Tag Archives: military

Star “News” Blackout on NC Veterans Initiative

On Thursday, April 17th in Raleigh, Governor Pat McCrory announced an initiative to provide in-state tuition to veterans living in North Carolina, regardless of their state of residence. This is big news for North Carolina’s huge military and veteran populations. Yet the Star News doesn’t seem to think it worth covering.

The initiative was announced at the NC Women Veterans Summit & Expo, the first event of its kind for the state, yet this too has been markedly absent from the Star News’ pages. The tuition program, which is being proposed in the FY15 budget, will help young service members to further their education at a significantly reduced cost. This in turn enhances their employment prospects and encourages them to stay and join the work force or start a business in our beautiful state. Why would the editors at the Star “News” go out of their way to ignore such a huge tuition program announcement and keep this very newsworthy story from their readers? The silence is deafening, and it is a slap in the face to NC’s veterans.

I was there. Yes, in Iraq, but also at an event that just about every media outlet in the state deemed newsworthy, except ours.

http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=news/local&id=9507237

http://www.wnct.com/story/25271772/gov-mccrory-to-make-big-jobs-announcement-for-veterans

http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/04/17/3792225/mccrory-asks-for-in-state-community.html


Women Fail to Achieve Male Marines’ Lowest Standard

Earlier this month the Marine Corps decided to delay the low 3 pull-up requirement for women that they had hoped to apply in 2014.  The measure was set in preparation for compliance with the Pentagon’s intent to open combat units to women in 2016.  Since less than half of female recruits could make the minimum requirement by the end of 2013, this implementation is being delayed.

pullupsAdvocates for women in combat have mouthed the words: If women can make the standards, they should be able to serve in the combat units and Special Forces.  If they are telling the truth, why don’t they insist women be tested on the men’s unaltered standards?  Three pull-ups is the bare minimum, it would put a man at the bottom of his unit.  Women get 100% for eight pull-ups where men have to do twenty for 100%.  Is that equality?

The tiny cabal of feminist officers and NCOs who sued to be able to join the combat units and their far-left backers like DACOWITS and SWAN have been telling America not only that women can do anything men can do, but that they already are.  “Women are fighting and dying with men in the combat zone,” they claim.  This is lying by omission: Dying in the combat zone does not mean one qualified for the combat units or Special Forces, whose standards are now being “re-evaluated” to justify why they are so high that women can’t achieve them.  For women, dying in the combat zone doesn’t even mean they qualified in their support (non-combat) units to the standards their brothers have to meet.

If, as these advocates say, women can do everything men can do, why can’t women succeed by the men’s standard naturally, or even with result-specific training?  This is where WIC advocates cut to commercial and cry discrimination.  That’s their playbook.  The feminists and their lackeys have been doing it since women were fully integrated into the military branches and academies, resulting in overall lower standards and reduced combat readiness.  Doing the same to put women into the combat units on a false narrative of equality will have even more disastrous results.

If they were serious about equality, they would demand that no standards be “re-evaluated” and insist that women perform on the men’s standard.  That will never happen because on those standards most women wouldn’t be qualified for the military in the first place.  Women already have an equal opportunity to compete against men in the military, but every time they are tested, they fail to measure up.  It is Nature herself who discriminates.  Women were built for something more important than combat.

Even on the lower standard, women have a much higher rate of injury, non-availability, non-deployability, and attrition (separating from the military before fulfilling their contract) than men.  These are among the plethora of eternal truths making it impractical to put women into combat, even if they do train like Cross-fitters to improve their performance.  When women were integrated fully into the forces and the academies, the same type of feminist cadre said that exposing these facts would hurt morale.  Indeed.  “Equalizing” standards, “leveling the playing field,” even “providing women the best opportunity to succeed” actually means lowering the standards and discriminating against more capable men.

This issue is not about equality or even equal opportunity.  The WIC advocates don’t care about equality, let alone combat readiness.  They don’t care that they are subjecting the entire population of able-bodied young women to the possibility of the draft.  They care about themselves and their own power, and they don’t care if they have to destroy women, men, the military and by extension the country, to get it.


Capitol Hill Scrooge to Veterans…Again

Shame over the disgraceful treatment of Veterans during and after Vietnam resulted in a societal shift by the general population in how it treats its men women in uniform over the last forty years.  Regardless of individual views on war and the military, the majority of our culture respects and wants to help those who volunteered to defend us against all enemies both foreign and domestic.  Not so on Capitol Hill.  The administration and our politicians are determined to put illegal aliens above Veterans, time and time again; rewarding those who take from America and break her laws and punishing those who work and sacrifice to protect her.

During the September government shutdown the Obama administration had privately owned and operated war memorials shut down, barricaded and staffed with law enforcement to bar Veterans.  And who could forget Nancy Pelosi speaking at an illegal immigration rally facilitated by the erstwhile shutdown government, while 90-year-old WWII veterans in wheelchairs were threatened with arrest for visiting their memorials.  As House Republicans passed bill after bill to fund all aspects of government except Obamacare, Senate Democrats kept the government shut down for political theater, and continued to target and punish Veterans.

After passing military Sequestration (while non-essentials like the National Endowment for the Arts remain fully funded), Veterans have been struck yet another undeserved blow by politicians on both Left and (supposedly) Right.  The budget “deal” passed this week not only fattens government with vastly increased spending and economy-killing tax hikes – the opposite of what we should be doing – it does so at the expense of those who dedicated their best years to a military career.  Military pensions and retirement benefits are on the chopping block, cutting $6 billion over ten years.  Even disabled retirees are not exempt from pension cuts, and item Paul Ryan knew about two days before the bill was passed but did nothing to fix.  An amendment proposed by Jeff Sessions to correct this grievous “mistake” was blocked by Democrats because it would recoup the money lost from fraud by requiring applicants for particular child tax credits to submit their social security numbers.   Far be it from Democrats and many Republicans to enforce American law and refuse government benefits to illegal immigrants.

Leave it to the crooks in Washington to pass a deal no one wants that increases spending, further damages the economy, and sticks it to our dedicated military while indulging illegal immigrants.  Whatever Paul Ryan was thinking before the budget passed, he should now be thinking about what he wants to do once we kick him out of office.  With Republicans like this, who needs Democrats?


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


Women in Combat Units Vs. The Military’s Sexual Assault Problem

The Invisible War is a 2012 documentary showing the shocking prevalence of sexual assault in the military, and worse, the cover-ups that tend to follow.  The rate of assaults against women is completely unacceptable as it is.  We should not put women in infantry and special forces where the risk will be even greater to them because there is less supervision, more pressure, and everyone does everything together and in front of each other.  It will be totally destructive of women and combat readiness both.

theinvisiblewarAccording to the documentary which sites government studies, 20% of women in the military have been assaulted, fifteen thousand in 2011 alone.  They estimate half a million women have been assaulted over the years.  The testimonies of rape victims are horrendous.  But it shows that neither the boot camps, nor the deployment training, nor the Feminist theories on women’s equality we’ve been fed since the mid-sixties equipped these rape victims to fight off the men who raped them, or to avoid dangerous situations in the first place.  Besides exposing a very dark problem in the military branches, what The Invisible War shows without intending to is that breaking down the age-old standards of behavior and of separating women from men doesn’t empower them – it makes them more vulnerable to attack.  This is the truth the Feminists don’t want you to know.  They’ve been lying about it for the past fifty years.

Women have served in the military since World War I, beginning with separate units for women in nursing and administrative roles that “freed the men to fight.”  Today everything is integrated: We train together, eat together, we socialize and often drink together (one of the common avoidable circumstances that leads to rape), and single servicemen and women sleep in the same barracks together.  These all become high-risk activities for a woman, as the documentary shows.  Some were raped while on duty, or in the offices of their attackers.  Some were having a few drinks, bonding with their fellows who in some cases drugged them.  Where all that stands between a woman and an attacker is a locked door, we’re already too late.  And in special forces in the combat zone, there aren’t even any doors to lock.

We’re putting the sexes together as if eros and human passion don’t exist.  All the steps that for thousands of years have been in place to protect women have been destroyed by Feminists who see these protections and standards as oppression.  They are in fact the opposite.  It takes a village to protect women – with both men and women holding each other to high standards of behavior.  The differences in how we treat the sexes not only exist, they are essential.  We don’t expect women to be treated like men – that would be barbaric.  We don’t expect men to be treated like women – that would be pathetic.  In the age of “friends with benefits” and “dress like a slut” day, everybody instinctively knows that how a woman dresses affects men.  They can’t turn it off.  That’s why dress and other behaviors in our own control matter.  The Feminist’s assumption that we can presto-chango transform our natures is absurd, and when tested is proven false.  They give themselves the lie by adding double standards – women can be sluts but you have to respect them as if they were chaste, women can do what men can do except you need to gender-norm the testing standards to manufacture equal results.  There’s no way they can create sexless uniformity among men and women, so they have to propagate a huge deception.  They falsely frame the issue as one of civil rights and liberation, making it all but impossible to discuss the real issues.

Anu Bhagwati, a female veteran advocating for women in combat roles, was in this documentary giving “expert” testimony.  Even knowing the horrifying rates of assault, she wants women in elite units where there is no separation of the sexes, where there is not just less, but no protection of women.  Put the sexes in close quarters, under pressure, tell them their biology is artificial and their previous sense of decency something to just get over.  Anyone who doesn’t want to share their junk with the opposite sex (the spouses are cringing), is just a prude trapped in a bygone age.  Martha McSally continually claims common decency standards are nothing, and that the lack thereof doesn’t hurt unit cohesion at all.  The media claim outrage at the prevalence of violent rape in the military.  Yet in the combat roles debate, rape is nothing.  The female proponent in this debate asserts that if women are willing to risk capture and rape by enemy combatants, they should be allowed to do so.  Just another choice.  Would she say the same to women joining the military in the first place?  Big Lies, perpetrated by big-time Feminists.

The pressure of combat missions is already unbelievably high.  What if an assault happens the day of a mission?  We know there’s at least a 20% risk.  Suddenly there are opposing needs – to complete the mission and to deal with the assault.  If reported, the command acting rightly would have to destroy the mission by taking both rapist and victim off the battlefield.  There would be even more pressure not to report the assault – even self-imposed by the victim herself – because there’s a mission at stake.  We are, after all, at war.  That is a decision no woman nor any commander on the ground should have to face.  Until Leon Panetta’s act of tyrannical fiat, the infantry and special forces did not have to consider it.

Women with men is not an equal opportunity.  The standards of conduct and degrees of separation have existed for women’s own protection, but Feminists have bullied us into abandoning them in favor of fake constructs that end up hurting women most of all.  The appalling rate of sexual assault and the lack of prosecution in the military are serious problems that The Invisible War brings to light.  These should be dealt with before putting women at greater risk in combat units on the battlefield.

This is part 3 in a series.

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

Read Part 2: Careerists V. Mother Nature

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

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

aristotle_000


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


The Problem(s) of Women in Combat

It’s not all about qualification. I’m speaking as a female Marine Iraq war vet who did serve in the combat zone doing entry checkpoint duty in Fallujah, and we worked with the grunts daily for that time. All the branches still have different standards for females and males. Why? Because most women wouldn’t even qualify to be in the military if they didn’t. Men and women are different, but those pushing women into combat don’t want to admit that truth. They huff and puff about how women can do whatever men can do, but it just ain’t so. We’re built differently, and it doesn’t matter that one particular woman could best one particular man. The best woman is still no match for the best man, and most of the men she’d be fireman-carrying off the battlefield will be at least 100lbs heavier than she with their gear on.

Women are often great shooters but can’t run in 50-80lbs of gear as long, hard or fast as men.  Military training is hard enough on men’s bodies, it’s harder on women’s.  And until women stop menstruating there will always be an uphill battle for staying level and strong at all times.  No one wants to talk about the fact that in the days before a woman’s cycle she loses half her strength, to say nothing of the emotional ups and downs that affect judgment. And how would you like fighting through PMS symptoms while clearing a town or going through a firefight?  Then there are the logistics of making all the accommodations for women in the field, from stopping the convoy to pee or because her cycle started to stripping down to get hosed off after having to go into combat with full MOP gear when there’s a biological threat.

This is to say nothing of unit cohesion which is imperative and paramount, especially in the combat fields. When preparing for battle, the last thing on your mind should be sex, but you put men and women in close quarters together and human nature is what it is (this is also why the repeal of DADT is so damaging). It doesn’t matter what the rules are. The Navy proved that when they started allowing women on ship. What happened? They were having sex and getting pregnant, ruining unit cohesion not to mention derailing the operations because they’d have to change course to get them off ship.

When I deployed we’d hardly been in country a few weeks before one of our females had to be sent home because she’d gotten pregnant (nice waste of training not to mention tax-payer money for training). That’s your military readiness? Our enemies are laughing – Thanks for giving us another vulnerability, USA!

Then there are relationships.  Whether it’s a consensual relationship, unwanted advances or sexual assault, they all destroy unit cohesion.  No one is talking about the physical and emotional stuff that goes along with men and women together.  A good relationship can foment jealousy and the perception of favoritism.  A relationship goes sour and suddenly one loses faith in the very person that may need to drag one off the field of battle.  A sexual assault happens and a woman not only loses faith in her fellows, but may fear them.  A vindictive man paints a woman as easy and she loses the respect of her peers.  A vindictive woman wants to destroy a man’s career with a false accusation (yes, folks, this happens too), and it’s poison to the unit.  All this happens before the fighting even begins.

Yet another little-discussed issue is that some female military are leaving their kids behind to advance their careers by deploying. I know of one divorced Marine left her two sons, one of them autistic, with the grandparents to care for while she deployed.  She was wounded on base, not on the front lines, and is a purple heart recipient. What if she’d been killed, leaving behind her special needs child? Glory was more important than motherhood. Another case in my own unit was a married female who became angry when they wouldn’t let both her and her husband deploy at the same time. Career advancement was the greater concern.

I understand the will to fight. I joined the Marines in the hopes of deploying because I believe that fighting jihadists is right and I care about the women and children in Islamic countries where they are denied their rights, subjugated, mutilated, and murdered with impunity, where children are molested and raped with impunity, not to mention defending our own freedom against these hate-filled terrorists who want to destroy freedom-loving countries like America. Joining the Marines was one of the best things I’ve ever done in my life and I’m glad I got to deploy.  It not only allowed me to witness the war, but to witness the problems with women in combat.

Women have many wonderful strengths and there is certainly a lot of work for women to do in the military.  But all the problems that come with men and women working together are compounded in the war zone, destroying the cohesion necessary to fight bloody, hellish war.  We are at war, and if we want to win, we have to separate the wheat from the chaff and the top priority should be military readiness and WINNING wars, not political correctness and artificially imposed “equality” on the military.

This is part 1 in a series.

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

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

aristotle_000


Sitting Ducks

Today is September 21st, the “International Day of Peace.”  Images of peace symbols and people holding hands feeling good about themselves stream through my news feed I can’t help thinking about the ironies.

Now I don’t begrudge anyone their meditations whether it’s for peace or true love.  Lord knows I’ve been trying to manifest my dream job law-of-attraction style.  Some of us call it prayer.  If you can dream it, you can do it and what you focus on expands, right?  Ohm on my friends.

Still, most of these same friends will completely negate their heartfelt desire for peace in the world by their votes.  They’ll vote for the guys who oppose the war but under whose leadership violence increases around the globe.  They certainly won’t vote for candidates who are strong on foreign policy and military defense – they’ll oppose them in protest.  But being a peacenik doesn’t mean they are wiser or gentler or more enlightened.  They aren’t actually making the way for peace in this world and they’re often fighting very hard against those who are.  They’ll fight to eliminate our weapons, to reduce the military but they won’t fight our enemies.  And yet they’ll sit in a circle and meditate.  What a colossal waste of time.

Thinking peace will never work unless we’re all doing it, and we’ll never all be doing it.  The difference between those who meditate for peace and those who are willing to fight for it is that the latter understand human nature.  There are bad people out there, there is evil that we can’t wish away.  We have seen this evil manifest before in Communism and Nazism.  Today it’s militant Islam, and its followers will burn and suicide-bomb their way across the globe unless someone stands in their way.  Such violence can only be ended by stronger violence by good people.  Know who they are?  The Marines.  The SEALS.  The American military and the friends and families that support us.

After the Twin Towers were attacked, we knew we were at war.  I said so to a cousin who was horrified: “Don’t say that!”  It was obvious, and yet in the face of an unprovoked attack like that, my cousin, whose daughter was in the 2nd Tower and (we found out later) managed to get out, she was horrified at the idea of going to war.  She would rather have meditated for peace.

Patrick Nichols, Fallujah 2005 by Jude Eden, USMC

We are the enemy of militant Islam because we can speak freely, practice our faiths freely, and if we can dream it, we can do it in America.  The faith and dedication of the Founders that brought about our form of government is not only what separates us from every other country, it’s what makes those in every other country want to come to us.  It’s what makes those who hate freedom want to destroy us.

In our democratic republic, the ones who are actually making peace possible are the ones who are willing to fight for it.  We learn to fight, we arm and practice and are willing to risk it all, to go into battle to ensure that others who don’t want to can sit in a circle and hold hands.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,139 other followers