Tag Archives: Afghanistan

Careerists v. Mother Nature

In continuing the discussion of opening combat roles to women, we have the argument that women are already there, deploying and fighting in hot zones.  This is true, and it gives us a record of the problems we are already experiencing as a result.

Wasted:  Valuable Time, Training, and Resources

I talk about several of the female-only issues for which extra accommodations have to be made in my previous article.  We are not equal except in our rights under our Constitutional Law.  Nature has no regard for equality, and each one of us is born uniquely different from each other.  We are diverse and dissimilar in our talents, physical aspects, intellect and emotions, and the sexes are inherently different.  We know, for example, that women are much more prone to certain types of infections.  For a woman on patrol, setting up an ambush, or, as the infantry do, living in abandoned buildings with no running water and sleeping in close quarters, hygiene is a constant problem.  A urinary tract infection can quickly become a kidney infection (debilitating in itself) and then kidney failure if left unchecked.  Suddenly a woman needs to be evacuated for a problem that has nothing to do with combat and to which men are not susceptible.

Then there’s pregnancy.  Margaret Wente writes, “One study of a brigade operating in Iraq found that female soldiers were evacuated at three times the rate of male soldiers – and that 74 percent of them were evacuated for pregnancy-related issues.”

Women leaving the combat zone three times as much as men!  And mostly due to shacking up and getting pregnant.  It costs something like a million dollars per individual to get trained through bootcamp and additionally to be made ready for deployment.  Those are taxpayer dollars spent on someone who has to turn around and leave the combat zone to have a baby (for which our tax dollars also pay), having nothing to do with combat.

Changing Our Best Instincts: Protecting Women, Mothering Children

We know that rape is a tool of torture for the already savage enemy we’re fighting.  In one TV interview a woman suggested that if women are willing to take that risk, we should let them.  She also absurdly claimed that men are raped as much as women when captured, which is patently false.  But the idea that men shouldn’t worry any more about women in battle goes against the very best primal male instinct.  In every country from Canada to Israel where women are in combat (and in American units where women are in theater), the men will tell you they are more protective of the women.  It’s different from men’s protection of each other, and it distracts from mission completion.  The pro-WICs would have men thwart this wonderful and thoroughly ingrained instinct. A world in which men don’t feel a strong need to protect women when they’re in the most dangerous and hostile of environments would be a nightmare.  We would rightly call those men brutes.

We’re also thwarting mothers’ nurturing instincts.  Women are already training to kill and leaving their children to deploy, even when they are the sole caregiver (turning care over namely to grandparents).  This sets a bad precedent and hurts children.  There will always be war, and it’s bad enough for fathers to leave their children to fight necessarily, but to allow mothers to choose this path over motherhood is bad for everyone.  There are many noble capacities in which women with children can fight for this country, such as administrative jobs stateside.  We don’t need to deploy mothers to battle, we shouldn’t.

The Career-Hungry

A small handful of high-ranking females have instigated this policy change in order to advance their own careers.  In this interview, Anu Bhagwati, a former Captain, complains about women not being able to promote to certain ranks, claims that women aren’t getting proper recognition for action in combat (a claim also made here), and that it’s harder for them to get combat-injury-related benefits from the VA.  Regarding the latter, I know females who are receiving combat-injury-related benefits, so if there are some who are not receiving them but should, the bureaucratic, inefficient, fraud-riddled VA should be confronted.  Administrative changes could certainly be considered to take care of veterans as we should – regardless of sex – for injuries sustained in battle thus far.  As for recognition of action, this is also a bureaucratic aspect that can be addressed through the chain of command without changing the policies on women in combat units.  And finally as to rank, cry me a river.  The military is about preparing for an executing war, not advancing your career at the cost of readiness for war.

The careerists are also on the hook for the double standard that we currently have for the sexes, which inherently lowers the standards overall.  Even if one standard is imposed, it’s likely it will be an overall lower standard.  As the Center for Military Readiness points out, “The same advocates who demand ‘equal opportunities’ in combat are the first to demand unequal, gender-normed standards to make it ‘fair.’”  Enormous pressure from Washington is already on the military brass to fill quotas of race and sex, and the higher they get, the more politically motivated the brass’ decisions.  Whereas imposing one higher standard would in fact result in fewer women serving in these roles, the political pressure to prove diversity will result in more unqualified women (and men) attaining positions for which men are more qualified.  But go against the diversity status quo dictated by Washington and you can kiss your rank and career goodbye.  The purges have already begun.

The word discriminate has several meanings, including “to distinguish particular features, to be discerning; showing insight and understanding,” and its synonyms are “wise, perceptive, prudent.”  We should absolutely be discriminating in our criteria for war preparation, and the lives of our men in uniform depend on us taking an honest, discerning look at who adds to military readiness and who detracts from it.  We should absolutely not open the combat units to the myriad problems we face already with women deploying to the theatre of war.

This is part 2 in a series.

Read Part 1: The Problem(s) of Women in Combat

Part 2: Careerists V. Mother Nature

Read Part 3: Women in Combat Units Vs. the Military’s Sexual Assault Problem

Read Part 4: Let the Men Be Heroes, Because They Are

The Globe & Mail:  Women in Combat: Let’s Get Real

National Geographic : 8 Other Nations That Send Women to Combat

Center for Military Readiness:  Seven Reasons Why Women-in-Combat Diversity Will Degrade Tough Training Standards

Hot Air: Some advice on women in combat from a female veteran

The Washington Post: Most Americans back women in combat roles, poll says

aristotle_000


Decriers of Pee

We train, we train, we train.  Then we finally get to the combat zone.  We make contact with the enemy and…in the case of a couple of warfighters, we pee.  We show our contempt for the enemy so worthy of it.  They, after all, vow the destruction of the bastion of freedom, the United States, and have a fetish for rape, torture and stoning.

To hear Hillary Clinton decry their behavior you would think she was talking about someone who massacred 45 unarmed people at Fort Hood while screaming “Allu akhbar!!!”  You would think she was calling for a full investigation that would turn up, say, how Major Hassan had a long record of pushing Islam and jihad; how no one who could have flagged him would dare because they’d be branded a racist.

The whole country decries these Marines who, though acting in poor taste, had just done their duty by killing the enemy who has no regard for the Geneva conventions or Rules of Engagement whatsoever.  Decriers who said nothing but “we can’t rush to judgment” on violent extremist murderer Nidal Hassan.

Well I deployed to Iraq, and my service there made a difference to those women and children and citizens who were used to being terrorized by Sadaam and his regime.

But why should I fight, why should anyone who’s willing to give their life for this country do so when this is what they’re going to get?

Every single movie or show that portrays the Iraq war depicts psychotics and wimps – from “Brothers” to you name it.  The only movie that depicts Marines as they are in battle was “Battle: Los Angeles” and in that the enemy were aliens.  There’s a double standard for women, but the only good movie that depicts female Marines as decent, moral fighters is “The Marine” which is a propaganda piece against DADT.  The NCIS show that has the ex-rapper playing the scholar of Islam, telling all the violent Muslim perps that they’re not following the true Islam, and where the Marines are usually the criminals in the cases.

We face the modern Nazis of our time, Muslim extremists and their defenders, the Liberal Left.  They advocate for non-citizens more than citizens, criminals more than those who obey the law.   Their primary weapons political correctness and race-baiting.  The libertarians tell us Sharia can’t exist here if we stick to the Constitution, while we have a Jihadist in our local jail here in NHC who put out 2 $5000 hits on witnesses against him.  Will the libertarians wait for the nice local Jihadist to abide by the Constitution and not plan murder?  Why should any cop or sheriff fight for what’s right?  Why should they protect you and me when if they show a little too much zeal, empty two magazines instead of one, they’ll have a public media lynching?

Who should stand up and fight the Nazis of our time if we’re just going to be criminalized for it while terrorist acts of violence get defended and swept under the rug?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 973 other followers