Sunday, January 27, 2013

Three Views on Women in Combat

Today's reading assignments from Mackubin Thomas Owens in the Weekly Standard; Ryan Smith in The Wall Street Journal and Captain Katie Petronio in the Marine Corps Gazette.

Not exactly the PC version that the White House (or outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta) would like you to read, but it's the truth.  There's a reason that 99% of all women in the military can't pass muster for service in the infantry or special forces.  And it has nothing to do with sexism; it's all about physiology and the  fact that most women don't have the upper body strength or endurance to handle those jobs.

But remember this: with the door now open for women to serve in ground combat units, the left will do whatever it takes to make this "experiment" succeed.  When we start "gender-norming" for physical standards in the infantry, SEAL units; Special Forces A-teams and Air Force combat control and pararescue elements, we are finished as a military. But our feckless senior leaders (helloooo, General Dempsey) are willing to go along, figuring the consequences will become evident after they retire and in the mean time, maybe their bosses in the White House and on the Hill will go easy on sequestration.

6 comments:

Dov said...

The ironic thing is that women don't want gender norming. They want to compete on an equal footing.

I was a Naval Aviator when women were allowed to fly fighters. It was the same then; who wants to be considered 'special needs' with special treatment in order to qualify? No; women wanted the chance to compete fairly, not to be classified as retarded and given special advantage.

Dov said...

The ironic thing is that women don't want gender norming. They want to compete on an equal footing.

I was a Naval Aviator when women were allowed to fly fighters. It was the same then; who wants to be considered 'special needs' with special treatment in order to qualify? No; women wanted the chance to compete fairly, not to be classified as retarded and given special advantage.

John from Pennsylvania said...

This has been going on for a while. I went through airborne school at Fort Benning in spring of 1975. The men had to do hanging chin-ups but the women made it through by only doing inclined chin-ups.

Vigilis said...

"...the Pentagon will ask: "Does it [unit’s standard] really have to be that high?" - Gen. Dempsey, Obama's new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Graduates of U.S. military academies are more liberalized today than ever, their numbers truly intent on military careers (required by the mission statements of all service academies for taxpayer provided top quality education) has became lower than ever, and they have usually been the first to try to take use of military force off the U.S. table of options whenever that might be mentioned in D.C.

The question asked by Gen Dempsey, however, represents a new low. Most who have ever served realize that lowering standards for some will inevitably PUTs the LIVES of OTHERS at greater risk.

General Dempsey was foolish to be quoted in such a vacuous remark, in my opinion. Will he be equally foolish in ROE and persecution of enemies in future conflicts? I fear so.

Old NFO said...

That they will, and more will die... So can we now require females to register for selective service??? This was the 'excuse' the kept them from doing it before...

1389 said...

Putting women in infantry combat and special operations roles flouts common sense!