Tag Archives: Air Force

The Real War on Women is Sending Them Into Combat

Click image to get your copy

Robert L. Maginnis has done a tremendous service to the debate on opening American combat units to women in his new book, Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women Into Combat.  This is a must-read for any woman thinking of joining the military and, indeed, anyone with a daughter, sister, or 18-26-year old female loved one.  With clarity, detail and extensive research, Maginnis shows that the arguments being made (by radical feminists, leftist politicians, and politician-like top military brass) in favor of women in combat dismiss and ignore the most important considerations of the problem.  While they argue that it is an issue of equality, Maginnis shows why the scientific biological differences between men and women put women at a serious disadvantage on the battlefield, destroy operational standards and military readiness.  The policy will further sexualize the military and extinguish the masculine spirit of the combat units and Special Forces – a spirit vital to a strong, winning military.  Standards must necessarily be lowered so that more women can “succeed,” while in reality women cannot perform at the level necessary to close with and destroy the enemy.  Fifty years of data have proven this, and it continues to be proved today as women wash out of, for example, the Marine Corps infantry officer’s course.

Maginnis acknowledges the valuable contributions of women in the military and in our wars past and present.  Even so, women are injured twice to four times as much as men, or more.  They are leaving deployments at three times the rate of men, and mostly for non-combat-related issues.  This is not enhancing our ability to fight, as feminists argue, it’s absolutely destroying it (that is the goal).  The toll of putting women into combat units will be taken in greater female casualties, motherless children, psychological turmoil, sexual assaults, and more brutal torture if captured by the enemy than men historically have endured.  This, he rightly points out, is the real war on women.

Deadly Consequences derides the cowardly politicians and politically motivated military brass who have allowed themselves to be intimidated by feminist bullying and Obama’s leftist agenda (Bush not being much better with regard to military policy) rather than promoting policies that keep readiness and troop welfare the topmost priorities.  Through interviews, surveys and more, Maginnis verifies that most military men and women themselves are not in favor.  Pushing women into combat units sets everyone up for failure, and the enemy cares nothing for diversity quotas.  In fact, he says, they have historically fought more viciously when women are on the battlefield.   He takes each oft-cited country that has tried putting women in combat and exposes that they lowered their standards (Canada) , don’t actually put their women at the front (Israel), haven’t had a need for serious military readiness (New Zealand, Norway, Germany) or abandoned the policy altogether (Russia).

Perhaps the most powerful insight Deadly Consequences provides is the witness of experienced combat veterans.  No one reading the accounts of brutal warfare in places such as Najaf and Korea can dismiss the real bloodshed into which we would be sending our women if we don’t demand that our representatives to oppose this dangerous policy.  Maginnis explains the differences in the types of engagements we have faced, contrasting previous wars with the counterinsurgency tactics of Iraq and Afghanistan.  He also warns us against assuming the draft will never again be used.  Once combat units are open to women, the Supreme Court will necessarily rule excluding women from the draft unconstitutional.

Much of the American population has no military experience to inform their opinions on this important issue, making this book even more timely and valuable.  Maginnis gives the lie that adding women to combat units reduces sexual assault, the lie that it enhances military readiness, the lie that it benefits the men.  None of the arguments for women in combat withstands scrutiny.  Deadly Consequences will give the reader a comprehensive yet easy-to-digest understanding of what is at stake if we choose to let these cowards push our women into combat.


Sequestration: Say Goodbye to Our First Line of Defense

Between Leon Panetta’s unconstitutional order that combat units be opened to women and impending Sequestration this week, America can kiss goodbye its military superiority and ability to fight wars effectively.  As readiness goes, so goes our security both at home and abroad.

Under Sequestration, equipment isn’t the only thing on the chopping block.  Personnel will be as well, and all will have to prove their value in the positions they hold or want to hold.  With the conflicting directives of cutting fat vs. compliance with female quotas in the combat units, it is qualified and experienced men who will be purged first.  Combined with the inevitably lowered standards in these units to accommodate women, it is combat readiness that will suffer the most.

The top military brass is already under pressure to show diversity and prove it doesn’t discriminate.  Indeed, that is now its foremost mandate, not military readiness.  With the repeal of laws barring women from combat units and special forces, they will now be forced to prove they’re giving women a “fair” shake by discriminating against more qualified men, since no comprehensive testing was done to prove women can make it through their training, and the only two we know of who attempted such, two in the Marine Infantry Officer course, failed in the first day and the first week of training respectively.  It won’t matter that the women can’t make those standards that most of the top men in every branch can’t achieve.

It will go something like this at the officer level:  “Suzy-Q failed the training?  You’re up for promotion, aren’t you?  Take another look at Suzy-Q.”  And from DOD to the top brass:  “We expect X% pass rate for females.  Anything less will be seen as discrimination.  Next year’s budget will reflect the success of this program.  Understood?”  The military will have to lower the standards of its toughest units in order to fill quotas of women to show they’re not discriminating.

Cutting spending is vital for every department of government, including the military.  The Marines have always been in the lead when it comes to working with the least, then cutting even more.  With so many other ways to cut the excess – from non-vital programs like the National Endowment for the Arts to stopping the fraud and waste so pervasive in government programs from Social Security to Medicare – Sequestration is totally unnecessary.  But this was Obama’s idea, and it put the military in the cross-hairs from the start.  It’s easy to see why.  This administration thinks the military is too masculine, too white, too conservative, too straight.  They’ve repealed DADT, opened the toughest units to women who can’t make it through one week of their training and sold our equipment to our enemies.  This is just the next phase in destroying the last bastion of merit and strength our country has against enemies both foreign and domestic.


Let The Men Be Heroes – Because They Are

This is Part IV and the conclusion of my series on The Problems of Women in Combat

On Thursday January 31,  2012 I had the pleasure of participating in a roundtable discussion on the subject of women in combat roles on the Glenn Beck show (members can view the show in full in the website’s archives).  I didn’t know Green Beret Greg Stube or Navy Seal Pete Scobell before that day, but we got to know each other well over the course of the show and afterward.  I was blown away by their level of sacrifice, what they had endured and overcome, and how they are still serving our country in their current endeavors.  “Heroes” doesn’t begin to cover it, but this is not unusual for men in units like these who have seen action again and again.   As I listened I was reminded once again of the truth about the male bond in these elite units, and the superhuman things they do.

Watch the series “Surviving the Cut” which shows the rigorous training men go through to make it into the elite Special Forces.  They’ll start off with a hundred men who are already the top performers in their branches, but only ten will make it to graduation.  The only example we have of women even attempting such training are two women who attempted the Marines Infantry Officer Course.  One washed out after a day, the other after a week.

The decision to open the combat units to women was done without any testing because testing shows that women can’t cut it.  To be brutally honest, we can’t even approach cutting it, as anyone who watches this series will be able to see.  The truth is that the top 25% of women performers in any branch is equivalent to the bottom 50% of men.  The top woman is no comparison to the top man.  Some pundits like to say get the best man for the job, “even if the best man is a woman.”  The best man in combat is never ever a woman (and women prove it).  The best man is always a man.  Let’s give them credit where credit is due.  Each one that makes it into a combat unit or Special Forces trumps the best woman, and by a large margin.  The caliber of man that a high-performing woman could compete with doesn’t make it into the Special Forces.  He washes out.  Comparing these potential (fictional) women (who was it that found that brass ceiling anyway?) to the men in these units is not just comparing apples to oranges.  It’s comparing apples to steak, and the result is to demoralize our country’s strongest, bravest and most capable men who risk and sacrifice their lives for us doing things that no woman really wants to do.

Another interesting facet of these men as I’ve gotten to know them is that they shun recognition, even refusing their hard-earned benefits from the VA.  Compare that to the Feminist officers pushing women into combat (anyone notice that enlisted women, who will bear the brunt of this experiment, are not being asked for their opinion?).  If you watch their interviews, it’s all about recognition and recognition and recognition.  They will get it thanks to Leon Panetta, but just as the standards are “gender-normed” to show false equal results of current training standards, they will get the same recognition for doing a fraction of what the men in combat units do.

We already know women in the military has lowered its overall standards as I point out in my earlier articles in this series.  Adding women to the combat units will destroy the Bands of Brothers and with them our ability to fight our savage enemies.  But that is the intent.  Under pressure from Washington politicians, the military’s paramount mandate is no longer combat effectiveness.  It is diversity.  The fact that Leon Panetta gave this authoritarian order (and likely unconstitutional, since the power to make such decisions is supposed to rest with Congress) on his way out the door shows his abundant spinelessness, for he will not have to answer for the destruction this foolish decision will cause.

The men in these units are our supermen, and that does not take anything away from women.  They are doing heroic things that women can’t do, and they do it because they love women: their mothers, sisters, daughters, and wives. We want to protect women from participating in the ravages of war, not throw them into the front so they can be ravaged themselves.  The bond of men in combat is something that women cannot share even when they are present.  We serve together in many important military capacities and enjoy our own strong bonds because of some shared training and experience, but the connection that the men have is something very special, different and hard-won.  We should let them have it without disparaging it as brutish and discriminatory.  It not only enhances combat effectiveness, it is a part of our societal moral fabric as a country.  It is frankly vital to our survival, not something passé from a bygone patriarchal age that we should abandon for phony “equality.”

Let us love and laud our Bands of Brothers, not demoralize and destroy them.  They are the only thing really standing between us and slavery.

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

Read Part 2: Careerists V. Mother Nature

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

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


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 in order 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 Marine 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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,201 other followers