-
Cubs Lose! Cubs Lose!
May 6, 2013 | 28 comments
-
The Perfect Country Singer
April 29, 2013 | 24 comments
-
Searching for the Duke
April 25, 2013 | 106 comments
-
Carlos’s Moment of Clarity
April 16, 2013 | 27 comments
-
Civil Blight in Old Blighty
April 15, 2013 | 24 comments
A Further Perspective
A Battle Conservatives Need to Fight
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.
About the Author
Larry Thornberry is a writer in Tampa.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (99) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Larry Thornberry
More Articles From A Further Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2013/01/25/a-battle-conservatives-need-to
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Robbins Mitchell| 1.25.13 @ 6:18AM
Panetta says that women have a "right" to be combat soldiers....awww,seriously?...what NOW propaganda pamphlet did he dredge that one up from?...but then the left is quite good at inventing new "rights" to facilitate its agenda....
Aristocat| 1.25.13 @ 7:31AM
What a preposterous idea---treating military combat like some kind of right or privilege....It's brutal, tough, and dangerous...sometimes fatally so.
Aristocat| 1.27.13 @ 1:22AM
The government should not allow women to leave their children behind to go on military duty...And any man who lets his wife join the military is nuts.
Jerrypoodle| 1.27.13 @ 6:02PM
women serve in combat in many countries; sorry you can't keep them barefoot and in the kitchen anymore! join the 21th century!
Quartermaster| 1.28.13 @ 12:18PM
List the countries that *intentionally* expose women to combat in what we call the combat arms. It's bad enough that we have woman in Aviation and expose them to brutal gang rape, as was done to one major in the Army during Gulf War I.
This isn't a matter of keeping them "barefoot, pregnant, and in teh kitchen" as you so stupidly wish to put it. The problem is two fold, but you clearly have no understanding of teh problem or what you wish to expose them to.
Only a barbaric country intenionally exposes women to combat, and is unworthy of defense. Only failed countries do such things.
Gary B| 1.25.13 @ 12:38PM
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”
flashbang!| 1.25.13 @ 7:01AM
I really feel this is unfair to women. Right now women do serve in combat but in non-combat MOS's. Their main job is to support the combat troops, whose main job is to directly engage and destroy the enemy. Women are still able to compete in that non-combat MOS for promotion. The standards for men and women are the same. Once they move to a combat MOS, the standards change big time. Promotions go to the strongest, fastest, most squared away troops. The guys who continually max their PT test and go into the extended scale (male standards), the guys with the Ranger tabs and the ones who can march 12 miles in full gear under 2 hours usually are the guys who get promoted. If you aren’t one of these guys, you end up finding another job; a non-combat related one or you get out. The competition for promotions is fierce and there is a reason for this. My fear is that politicians will pressure the military to promote more women once they are in a combat MOS. The only way to do this is to lower standards and thus weaken our combat forces. If not, women will be force to drop out and their numbers will be smaller in those combat roles. When this happens, will politicians admit that their social experiment was bad for women and the military?
John Navratil| 1.25.13 @ 9:33AM
flashbang!
I keep hearing that the lack of combat experience keeps promotions from going to otherwise qualified women. If this is the problem, fit it. Dulling the top of the spear won't help the general at the back of the battlefield.
One thing is certain, I will never be a basketball coach as I've never played the game. Is there something discriminatory in that?
flashbang!| 1.25.13 @ 10:19AM
I'm just saying that I don't understand how this will benefit women or the military. I think it is totally unfair to the women. She now has to compete with men in a testoserone filled, highly physical environment. A 14 minute 2 mile run, which is fast for a female, is only average for a male. How does she get promoted above her peers if she's only average. A heavy weapons squad needs to move 500 meters with M240B machine gun, tripod, T&E and ammo before the flanking element starts it's assault. Heavy weapons squad moves out leaving female with ammo behind. No ammo, no protection for flanking element. Not good. Are we setting our women up for success or are we setting them and everyone else up for failure? There are plenty of women generals. Many of them served in Division and Brigade TOC's. They have experience. But putting a woman in a combat unit were you depend on everyone else to go above and beyond I don't believe is the answer.
Drunken Sailor| 1.25.13 @ 11:54AM
Flashbang (love the handle) you hit the nail on the thumb. But liberals never see the obvious consequences. It is not unusual for their policies to hurt the very people they claim to want to help. That is not important to them. As long as they feel good making the change is all that matters.
Stan Redmond| 1.25.13 @ 10:26PM
Infantry rarely get promotions in the service. It's fact. They are training non stop in the field and under constant PT barage. They do not have the time to brown nose and study "promotional" behaviour. Back end support troops have plenty of time to study and learn the tricks of promotion. It's just the facts.
Jerrypoodle| 1.27.13 @ 6:06PM
how much combat have you been in?
Appleby| 1.25.13 @ 7:10AM
Well, the Israeli army has plenty of women in it, and from what I hear they kick some serious Arab booty. Women make excellent guerilla fighters when they are fighting on their home ground. But I emphatically agree that women do not belong in combat units with men, and the reality is that four letter word that nobody will ever bring up. RAPE. Anybody who has read history in any kind of depth, not to mention the Bible, knows that rape has been a feature of combat in most cultures that we are fighting against today...and that's not even counting the rape that will happen in the units where the women serve, usually during the times when they are supposed to be attending to business. Leaving that aside, there will be a huge spike in pregnancy and/or abortion which will take away from unit strength and lower morale to Vietnam-era levels. And finally, women will Whine. Not all of them of course; there are women who would make wonderful Amazon Soldiers and would scare the daylights out of even the Allah Akbar Brigades. But this group is maybe 5% of the the total who will be shoved into combat brigades. The rest will put up a steady whine, "I'm hot, I'm cold, I'm tired, my hair is a mess, my uniform doesn't fit, my iPhone doesn't work, I can't gettasignal..." and on and on they will go until somebody yells at them to shut up, and then they will File Suit because Joey's Picking On Me. Oh yes, if you want to destroy the military, fill up the ranks with Girls.
Prof| 1.25.13 @ 10:04AM
I normally don't reply, but this assertion needs to be corrected.
The IDF DOES NOT allow women in the infantry or armor. Women are allowed in 88% of the military specialties, but those involved in CQC are not open to them. Ironically the IDF mirrored the American military up until yesterday: women did serve in military police, signals, medical, etc. There are female combat pilots. But there are NO female infantry. As it stands now, only the USA will allow women in the infantry. Makes you so proud, doesn't it (s/o)?
Another issue: Isreal is much smaller than the USA. They have a population of 8 million people, we have a population of 315 million. If they are attacked, as they have been periodically for their entire existence, it is "all hands on deck" of necessity.
So please, the next time you hear the IDF canard, please correct it. Thanks
Appleby| 1.25.13 @ 1:33PM
I stand corrected, and will note that for the future. Thank you.
Russel| 1.25.13 @ 1:59PM
For what it's worth , this Panetta move was a topic on talk radio yest .. We learned that after a very disturbing instance , the Israeli's pulled women out of harms way , as in close encounters . Also , a survey of US military females showed there were hardly any who wanted to be in that situation either . I don't think they can be forced .
PolishKnight| 1.25.13 @ 10:54AM
In other words, the same paradigm for the workplace: Many women will do a great job, some will not, and many will whine and demand special privileges and find ways to file harassment claims.
The fundamental problem with feminist 'equality' is that it tries to achieve equality via chivalrous patronage. It's a contradiction in terms. But perhaps as Lincoln pointed out, the best way to expose a bad law or policy is to enforce it strictly. Feminism has been a disaster for the workplace and society but nobody cared because the little ladies should get more spending money so what's the harm in that, right?
If the society has largely become leftist (and it's clear it has) then what's the point of protecting the military? Let the whole country stand or fall upon it's merits.
Appleby| 1.25.13 @ 1:38PM
As one of the "little ladies" who fought tooth and nail to be paid what I earned, and not "pin money" rather than a "family wage" predicated on (a) every man being the sole support of a family and (b) every Girl [we were all Girls back then] either supported by her father or her husband and thus not "needing" a full wage, I take grave exception, as I did at the time, to that characterization. I don't want a ten lap head start; I just want a place at the starting line without anchors tied to both legs. However, I do agree that Ms. HavItAll seems to believe that she can be a full time mother AND a full time lawyer (or doctor, or soldier, or whatever) without actually working full time at either -- and she demands the same wages and benefits and promotions as those women who work the same hours to the same standards as the men.
Jerrypoodle| 1.27.13 @ 6:08PM
women get raped plenty by our own troops
R Martin| 1.25.13 @ 7:20AM
I know there are women of the left who read this site; perhaps they could help us out here. Why in the world would any normal woman want to be a combat soldier? Obama is appealing to some very small sliver of the population with this proposal. Who is in that sliver and how, exactly, will they help our military “grow even stronger”?
John2| 1.27.13 @ 4:24PM
"Why in the world would any normal woman want to be a combat soldier?"
For the easy question, thank you: normal women don't.
Jerrypoodle| 1.27.13 @ 6:08PM
lol...why would any MAN want to be a combat soldier?
Quartermaster| 1.28.13 @ 12:23PM
They are out there, and the country can be glad we've had them. That's not the issue and changing the subject solves nothing and sets you up for begging the question. What you are trying to defend is simple minded idiocy.
Pecos Pete| 1.25.13 @ 8:25AM
More people will die in future combat situations.
The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit to force the military to allow women to serve in combat units. The ACLU asserts that the policy that bars women from combat billets is “outdated” and discriminatory, and that women are denied promotion opportunities as a result.
On November 27, 2012 the American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of four individual plaintiffs and the Service Women’s Action Network, or SWAN. The defendant: LEON PANETTA, Secretary of Defense.
You can read the filing here:
http://www.aclu.org/files/asse.....awsuit.pdf
Connect the dots.
Minuteman78| 1.25.13 @ 8:42AM
Well, 40 years ago, they bitched and bitched and bitched until they got the right to murder their unborn children, now they get the opportunity to get themselves killed. Unfortunately, they'll wind up getting a lot of men killed as well, while they fiddle with their makeup and miss the sniper taking aim at them.
Robert| 1.26.13 @ 11:06PM
...not to mention asking the sniper to take a time out while they're on the rag.
Jerrypoodle| 1.27.13 @ 6:11PM
really stupid comment; you are a perfect example of the cerebral cortex being a failed adaptive mechanism in some people's DNA.
Quartermaster| 1.28.13 @ 12:25PM
Silly to one of your world view. A world view that is in few ways connected to reality.
Job| 1.25.13 @ 9:08AM
hmm in the modern military micro drones or radio controlled kids toys linked to iphones with an app will deliver micro/bullet sized bombs to their targets like some sniper that can navigate.
Job| 1.25.13 @ 9:43AM
lemme add, making smith and wesson obsolete, to that.
Bill8472| 1.25.13 @ 9:36AM
After all the arguments about upper body strength, careerism, unit cohesion, and so on, are made, the one truest fact of all remains:
A nation that allows its women to serve as troops in combat is a nation that has lost part of its claim to being civilized. It is uncivilized for women to fight in combat. Period. No matter what the women want, no matter what logic tells us about equality, no matter what. It's uncivilized.
Bob James| 1.25.13 @ 5:57PM
I once made this identical argument to a good friend (a Marine combat veteran, by the way).
His ascerbic response brought me up short: "No civilized nation allows the murder of 1 1/2 million of its own children in the womb every year."
I was forced to admit that our claim to being civilized is a most tenous one at that.
Jerrypoodle| 1.27.13 @ 6:12PM
what is uncivilized is your anachronistic view of life and women as equals in whatever they choose to pursue.
Quartermaster| 1.28.13 @ 12:27PM
Unless you can show that men and women are the same, as in interchangeable parts, then your silly argument fails. The facts on teh differences between men and women reduce your argument to the intentional idiocy it is.
C. Vernon Crisler | 1.25.13 @ 9:41AM
When women start getting blown away in combat, or subjected to depredations in Islamic propaganda films, I'm just going to play my violin. You voted for it, you deserve it.
Gary B| 1.25.13 @ 12:46PM
It's very tempting to think that way. It's like holding the door open for a woman in NYC. You don't know if she's going to thank you or spit on you. Don't have that problem here in Texas. Actual human beings live here.
fmm| 1.25.13 @ 1:07PM
Spit back.
Jerrypoodle| 1.27.13 @ 6:14PM
they already are getting blown away; do you ever read the newspapers? are you saying they could get treated worse by enemies than our own troops raping them?
Quartermaster| 1.28.13 @ 12:30PM
You need to quit smoking the wacky baccy. Rape is not the overwhelming thing either you or the loony feminists like to make it out as being. The few rapes that take place in the ranks pales beside being gang raped by islamists after they are captured. The Japs would have done exactly the same as well.
You really should quit. Every time yoy've posted on this thread you have revealed yourself to be a complete idiot.
Hardcard| 1.25.13 @ 9:42AM
It's all part of the transformation stupid did you ever sede those WWII newsreel films with the russian combat troopers in the trenches of stalingrad, wrapped in rags shouldering an AK-47 you could hardly tell what gender the soldiers were who were fighting for the motherland, that's the ultimate goal of obamadingo and his regime. What's wrong with you dudes and dudettes? We are all commardes now!!!!
Bob James| 1.25.13 @ 6:01PM
Not that it hinders your point at all, but those soldati in rags would have been shouldering primarily Mosin-Nagant 1891/30s. Mikhail Kalashnikov didn't perfect his little gem until after the war.
Johnimo| 1.26.13 @ 4:38AM
Good point, Bob .... but give Hardcard credit for the correct spirit of the point he's trying to make. We are all comrades now, even though comrade Barry doesn't want us using AK-47s.
Hardcard| 1.25.13 @ 9:43AM
sorry "see"
TLP| 1.25.13 @ 1:24PM
This is why you Lose.
NObama2012Please| 1.25.13 @ 9:59AM
I'm a woman and I'll tell you they must be bull-dikes if they want to be on the front lines. I have no other explanation. Once again the whole world has to turn upside down because of a very small percentage of complainers.
Butch| 1.25.13 @ 2:19PM
I've had the same thought. Rush is talking right now about how much more important the "gay rights" agenda is to Obama than we all thought it was. If there is a better way to eviscerate the military than letting the gays take it over, I don't know what it is.
John2| 1.27.13 @ 4:27PM
The Little Boy President is working on it, don't you doubt it. Soon enough, you are going to find out what is a better way to eviscerate the military.
You gotta wait awhile, but it's coming.
Jerrypoodle| 1.27.13 @ 6:16PM
you have no other explanation because you are of low intelligence.
Quartermaster| 1.28.13 @ 12:32PM
I don't see you offering any possibilities. Low IQ most likely as you are a leftard.
Von Mises Jr| 1.25.13 @ 10:26AM
I think that we should have paraplegics and Mongoloid troops to make it fair to those with disabilities. The ACLU should demand wheelchair accessible ramps on battleships and stealth bombers.
We already have gay marriages for the Military and Islamist such as Major Nidal Hasan signing up. So what is wrong with recruiting at the Special Olympics?
Of course I am being facetious. But sometimes it takes reducing or expanding arguments to the ridiculous to realize how absurd some arguments really are.
BackToBasics| 1.25.13 @ 10:30AM
When women are taken prisoner and tortured and raped it will NOT be broadcast by the mainstream media. Doing so "might" raise the anger of women towards the federal government. That last thing democrats want to do is make women angry at them. They are more afraid of that than anything!
JD| 1.25.13 @ 12:30PM
Don't be ridiculous.
Any suffering by any member of our military is always blamed on the Right. Whatever conflict there is is the Right's fault, remember? The Left is looking forward to the increased problems suffered by our military as a result of this, because they will be able to blame the Right for them.
The Right cannot possibly blame the Left's changes to the military, because rolling back those changes would be an unthinkable reversion to the stone age.
BackToBasics| 1.25.13 @ 8:26PM
I am not ridiculous at all. There are some things of such a serious nature that even "blaming the Republicans" will not work. Such cases are covered up as much as possible.
You are the one who is ignoring the fact that anything of a VERY serious nature such as death in Behghazi and possible future torture and rape of women military prisoners that makes democrats look bad is covered up as much as possible.
What do you think, that if women in combat situations are taken prisoner and raped and tortured that the media will cover this extensively?
The left is looking forward to making our military weaker with the move of having women in front-line combat. Relatively minor or complicated problems problems they can get away with blaming on Republicans. Death, torture or rape is not complicated and is something everyone can understand. It will be VERY minimally covered if it makes democrats look bad!
One thing the left is looking forward to in this and just about every policy they enact is weakening the military by the death of a thousand cuts AND blaming these problems on Republicans. But torture and rape of women military prisoners do not fall into this category so they cannot get away with it by blaming Republicans. And I find it surprising that you do not realize the truth of my general statement that democrats are VERY afraid of angering women.
BackToBasics| 1.25.13 @ 9:06PM
I was writing my first post with the idea that this is what would happen if democrats were in control as they mostly are now and I seriously doubt Republicans will never win the presidency again.
I think that on this site it goes without saying that if Republicans were in control all atrocities and problems great or small would be reported on to the max.
BackToBasics| 1.25.13 @ 10:03PM
Corr - ....I seriously doubt the Republics will EVER win the preesidency again.
UpChuck.Liberals| 1.25.13 @ 3:10PM
What the Propaganda Arm of the Regime will do is whine that "We must do more to protect our women on the front lines". Hey fools, you put them there. Women that have tried to get through the training admit that they're not physically capable of it. They also admit that they suffer greater physical damage to their bodies as a result than do men. But yet in the great push to have women equal the left will make excuses and weaken us all.
BackToBasics| 1.25.13 @ 8:39PM
I agree that democrats will misdirect and deflect from the real problems posed by women fighting in frontline combat. But they will not report about atrocities if the democrats are in control except for possible a couple hours of news cycle.
Now if Republicans are in control that is a different story. Of course all things would be reported on out in the open then, but that is part of my original point.
KennesawJack| 1.25.13 @ 10:32AM
Let's see now. Female 1st Lt. platoon leader. Platoon is all male except for her. Platoon is on patrol in enemy territory. Point man reports probable ambush ahead. Platoon leader disregards point, orders platoon forward. Is it fragging time, anyone?
fmm| 1.25.13 @ 1:10PM
It is a fact that in WWII many platoon leaders were killed from the back. This may be an example of when that would happen again.
Kwan| 1.25.13 @ 11:02AM
Everything the left does has a political motive attached to it. This women-in-combat thing no doubt has to do with the left's big campaign for equality. Of course what the left really wants to achieve is equality in the distribution of wealth and property through confiscation by the central government. This is the left's real goal everything else is just psychologically conditioning the population to believe that everything in society must be equal. This can realistically only be achieved by an authoritarian central government regulating every aspect of the daily life of the citizens.
Anthony| 1.25.13 @ 11:15AM
We deserve what's in store for America if we remain docile and passive to this onslaught to American values and exceptionalism.
Gary B| 1.25.13 @ 12:48PM
Maybe this will work. Maybe Muslim radicals will laugh themselves to death when this gets approved.
Quartermaster| 1.28.13 @ 12:35PM
That would pretty much be our only hope.
Petronius| 1.25.13 @ 11:26AM
Leon has a problem. We have a catastrophe staring us in the face. Consider that no unreconstructed Man with any sense will risk anything defending this rotten despotic government which has only scorn for him, and that the remainder of the metrosexual male populace is so weak they can't punch through a wet Kleenex, or so fat they can't tie their shoe laces. And Israel has paid dearly for having women in the lines before. Their integrated units were targeted for that reason and the casualties on both sides were on a par with engagements like Antietam. And I hear West Point is teaching conflict resolution when they aren't telling the Cadets that their enemy is US.
vtwin| 1.25.13 @ 12:08PM
Two reasons we are where we are.
1) The draft was replaced with an all “volunteer” military thus making military service a career as opposed to an obligation and if you’re are expecting to make a career in the military you have to make rank in the military and you make rank faster when serving in a combat role than a support role. It’s not JFKs “what you can do for your country“ anymore now it’s’ Reagan’s all about me.
2) Bush’s post bombing campaign strategy for Iraq was to have our troops drive around Baghdad in their HumVees until they found an IED making another popular American war yet another unpopular American war leaving the nation with too few male “volunteers.”
Drunken Sailor| 1.25.13 @ 12:34PM
Your post isn't even in the same realm as reality but your too uniformed about military matters to know that.
Sometimes its better to just keep your mouth shut. Today is your day.
Drunken Sailor| 1.25.13 @ 12:34PM
sorry should have been mis-informed.
TLP| 1.25.13 @ 1:35PM
So, I guess jackass is for a Reinstatement of the Draft.
Right?
Cause, that's what it sounds like to me.
TLP| 1.25.13 @ 1:36PM
He should join the Air Force.
He'd make a perfect Titless WAF.
Drunken Sailor| 1.25.13 @ 2:25PM
I think they would kick his ass and having him in the toolroom looking for a squeegee sharpener in no time.
vtwin| 1.25.13 @ 2:56PM
Sure, we wouldn’t have rush into war with Iraq had all American’s sons been subject to service.
We don’t as large a standing Army as we needed during the Cold War so we could shorten the length of service to maybe one year or less. Might be useful training for conservatives unhappy with the outcome of say some future election?
Drunken Sailor| 1.25.13 @ 3:47PM
Ok, first off, you're an idiot.
Secondly the quality of our miltary improved when the draft was rescinded. Why you may ask? Because very few Liberal assholes were willing to put their country before themselves and volunteer.
And thirdly. You obviously have no clue what you are talking about. One year and Uncle Sam wouldn't even be getting his money back he spent on training. Let me give you a example. I went to 8 weeks of boot camp, 12 weeks of inital Hospital Corps school for basic medical training, then anothe 12 weeks of training at lovely Camp Johnson to learn how to play with the Marines and for some advanced trauma training. Then finally off to my first permanent command. Counting the school and roughly 2 weeks leave that alone made up 34 weeks out of that first year.
See the problem? Uncle Sam would only get roughly another 18 weeks out of me if it was mandatory for only one year.
And that doesn't even mention that our first command was a training hospital for another year.
Many schools were longer than mine.
vtwin| 1.25.13 @ 4:54PM
I disagree. I think both you and the country benefited far more than it cost for your training during the first 34 weeks and I think this would have been true even if the Navy had let you go on the 35th week. Look around, High School alone is not enough of a start for too many of our young men not going on to collage but the training (medical, computers, electronics, mechanics …) and experience could and does lead to opportunities when these men leave the services.
Drunken Sailor| 1.25.13 @ 5:27PM
You missed the whole point. If the military is going to spend the money to train you then they should get some of that money back in service. If they had let me go in 35 weeks, I still would have been wet behind the ears and they would have simply been out the money.
1 year is to short and the draft lowers the effectivness, level and efficiency of our military by having people in that don't want to be there.
It's a proven fact.
KennesawJack| 1.25.13 @ 6:08PM
vtwin, I entered the Air Force in June, 1964. Finished Basic in late August. Sent to Syracuse University first week in September to study Russian. Total immersion language training for 9 months. Finished in May, 1965 - one year after I enlisted. How would one year of military service from me have benefited my Country? Short answer. I wouldn't have. Like Sailor says, you have no idea what you're talking about.
Anthony| 1.25.13 @ 2:01PM
"It's not JKF's' "what you can do for your country"anymore now it's Reagan's all about me".
What an absolutely moronic segue, even for an ass like you vtwin.
In the first instance, the "volunteer" army was created partially in response to lefty reprobates who didn't want to be drafted, so once their precious asses were safe, America was free to field an army of willing combatants.
Proof positive, once instituted, college riots against the war disappeared. Pamper lefty asses were free to pursue drugs and sex.
Then, you impune Reagan over a military policy instituted by leftist radical egalitarians that the military brass have been forced to swallow.
It's not Reagans fault that combat experience equates to faster rank, and so, even if unfair, your solution is to expose women to these types of situations just to get a higher rank and more pay??
Change the damn policy, like every other assinine lefty change.
You are a real piece of work vtwin. I can't wait to see the Oakland gangs overrun you S.F. a-holes.
vtwin| 1.25.13 @ 3:20PM
Wrong, the upper and middle class, both conservative and liberal, that could offer better options for their sons than risking ones life in a another stupid war are the ones that ended the draft.
Wrong, I didn’t “impugn Reagan over a military policy.” It’s a fact you reach a certain rank (enlisted or officer) by a certain age or you are out. What I “impugn Reagan over” was for instilling a belief in Americans or at least conservative Americans that you have NO obligation to either your country or your fellow citizen. Example; conservative have no problem with the fact the NONE of Romney five sons served a day in the military or that Romney “thinks it is fair” he is taxed at a lower rate than his fellow Americans earning significantly less.
Drunken Sailor| 1.25.13 @ 5:28PM
No, we don't have any problem with the fact that Romney's sons choose not to serve. Just as we have no problem you did not or that Obama's daughters will not. The military life is not for everyone.
Petronius| 1.26.13 @ 1:06PM
Nobody owes You anything! Get out of My way!
philippic| 1.27.13 @ 1:35PM
sweet! obligation is conflated with fairness!
knucklehead.
Russel| 1.25.13 @ 9:43PM
Never considered the Oakland gangs Anthony , tho that might work . They could move into those $960 / sq. ft . joints and be quite comfortable . No , since the dipshits running our defense's won't construct any sort of missile shield , I'm hoping a stray Nork missile lands on S.F. .. Whatever works , we can't depend on Ma Nature .
Akaky| 1.25.13 @ 2:38PM
Women in the infantry will last until the politicians responsible for this idea have to explain to their constituents why the girl voted most likely to succeed by her high school class was publicly raped and beheaded on YouTube by an al-Qaeda thug who didn't get the memo that doing something like that would get him in trouble with the women's movement.
JmsA| 1.25.13 @ 8:42PM
That was very well put, Akaky.
Skippy| 1.25.13 @ 3:29PM
You guys obviously didn't raise many daughters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leigh_Ann_Hester
My lil' gal led 20 ugly GI's for 6 mos in the 'Heart of Darkness", Panj'wai.
Last year!
She was their Boss, and was chosen due to her combat experience and icy veins.
Everybody wanted to work for her, but most weren't tough enough and got left at Leatherneck.
Her BSM speaks of her competence an leadership providing security 100 miles from anywhere.
Sgt Hester and her comradettes are a rarity, but valuable nonetheless.
If your sons aren't up to being led by a woman half their size who will kick each of their asses in turn, there are thousands of unfilled jobs here at home.
Would he be too macho to be a NICU RN, or just not quite smart enough?
Quit selling half the population short, and stop being such morons.
Drunken Sailor| 1.25.13 @ 4:09PM
Skippy you got it all wrong and you under state your daughters rarity. My hats off to her, she is a rare breed. Unfortunately the majority are not like that. And I am speaking from expeirence. Served with and for some damned fine Navy and Marine women but I also knew that some just couldn't hold up to the physical rigors. I don't know of to many career military men that have any problem being lead by a woman.
Nothing against your daughter but they were riding in HumVee's, not taking the shoeshine express. Big difference in physical exertion.
The problem is we do not want to see them die.
It really is that simple.
My hats off to you and your daughter. You for raising such a fine young woman and her for going above and beyond. Your daughter is the exception, not the rule.
Skippy| 1.25.13 @ 4:39PM
Rare certainly does describe her. And I agree about modern women in general; she has recruited several women and only two have been half the soldier she is, the rest failed miserably, even at cake MOS's.
Intel agent; MP; Combat Engineer; all her MOS's involve being adjacent to danger, and all have been open to females for years. They are not "front-line" infantry-type jobs per se, but when a real woman gets shot at, she shoots back.
Straight and true.
Given her experiences, I too worry about gals getting in gunfights, but when her turret gunner was KIA, her Sgt. suited her up(at her request)and she manned Ma Deuce for 9 months and 300 missions outside the wire.
Turns out the Iraqis had some worryin' to do then, Lucy.
Since OBL met his fate, every yahoo dude wants to be a SEAL, and we all know only a fraction of a % actually will qualify.
Let women compete as well, and the cream will rise as it always does.
Maybe your cheerleader can make SFC at 27 too.
As Michael Madsen said to Ben Kingsley in "Species", after BK says "we made it female because we thought it would be more placid", MM says "You guys don't get out much, do you?"
Drunken Sailor| 1.25.13 @ 4:53PM
LOL, no cheerleader in the family but my oldest son wants to join the Army later this year. If he can reign in his mouth he should be fine. Nice to know he has women like your daughter watching his back.
Skippy| 1.25.13 @ 5:10PM
All God's blessings to your family, brother.
Drunken Sailor| 1.25.13 @ 5:24PM
And to you and your's
Quartermaster| 1.28.13 @ 12:41PM
Stay away from the PC military. No young man should even think of going in now.
hrgfue | 1.25.13 @ 7:52PM
NFL,NBA,2013 Fashion kickoff for u
JmsA| 1.25.13 @ 8:51PM
Good comments all around, including those of vtwin, for in his/her zeal to impress, those truly in the know, kindly shared their experiences with the rest of us. To them, and those who continue to serve, thank you.
pie-eyed piper| 1.26.13 @ 3:07AM
Any sane person knows from experience and personal observation that no woman can compete with a man in trials of strength, whether it be on a battlefield or a field of sports (ladies compete with ladies in sports, not men). It's just common sense, which of course liberals do not have. In that case it is best to refer to data, such as the report of the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces (report date November 15, 1992).
The report reveals: "The average female Army recruit is 4.8 inches shorter, 31.7 pounds lighter, has 37.4 fewer pounds of muscle, and 5.7 more pounds of fat than the average male recruit. She has only 55 percent of the upper-body strength and 72 percent of the lower-body strength. An Army study of 124 men and 186 women done in 1988 found that women are more than twice as likely to suffer leg injuries and nearly five times as likely to suffer fractures as men." In addition: "Women's aerobic capacity is significantly lower, meaning they cannot carry as much as far as fast as men, and they are more susceptible to fatigue. In terms of physical capability, the upper five percent of women are at the level of the male median. The average 20-to-30 year-old woman has the same aerobic capacity as a 50 year-old man."
pie-eyed piper| 1.26.13 @ 3:12AM
A lot more information in this vein can be seen on a webpage by Fred Reed titled "Women in Combat," if you care to google it (I see that this forum won't accept links). I think the picture of the camouflaged lady soldier at the top of that webpage gives a new meaning to "a roll in the hay." But she does look cute, bless her.
All this information is of course at the fingertips of those in the Pentagon. They simply choose to ignore it in the interest of political correctness, the force that is bringing American society, indeed Western Civilization, to its knees.
RCV| 1.26.13 @ 12:38PM
Welcome to the 21st Century, Mr. Thornberry.
Petronius| 1.26.13 @ 1:12PM
Civilization died here 40 years ago when the Supreme Court allowed the slaughter of infants.
Controse| 1.26.13 @ 7:24PM
Amen. Abortion is murder, legal murder. Once murder is legal can anything be illegal?
Controse| 1.26.13 @ 7:23PM
Demoralize the military. Debase the currency. Ignore the Constitution. Deplore the exalted. Exalt the deplorable. Destroy the country. Sounds pretty exceptional to me.
philippic| 1.27.13 @ 1:32PM
hmmmmm...who's keeping the stats so we all can track the rate of female participation in infantry forces? diversity and equal opportunity demand that this approximate either the female percentage in the armed forces or the general population overall. time to start tracking fairness.