My readers generally know I am opposed to women in combat. Here's the Cliff Notes:
For a wide variety of supportable reasons, I'm really opposed to women in the military at all.
If you're a female, I want you to meet or exceed EVERY standard a male soldier must meet or exceed to serve. If you can't, I don't want you serving. If you get pregnant, you are pregnant voluntarily, and therefore non-deployable and I don't want you serving.
If you're gay, I don't want to know it. If I know it, I don't want you serving.
But my concept of the military isn't the furtherance of whichever minority cause dejour we're thinking about this week.
If you're white, brown, green or have horns coming out of your heads, if you're an American or here legally when you enlist and you can meet the standards, I want you serving.
Deerbow's take on the issue nails it. He's a BLACKFIVE blogger who runs it all down.
Diversity is Stupidity....
"I like Marines, because being a Marine is serious business. We're not a social club or a fraternal organization and we don't pretend to be one. We're a brotherhood of 'warriors,' nothing more, nothing less, pure and simple. We are in the ass-kicking business, and unfortunately, these days business is good ... As Marines, our message to our foes has always been essentially the same. 'We own this side of the street! Threaten my country or our allies and we will come over to your side of the street, burn your hut down, and whisper in your ear 'can you hear me now?' And then secure your heartbeat." --Colonel James M. "Mike" LoweLet us begin again....
I know that all of us here at BlackFive have expressed our views regarding this really rather silly notion that females, in order to "belong" in the military, need to be allowed to serve in the Combat Arms branches. We have all waxed eloquent regarding what our views are. There is now a great leap backward that is coming, along with the "girls get Ranger Tabs too" movement. This is evidently, far from being a "dead" issue; however, it may actually turn out to be a "dead" issue not long from now...
This is weapons grade stupidity....
Just as the U.S. military is indoctrinating troops to accept open gays in their ranks, a federal commission is pressing the Pentagon to make the force more diverse by, among other ideas, opening infantry and armor units to women.
With the Military Leadership Diversity Commission’s report out this month, its leaders have briefed Deputy Defense Secretary William J. Lynn and plan to deliver its 162-page report to every member of Congress.
The commission says it wants the military to resemble the ethnic makeup of America. It is urging the Army, Navy, Marine Corps and Air Force to “validate” the standards — such as education, test scores, criminal records and drug use — that disqualify large numbers of blacks and Hispanics.WHOOP! WHOOP! The Deebow P.C. Bovine Scatology Decoder Ring just went bat guano crazy. Let's see what the codewords are here; "validate" = "lower," and this (according to the commission, somehow only applies to minorities). How tremendously awesome.
But let's examine those four "standards" that they mention to start with (and believe me, I am just getting started). As a Former Senior Non-Com, I can say that I want soldiers who understand how to fire that Javelin Missile, can prove it on a written test or practical exam that I administer, don't have a penchant for stealing the missile and selling it to a terrorist, nor are they smokin' the wacky tobacky while trying to use it.
And believe me, I think everyone can agree that these standards should apply whether you are black, white, tall, thin, short, fat, male, female, Asian, Hispanic, a trained monkey, small dog, or Marvin the Martian....
More:
Combat is the the one place where political correctness has NO place.
It must be a complete meritocracy.
Like everyone else who joined, I recognized that I was giving up certain rights that so many others take for granted.
I'm making up for that now, to be sure.
That said, the military is not intended to be available for social experimentation.
If women don't like it, then they don't have to join.
If gays don't like it, then they don't have to join.
But the mission... the mission... the mission... must always come first.
And these things, in the middle of 3 simultaneous wars, are a distraction we don't need and cannot afford.
Read... and heed.
.
5 comments:
I assume women that pass all the tests are welcome?
If not, then my suggestion to men is the same as your suggestion - if men don't like equally capable women joining the military then men don't have to join.
And I want a scientific review of what "capable" means? Perhaps if we add a "flexibility test" - all applicants must be able to do the splits, touch their palms on the ground, and stand on their toes for long periods of time. Somehow, I'm sure, there is a weapon that absolutely requires those attributes (or we can design one).
Of course not.
You're not paying attention.
"Equally capable women," the minuscule number there are, will unnecessarily cost us hundreds of millions of dollars, as they already have, and not increase our combat capabilities one iota... in fact the history speaks to just the opposite.
Pregnancy makes women roughly 3 times more undeployable then men. Every non-deployable pregnant woman degrade unit capability... and screws the guy or non-pregnant woman who has to take their place to be deployed into a combat environment.
ALL applicants have to be able to run 2 miles in the same amount of time. All applicants have to carry 120 pounds 10 miles in the same amount of time. All applicants must be able to serve months out in the field without ANY hygiene concerns... just to start with a few.
These are what men deployed to combat units every day happen to do.
They don't require special barracks, or guards, or special treatment because for 9 months, and months after that, they're not capable of doing their jobs because of their child.
I'm cursed with knowing what men do in combat, and what is needed in combat.
Those cheering the loudest for women in combat seem to be the ones knowing the least.
Make it cost neutral, and mission neutral, and effectiveness neutral, and we can talk.
Otherwise, this is just more bullshit social engineering that has no place in the combat environment so leftist talking heads who wouldn't be caught dead enlisting in the military (Clinton and Obama come to mind) can get all warm and fuzzy about what THEY did "for" (actually, TO) the military.
Obama hasn't and won't spilled any blood for this country. He doesn't know the difference between C-rations and CSpan. Those who support his views for the most part (Murray and Cantwell, for example) are the same.
So, to directly answer your question, no.
Raw sexism. (I thought that was dead?)
Yeah, so did I. But all the evidence to the contrary, they still want women in... and they still want to experiment with the lives of others.
Who thought politically correct sexism would be the next big thing, to further a social agenda no matter how many people get killed because of it?
Sigh.
Blood will tell. And maybe, just maybe, when this program has spilled enough of it, they'll reconsider.
Not that I want to rehash an argument that I thought was resolved a couple decades ago but...
Just from a democracy pov - if 51% the people (women) want one-armed-midget-drag-queens in the military THEN we'd have to make the military comfortable for OAMDQs.
If the OAMDQs caused America to be overrun by terrorists (or whoever it is we're fighting - Libya?) then that's history's way of saying democracies don't work - BUT we signed up for a democracy so get used to it.
Post a Comment