I'm about to write something that many... most.... all of you? Are not going to like.
First, let me give you some background.
I spent 14 years and change in uniform.
I commanded or supervised women and men... in Combat Arms units and administrative units.
I spent 9 years and change enlisted; 4 years and change commissioned.
I was Recon, Infantry, JAG, Adjutant General (paper pusher/postal) and Force Modernization (Putting the Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle on the ground for 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry.)
Most of my experience was enlisted Combat Arms. I know a thing or two about it.
I had VERY high hopes that, once appointed to the position of Secretary of Defense, that Secretary of Defense, James Mattis (GEN, USMC (Ret)) would reverse this insanity and get women out of ground combat.
I am disappointed.
(NOTE: I have been ordered to remove any reference to the source of information concerning specific women in the military. I have done so.)
WOMEN who have graduated from whatever they call the Armor Officer's Basic Course these days are on THEIR way to Ft. Hood where unsuspecting Abrams Tank platoons ARE going to wake up one morning... soon... and discover they've been thrown to the politically correct wolves.
THEY are no more capable of leading troops in combat than THEY are capable of mastering the art of levitation.
Their new female platoon leaders will not be as strong as they are. THEY did not have to pass the same levels of PT tests as their troops did. THEY will not be able to carry as much as far as they do. THEY will not, statistically, shoot as well as the troops they lead do. Can THEY toss 120 mm main tank armament cannon shells around? What about breaking (repairing) tank track? Can THEY drag THEIR 210-pound gunner out of the top of the turret after their Abrams has taken a hit... is on fire... and he's unconscious?
And THEY are supposed to be the ones to lead them into combat.
Which brings me to this.
Remember Las Vegas a few days ago?
But in this era of politically correct gender equality, it begs the question: Why?
And more to the point, weaknesses of women in combat on the ground aside... how is this sort of instinct and reaction NOT going to happen in a Combat situation?
At the risk of other personnel. At the risk of the mission itself.
THIS is what we have to look forward to.
I've been missing the whining from the Social Justice Warriors who demand more than equality between the genders. Where are they? Why aren't THOSE women complaining about the heroic efforts of THESE men in saving these women who, under the rules of the current PC gender equity demanded of the military, SHOULD have been required to SAVE THEMSELVES?
Under the rules of civilized society, what these men did that which would be expected. And what they did IS going to happen in combat.
As a result, men ARE going to die, not because of any enemy... but because they are willing to risk their lives for women they don't even know... merely because they ARE women.
Tell me again: how can anyone look at the idiocy of women in ground combat and not be convinced that the entire idea of women in a foxhole is the height of idiocy... the height of insanity... and it WILL cause blood to be spilled that otherwise would not happen.|
Just sayin'.
First, let me give you some background.
I spent 14 years and change in uniform.
I commanded or supervised women and men... in Combat Arms units and administrative units.
I spent 9 years and change enlisted; 4 years and change commissioned.
I was Recon, Infantry, JAG, Adjutant General (paper pusher/postal) and Force Modernization (Putting the Bradley Cavalry Fighting Vehicle on the ground for 1st Squadron, 11th Armored Cavalry.)
Most of my experience was enlisted Combat Arms. I know a thing or two about it.
I had VERY high hopes that, once appointed to the position of Secretary of Defense, that Secretary of Defense, James Mattis (GEN, USMC (Ret)) would reverse this insanity and get women out of ground combat.
I am disappointed.
(NOTE: I have been ordered to remove any reference to the source of information concerning specific women in the military. I have done so.)
WOMEN who have graduated from whatever they call the Armor Officer's Basic Course these days are on THEIR way to Ft. Hood where unsuspecting Abrams Tank platoons ARE going to wake up one morning... soon... and discover they've been thrown to the politically correct wolves.
THEY are no more capable of leading troops in combat than THEY are capable of mastering the art of levitation.
Their new female platoon leaders will not be as strong as they are. THEY did not have to pass the same levels of PT tests as their troops did. THEY will not be able to carry as much as far as they do. THEY will not, statistically, shoot as well as the troops they lead do. Can THEY toss 120 mm main tank armament cannon shells around? What about breaking (repairing) tank track? Can THEY drag THEIR 210-pound gunner out of the top of the turret after their Abrams has taken a hit... is on fire... and he's unconscious?
And THEY are supposed to be the ones to lead them into combat.
Which brings me to this.
Remember Las Vegas a few days ago?
News
Vegas shooting survivor describes being saved by marine she just met
Woman saved by marine during Las Vegas shooting
By Mary Claire Patton - Digital Content Curator
SAN ANTONIO - Renee Cesario survived the horrific Las Vegas shooting and is giving credit to the marine, Brendan, she met at the Route 91 Harvest Festival just two hours earlier.Or this one?
Mystery hero who shielded woman in Las Vegas revealed, went back to save more strangers as bullets flew
October 5, 2017
The hero whose viral photo showed him shielding a woman with his own body during the Las Vegas shooting has been revealed as U.S. Army soldier Matthew Cobos.
As gunshots rained down all around them, Cobos threw himself on top of a terrified woman to protect her from getting shot. Afterward, Cobos and the woman ran to safety.
But in this era of politically correct gender equality, it begs the question: Why?
And more to the point, weaknesses of women in combat on the ground aside... how is this sort of instinct and reaction NOT going to happen in a Combat situation?
At the risk of other personnel. At the risk of the mission itself.
THIS is what we have to look forward to.
I've been missing the whining from the Social Justice Warriors who demand more than equality between the genders. Where are they? Why aren't THOSE women complaining about the heroic efforts of THESE men in saving these women who, under the rules of the current PC gender equity demanded of the military, SHOULD have been required to SAVE THEMSELVES?
Under the rules of civilized society, what these men did that which would be expected. And what they did IS going to happen in combat.
As a result, men ARE going to die, not because of any enemy... but because they are willing to risk their lives for women they don't even know... merely because they ARE women.
Tell me again: how can anyone look at the idiocy of women in ground combat and not be convinced that the entire idea of women in a foxhole is the height of idiocy... the height of insanity... and it WILL cause blood to be spilled that otherwise would not happen.|
Just sayin'.
2 comments:
Your sentiments echo that of Col. Hackworth and as a former 11B I am in total agreement with them
I wish it wasn't true. I wish the women that got talked into this nonsense were wonder woman types.
But those of us who've strapped it on know better.
And if we know better... we MUST speak up... no matter how many noses... particularly of the ignorant variety... get bent out of shape.
Thanks for stopping by.
Post a Comment