spared the changes that have affected other areas of the military. You can only win this argument by showing that the problems that you have correctly outlined for the DCG units have already weakened those other areas of the military that have already been gender-normed.

  • dmw

    I can see now why Commandante Sub-Zero makes disrespective comments about bayonets. With no bayonet training required, women will not be required to undergo simulated bayonet training using Pugil Sticks. I would love to see video of what happens when a women "wanna be" — all geared up with face guard helmet and padding — goes up against another fit "Soldier" and gets the crap totally pummeled out of her. You know, sort of like being a lineMAN in Pro football.

  • davarino

    I sure hope the women can pull their own weight when they get to the battlefield. The dudes arent going to carry Candy's gear cause she cant be buddies with all the guys. There will be resentment and Candy might just find herself cut off from her team and her boy friend will have to be the one to save her. This is totally rediculous and the DOD knows it. This is how you destroy a military from within.

    So whenever a conflict comes up, can the women get out of it by getting pregnant? Wouldnt that be nice. This is BS

  • Bar-Kochba

    Fact: The average weight and height for men: 5'10"/195lbs.
    Fact: The average height and weight for women: 5'5"/165lbs.
    Fact: Amateur and Professional fighters, i.e. wrestlers, boxers, even the MMA (mixed martial arts) limit participation among equally matched weight classes with little more than 5 lbs separating the contestants. And the matches are gender specific!
    Fact: The quadrennial Olympic games are gender specific including the biathlon, a contest challenging the cross -country skiing abilities and and shooting ability of the participants.( this discipline could be reasonably compared to real life combat conditions and yet the egalitarian Olympics still segregates the contestants).

    Understanding that a female world class athlete (an individual female who is far above the physical standard and ability of most women) can not compete with an equally trained male how is it that a "normal" female will perform her duties, in a combat role, sufficient to suggest she should be a member of a combat unit? It is lunacy, it is dangerous, and it is counterproductive to the readiness of a highly trained and motivated attack unit. Liberalism is a failed ideology, yet as it gasps its last breath of relevancy, fueled by the benighted and morally obtuse "Commander-in-Chief", our greatest asset; our boys and girls, may be forever damaged, an entire generation laid to waste. This is nothing less than a gross obscenity!

    Justice Potter Stewart said "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description ["hard-core pornography"]; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that.
    I know it when I see it…And that rings loud and clear when debating the merits of women in combat units.

    • Drakken

      Well look at it this way, Darwin is going to get his due and the cream of the crop will rise above it and the nonsustainable will perish, if your a father or mother it is your duty as a parent to keep your daughter out of the services now.

  • Parenthetical Phrase

    Take a look at the picture. Does anyone think that these young women can carry the kind of heavy loads that a man can? Aside from all the other problems that will pop up, expecting that women will perform as well as a man IN COMBAT is insane. (I am a woman.)

  • Leland64

    Ladies! Welcome to the Infantry! We know you've experienced combat as pilots, military police, truck drivers and many other non-combat arms soldiers have been subject to enemy fire. What you have not done is live and fight in the field for sustained periods of time humping a combat load of 75 pounds or more including ruck sack, ammunition, water, food, weapon, helmet, body armor day in and day out for weeks at a time. There are no showers, no privacy, no clean clothes, only dirt, sweat, and the constant threat of close combat with a brutal, unforgiving enemy. Infantry combat is not like a video game – as Prince Harry said describing his war in the cock-pit of an AH-64 attack helicopter. It's not like serving as a gunner on VIP vehicle or flying a high performance jet aircraft. Your home is in the field, living with what you can carry on your back in the heat, cold, mud, dust, snow, and rain. Take a look at videos of Marine and Army Infantry in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan. While you are at it watch The Vietnam War in HD. Pay attention to the grunts. Sustained Infantry combat operations are very tough physically and mentally. Many men can't hack it and virtually all women are not physically capable of combat service in the Infantry. There is a reason why there are no female players in the NFL and women do not complete against men in the Olympics. For the few that meet the same standards required of men, congratulations. However, if standards are lowered, the butcher’s bill will inevitably come due in Infantry combat. Be careful what you wish for.

  • JacksonPearson

    IMO, placing women into front line combat roles is another, massive, leftist, social engineering mistake.
    As previously mentioned. Women can do many things equal to, and better than men, but NOT in this instant.

  • popseal

    The pussified American man needs all the help he can get and the Pentagon has lots of them (pussified men, that is). My particular favorites are the generals that push this in the cause of career advancement knowing they will never be in combat with their "newest soldiers"

  • Charlie Johnson

    Like Rush said – the Prez has doubts about sending a son to play football considering all the head injuries but he likes women in combat?
    Talk about forked tongue –

  • BS77

    You are witnessing a nation in steep decline. This is another symptom. Just look at our major cities. Fifty million on food stamps…and now putting young women on the front lines of combat……..The Spartans never had their women fight for them, nor the Romans, nor the Greeks under Alexander…….putting women in the place of men would have been considered a disgrace.

  • BS77

    You are witnessing a nation in steep decline. This is another symptom. Just look at our major cities. Fifty million on food stamps…and now putting young women on the front lines of combat……..The Spartans never had their women fight for them, nor the Romans, nor the Greeks under Alexander…….putting women in the place of men would have been considered a disgrace.

  • Juice

    Another thing to consider: Women will not volunteer for an army that forces them into combat. The women who are already in the army will not re-up if faced with being forced into combat. The women who do make it into combat will be few and the men will harrass and bargain and coerce them. Women are, now, using pregnancy to get out of hot zones. Maybe this is some more Democratic trickery; while they say they intend one thinh, they intend another.

  • @heretec

    What a load of BS. Name yourselves, so called "Center for Military Readiness". Has any one member of your *civilian* club ever served in a combat zone in the military? I'm retired from active duty after 24 1/2 years, and your arguments are all invalid. The Joint Chiefs and the SECDEF clearly know WAY more than you do, you biased, uninformed, inexperienced liars.

    • reader

      Are you a man or a woman?
      Did you serve in a combat zone?
      Did you serve in a combat zone with women?
      In what way ALL of the arguments invalid?
      Why did the Joint Chiefs of Staff never before – for decades – come up with a brilliant idea like this? Did it take the community organizer with zero experience in anything but smoking pot and hanging around communists to inspire such leadership in them – after all those years?
      Don't hold back.

    • ADM

      You should note that the people who first pushed for women in the military were civilian feminists who had no military experience. This includes the likes of Congresswoman Pat Schroeder. Senior military men with WWII, Korea and Vietnam experience were all against it, so your argument is illogical. You might also want to check out the numerous military men who support CMR. Given that the Joint Chiefs have been wrong so often on so many purely military matters, they have no credibility on this issue, and neither do you.

      • Drakken

        Thank God we have an Admiral who says it like it is, there are too few of you Gentlmen these days, well there is my alma mater USMC General Mattis but it would seem he is the exception and not the rule. Semper Fi Admiral. From a ground pounding former Gunny.

  • Joseph. K.

    Reason? Logic. Evidence? Comon sense? Forget it. What is the right thing to do? That is what will not be done. Goodbye, America…

  • Ghostwriter

    I'm still staying out of this one.

  • Daphne

    I am a woman physician and served in the US Army Medical Corps in the '80's with rank of Lieutenant Colonel.
    I served in Germany alongside women Army nurses, technicians, and others,. We were expected to succeed in use
    of guns, chemical warfare equipment, physical fitness tests, and capability demonstration by grading on our jobs.
    It was just fine.
    But now, I cannot describe adequately my anger at this equality of women in combat measure.. It goes against all reason, all facts as to the comparative strengths of men and women, all facts of emotional reactions between men and women which are enhanced by the tensions of battle conditions. I have learned (from T.V.police dramas!) that there must be NO romantic relationship between the police officer and his on-duty partner . The reason is clear. In tense or crisis conditions, concern for the partner can disturb the complete concentration required for the mission. The same would apply under harsh battle conditions. All of the reasons given in the above article are extremely pertinent and point to this new condition as another piece of "political correctness" – to put it mildly, unthinking, irrational –and to put it more clearly — very
    unintelligent, serving the present US Administration's ideology and not the facts of differential physical capability of the sexes, and the consequences thereof . The defense of the United States and its interests abroad are de facto ignored, much to the disservice of both the US itself, and to the interests of many foreign nations who fighting bravely, or under enemy occupation, in WWI and WWII were aided, strengthened and encouraged by the US entry into bitter conflicts which saved the world from Adolph Hitler's promised Third (Thousand Year) Reich.

  • Sense1

    Wait till a hundred or so woman are made POWs and they come back raped, pregnant, tramatized if they comeback at all after being captured by an enemy who sees them as property and trophys. Then watch the media.

  • noname*

    With the right training, women can get to be just as strong as men can be. They have the same physical ability, but who says that that is all that matters.