The American Spectator

Reader Mail

Annie Gets No Gun

5.23.05 @ 12:01AM

COMBAT BOOTS
Re: George Neumayr's Does Bush Care?:

Sincere congratulations to George Neumayr for showing some courage of clear speaking. Women in combat, what a blasphemy. As a WWII participant, it turns my stomach. Neumayr's comments are entirely correct. What needs to be added is the fact that, for each one woman in combat, one male soldier will be required who is either interested in her as a woman, or otherwise feels obliged (logically so) to protect her from harm. In either case, the soldier's attention will not only be directed at the enemy but also toward protecting the female "soldier." Here I put soldier on purpose in quotes since she does not belong near the front lines. Her duties in health care, communications, and other activities way behind in a theater of operations make more sense, and there they are valuable.
-- Niels de Groot

Thank you for more documentation of the fraud that is G.W. Bush.
-- Mark Fallert

George Neumayr's article about President Bush's push to place women closer to combat was truthful and refreshing. I blame the so-called conservative media, especially talk radio, for continuing to look the other way when George Bush (and other GOP RINOS) veer to the left, which is often.

Conservative pundits especially like to champion President Bush as being a strong and caring commander-in-chief, yet after four and a half years in a time of war we still have a Clinton-size military and it's even getting smaller. Our wartime president is cutting back on an aircraft carrier and F-22 aircraft to save money (for his big spending domestic programs). In addition, the Bush administration has been steadfastly refusing to increase the military recruitment quota ceiling despite the fact that our combat strength is way too small. Even super liberal John Kerry correctly called for more troop levels. (Even a broken clock is right twice a day). Unfortunately, the White House's endorsement of pushing women closer to combat is just the latest Clinton-like policy regarding the military

About 15% of our shrunken military are women, who by their very nature are not equipped mentally or physically to become warriors and becoming a warrior is what every soldier should be capable of. Training females to become warriors (by reducing basic training standards) is like trying to change a lamb into a tiger and placing them in or close to combat is like leading lambs to slaughter.

In addition, many women soldiers become pregnant over and over again, so they are very disruptive to military readiness and cost much more than their male counterparts. Instead of phasing out females by recruiting only less costly males, who are truly capable of combat, the White House continues to recruit women and then expects 100 lb. girls, like Jessica Lynch, to become true warriors. This is a left wing pointy-head solution that in the real world dilutes our true fighting capability and in time will destroy our military.

Even now in Iraq we are losing lives as the war drags on because of too few male troops. There are not near enough combatants to secure Iraq's borders, thus allowing a safe haven in Iran and Syria, where terrorists can freely come and go. We used to be able to fight and win two major wars simultaneously; now we can't even win decisively against a gang of thugs. Yet conservative talking-heads are strangely silent about our weakened military, while young girls creep towards combat to pick up the slack.

If John Kerry were president and emasculating the military the conservative outrage would be loud and unrelenting. For the sake of our nation and our brave soldiers it is time for real conservatives to stop the partisan spinning and call for a much bigger military across the board and part of this is a return to an all-male military.
-- Lou Venticinque
Jamison, Pennsylvania

Your observation has a laudable goal, but for many reasons the cats already out of the bag.

With most of the nations that we may engage in combat sometime in the future, almost all have theatre capable nuclear and/or non-nuclear missile delivery systems. Such delivery systems make the concept of "rear area" as a non-combat zone moot. I need only point to the SCUD attack on Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, in 1991 to lay waste to the idea.

Congress itself pretty much set the stage for women in combat with the nonbinding vote (354-24) on support of the Equal Rights Amendment of 1971. To benefit the young conservative reader, the ERA as written would have removed any distinction between the sexes, to the extent that 18yo women would have to sign the Selective Service card like their male counterparts. I have seen nothing in Congress's actions that have modified that view since, sans it not being writ into law.

Last, we now possess a volunteer armed force. Men and women make the choice to participate up to and including the risk knowingly that you may be placed in a situation that could unfortunately terminate your life. We are a nation that has pride in and encourages our citizens to make the choices that fulfill their "pursuit of happiness." Should I or Rep. Hunter make the presumption to know better? I think not.

We need to face the fact that in modern war there are no non-combat zones for any solider. The women serving in uniform today have shown both courage and dedication; let's acknowledge their sacrifice and the fact that it is their choice. But Rep. Hunter's proposal is not the way to do it.
-- John McGinnis
Arlington, Texas

No. George Bush doesn't care about the issue of women in combat. But what were you expecting? He spoke many times of the political capital he earned in the election, and that he intended to use it. On Social Security reform?

Letter to the Editor

topics:
Education, Health Care, Mainstream Media, Business, Social Security, Islam, Abortion, Environment, Global Warming, Books, Law, Military, Iraq, Iran, Fascism, Oil