Yes, Dear, I Mean Yes, Sir, I mean Yes Ma’am, I mean Yes, Ms., I mean…
It’s absolutely stunning that we’re even talking about this. Have we taken total leave of our senses? It’s yet another demonstration of how hard leftists have to work, and how much time they have to spend, in order to deny the most fundamental reality, and thereby maintain their standing as good leftist soldiers (this last noun chosen advisedly for the occasion).
Not obviously psychotic adults are actually debating whether women should serve in combat units in the American military. That’s right, women in the infantry, armor, artillery. How the hell did we even get here? Warriors have been men in every tribe and country for all time. That hasn’t been accidental. Could everyone have been wrong about this until the late 20th century leftist came along? Has the left once again found the wisdom of the ages deficient?
Someone once asked Louie Armstrong what soul was. Satch is reported to have replied, “If you listen to the music and you don’t hear it, I can’t explain it to you.” Just so. The same applies to this more contemporary question. To adults who ask, out of honest perplexity, why women shouldn’t serve in combat, I have to paraphrase the great Louie. If you don’t see the obvious, it’s too late for me to try to explain it to you.
Men and women are different. Thank God. They are very different. Beings from another planet who came here to observe us would pick up on this in about 20 minutes. And until recently, everyone on Earth understood this plain fact of life and had no quarrel with it.
The differences between men and women are fundamental — going well beyond size, strength, and plumbing — and they have nothing to do with the way men and women are socialized. They are hard-wired. It’s nature, not nurture. Part of the leftist project is to deny this obvious and God-intended difference (that is except when it’s convenient for leftists to claim that women are different from and superior to men).
The slow but steady march of women from an auxiliary on the sidelines of the military enterprise — WACs, WAVES, BAMs (don’t ask) and WAFs — to full immersion in combat roles, follows logically from this delirium. We’re late to the battle, but unless conservatives wish our civilization and our lives to be further disfigured, this is one that needs to be fought.
The deficiencies that women’s lesser physical strength would cause them as warriors, and the sexual tensions and problems inherent in throwing hormone-besotted young men and women into the intimate circumstances of combat have been covered too thoroughly to need re-cataloging here. (He-ing and she-ing in the military is a big enough problem now without men and women in the same foxholes.) No, I just want to remind us what a transparent fraud this whole fool’s errand is.
In expressing his support for this great leap forward in leftist idiocy, our president was more dishonest than usual. Women in combat roles, Obama said in a formal statement, “will strengthen our military” and “enhance our readiness.” It will do neither. It will — if we’re foolish enough to do it and I fear we are — weaken our military and make us less ready to fight our enemies.
“I congratulate our military, including the Joint Chiefs of Staff, for the rigor that they have brought to this process,” Obama said. Bull feathers! They’ve brought no rigor to “this process” of caving in to the social agenda of the left. They’ve brought only ideology and a concern for their own careers. He adds that the sacrifices of women who’ve served in our military, including those who have paid the ultimate price, show that “valor knows no gender.” True, but beside the point here.
Opening combat positions to women, our clueless commander in chief says, is an “historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens.” If Obama imagines that one woman in a hundred has what it takes to be a kick-butt, infantry ground-pounder, he’s led a more sheltered life than I ever imagined.
Obama ends his statement with this howler: “Today, every American can be proud that our military will grow even stronger with our mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters playing a greater role in protecting this country we love.”
I faint dead away. Could brave Americans possibly have ejected the British, sorted our own differences, dealt with the Kaiser’s boys, and then helped beat the Wehrmacht and the Imperial Japanese Navy just so our “mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters” have a shot at earning the combat infantryperson’s badge, and possibly getting atomized in the process?
If this one is put through, it’s further proof, as if more were needed, that there is no reality that modern leftist can’t stand on its head. No nation in history has ever tried to hide behind its women’s skirts on the battlefield. No nation that tries this will long survive. No nation that sinks to this deserves to.
Cranky column to follow.
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?