Tag Archives: combat

Sorry Miss USA But Direct Combat is Not a Beauty Pageant Stage

As published at The Stream, June 7, 2016.

Miss-USA-D.C.-900We can all be proud and happy that a member of our military became Miss USA 2016. But that doesn’t mean we have to agree with her.  Deshauna Barber is a first lieutenant in the Army Reserves and is getting a flurry of attention for her comment during the Miss USA pageant about women in combat roles. Her statements demonstrated little forethought on the issue, but, hey, why let the reality of direct ground combat against the likes of ISIS ruin a good “I am woman, hear me roar” moment? And hey, getting on the women-in-combat feminist bandwagon may have clinched her the Miss USA crown.

When asked about her thoughts on women in combat roles, the IT analyst from North Washington D.C. said, “As a commander of my unit, I am powerful. I am dedicated and it is important that we recognize that gender does not limit us in the United States Army.” And “I think it was an amazing job by our government to allow women to integrate to every branch of the military … We are just as tough as men.”

I confess that I don’t know what being an IT analyst in the weekend-warrior Army Reserves is like. I do know about IT in the Marines, and both being a Marine and supporting communications for deployed Marines is much harder, but it still ain’t direct ground combat. I’ve no doubt that Lt. Barber is powerful and dedicated, and a valuable — not to mention beautiful — addition to our Armed Forces. But she hasn’t trained and competed with male infantry. Her job in the Army reserves does not include orders to serve with men in the combat arms, and she knows nothing about it.

We have ample empirical data on the question of women in combat roles from recent testing, not to mention hundreds of years of experience learning what helps and what hinders victory in battle.

Barber will never bear the consequences of what she so mindlessly advocates. She’d be the one they shoot first as an easy target. And so beautiful, in her bikini and dangly earrings, or her be-makeuped soft-focus selfie in uniform. Not distracting at all. ISIS is not just laughing at us. They’re licking their chops at our self-imposed weakness. But we have our Charlie’s Angel delivering the Obama party line. She’s won the beauty pageant; just wait ‘til she starts her acting career.

Firebrand Gunnery Sergeant (Ret) Jessie Jane Duff, who served two decades in the Marines and advocates strongly that we should not diminish our combat readiness, had some choice tweets for the young LT:

 

In a recent interview Duff added this:

This was an ideal opportunity for her to stand up and stand for the enlisted women who will die in mass quantity in combat … She’s missing the entire data … Yes, we’re as mentally tough as men, but all data demonstrates that the women are performing at the bottom 25th percentile with men in infantry units. We’re setting them up for failure. Her speech, what she said was perfect if she had just closed with, “We should not lift a blanket policy without evaluating this closer because this isn’t about equality … this is about combat readiness and the mission is first.” That would have gotten just as much applause and people would have celebrated her for defending the women that have to go out there and perform with these men … Hand to hand combat? There is no equality in it. The men will decimate women in hand-to-hand combat.

This week we commemorate the 72nd anniversary of D-Day. Our reflections on young men storming the beaches of Normandy should remind us of the importance of defining precisely what is involved in “direct ground combat.” It’s great that Barber feels powerful, but the truth is that physically she’s a twig, and ISIS, or Iran or North Korea would make mince-meat out of her in five seconds.

She may be as tough as other keyboard commando Army Reservists, but she has no credibility on killing our enemies at point-blank range. She is no authority in comparison to three years and over 50 documents’ worth of scientific testing data submitted by the Marine Corps to the Pentagon, which showed that integrated units underperform on 69% of tasks and women get injured more than twice as much as men. Dedication has little relevance against these realities, which would severely degrade the lethality and survivability of our most elite fighting units.

In our upside-down “now,” where the Left is trying to hammer at us that one’s biological sex is meaningless, Nature simply will not comply, especially in the most violent activity known to mankind. As we’re fighting the most barbaric enemy we’ve ever faced, we need the manliest, most powerful, aggressive, testosterone-laden American alpha males that our taxpayer dollars can buy in order to destroy our enemies and come home quickly and in one piece. Miss USA is a beautiful stick who’d have no chance killing ISIS fighters in hand-to-hand combat.

Deshauna Barber makes a great poster, and now we all know what she looks like underneath her uniform. It’s Combat Barbie Miss USA. But direct ground combat is not a beauty pageant stage. Barber is the media’s latest darling for being a satisfactorily diverse and pretty package delivering the government-approved party line. Meanwhile technology has not alleviated the need for brute strength and speed that women simply don’t provide, and they bring with them serious additional risks that men simply don’t.

Meanwhile, too, the Senate is voting on whether to subject America’s young daughters to mandatory registration for the draft as combat replacements. The girl next door will not have stunt doubles to fill in for the bloody parts, and for her it won’t be about “a few women who want to.”


Drafting Women Into Combat Doesn’t Enhance Equality. It Courts Disaster.

As published at Stream.org May 21, 2016.

Startled-taken-aback-Women-900This week the House Rules Committee neutralized the “Draft Our Daughters” amendment put forward by Duncan Hunter (R-CA) and passed by both Republicans and Democrats in last month’s markup of the FY17 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). The language requiring women to register for Selective Service (SS) was removed and new language added calling for examination of both Selective Service and the impact of forcing women to sign up. On the Senate side, the measure forcing women to register was slipped in last week by Senator John McCain (R-AZ), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. For the sake of America’s young women and for the sake of our military, this misguided push to add women to the draft must be stopped.

Understand, the purpose of the draft should it be reinstated is to induct combat replacements during a large-scale national emergency. It is not to collect warm bodies to work desk jobs to “free a man to fight,” or for support units. It is to replace the men who are dying by the thousands at the very front of the fight. Like the issue of integrating women into our combat units, this is about the needs of the military during wartime, not equal rights between the sexes.

Physical disparities will always render women at a stark disadvantage in offensive kill missions. As it is, active-duty women average 2-10 times the injuries compared to our brothers in arms. This is before we’re talking about women attempting to achieve men’s standards or the much more grueling demands of the infantry. Not equal, and maybe it doesn’t seem fair, but it’s reality and it has a bearing on sound military policy. It might be one thing if all physical capability, injury and risk were the same between the sexes, but they aren’t. Much higher rates of injury are a liability to the units that have to be the strongest, fastest and most ferocious. Drafting women for this would mean much higher turnover, diminished combat effectiveness and fewer of both men and women coming home alive and victorious against our enemies.

Photo c/o Stripes.com

Photo c/o Stripes.com

There are very few women who want to join the military and little to none who can not only achieve combat unit standards but maintain them over time. We have to break hundreds to find two who can make it past day one in the Marine Corps’ Infantry Officer Course or through Army Ranger School, and you can bet your life that women have to be a far sight better than men’s minimums to survive, let alone succeed, in direct ground combat.

It would be a logistical and bureaucratic nightmare to sift through thousands and thousands of female registrants to test and find the one or two who can do the standard twelve-mile fast hike with an 80lb pack, to name a tiny fraction of what’s typically required of men in the combat arms. We are also confronting the most savage and barbaric enemy we’ve ever faced, to whom women are higher-value targets to be raped and tortured, used for psychological warfare against their units and as propaganda to devastate the country. On these grounds Congress is justified in deciding that the little to no return on investment and the much higher risk and damage would not be worth the added administrative burden, and great expense in time, effort, personnel and defense dollars.

What about equality? Women already enjoy equal rights under the law. Wage-gap claims continue to be debunked when hours worked, degree of danger and individual choice are taken into account. Women enjoy majorities on college campuses across the country and can do whatever they want. Even so, the needs of the military have nothing to do with women’s rights, and a large-scale war mobilization is no different. Some insist equal citizenship and responsibility means women sign up, too, but that falsely assumes equal physical ability. By this logic, only those who are able to fight get rights under the law. Where adding women demonstrably degrades combat effectiveness and adds significantly more risk and liability, there is no decent reason to draft women.

The feminist claims that American women are second-class citizens if they’re not allowed into combat or the draft ring hollow when these same feminists are so markedly silent on women suffering genuine subjugation in Islamic countries and communities. If we lose against this enemy, American women won’t have any rights at all.

The Israel Example: It’s Not What You’ve Been Told

Photo by Nicky Kelvin/Flash90.

Photo by Nicky Kelvin/Flash90.

Conscription in Israel is often raised to justify America following suit, but the comparison doesn’t bare up under scrutiny. The Israeli Defense Force doesn’t deploy abroad, it exists to defend itself from the enemies surrounding it. They abandoned having women fight in frontline combat after it proved catastrophic during their 1948 war.

Less than two thousand Israeli women serve in the coed “combat” units, and those are light battalions, the Caracal and the Lions of Jordan, which serve as border patrols with countries with whom Israel has peace accords. They are not engaged in offensive kill missions to seek out, close with and destroy the enemy by fire and close combat. Israel even reversed integration of their armor divisions because, in the words words of an IDF general who’d previously spearheaded integration but changed his mind after seeing the results over ten years, women’s injuries were “dozens of percentage points higher” than those suffered by men.

Israeli women also serve two years compared to three for men and get exemption for marriage, pregnancy and religious orthodoxy. We deploy mothers and even single mothers to the combat zone. With this precedent, shall we draft them too or would exemption be sexist?

If we were surrounded by enemies and needed all hands on deck, there is no doubt American women would rally by every means necessary to defend the country, as indeed we always have. Adopting Israel’s example would mean limiting where women are utilized to the areas where they can be effective and successful without adding unnecessary risk.

Misleading on Military Policy

Photo: Associated Press

Photo: Associated Press

In justifying his maneuver, McCain told The Hill, “I support the recommendation of the Army chief of staff and the commandant of the Marine Corps that women should register for Selective Service. … It is the logical conclusion of the decision to open combat positions to women.” Hunter said something similar when he told the House Armed Services Committee, “If you vote yes on this amendment you’re voting with General Dunford and General Milley.” It needs to be noted that Gen. Dunford never said this. Marine Gen. Robert Neller and Army Chief of Staff Mark Milley did, but these were their personal opinions, not a reflection of military policy.

It’s true that, constitutionally speaking, women’s combat exemption is what stood between women and the draft because, as the Supreme Court decided in Rostker v. Goldberg in 1981, since women weren’t “similarly situated” in combat units, their exemption from the draft did not violate the 14th amendment’s equal protection clause. But women now being able to join combat units when they volunteer for military service does not render all other considerations moot. As Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness points out, “The Rostker decision did not consider other rationales for continuing women’s exemption from direct ground combat and Selective Service. A case could be made for limiting Selective Service to men, if Congress supported that policy with facts that already exist.”

The decision to repeal women’s combat exemption was made administratively and without the required congressional review and oversight. Had it been done properly, the draft question would have been openly debated, not assumed after the fact. Congress makes policy for the military and hasn’t even considered the expert research or debated the consequences of combat integration, let alone approved it.

The Marines included over fifty documents and reports justifying their request to maintain all-male infantry, yet the Pentagon has withheld over half of them. They should be made public and subject to public analysis, hearings and independent expert testimony.

It lies with Congress to make policy regarding Selective Service and the draft. This is not something that should be allowed to happen behind closed doors like McCain did in slipping in the draft language on the SASC side. Just as there should be open deliberation on combat unit integration, there should be a full and open debate on Selective Service and whether or not women should be included. These responsibilities rest with Congress because its members are accountable to us, unlike the unelected Obama appointees like Ashton Carter and Ray Mabus, who push Obama’s agenda through regardless of consequence. America owes it to her daughters, and to our brothers in arms, to demand this debate and this accountability.


Ashton Carter Betrays Military Women and Combat Effectiveness

As published at The Stream December 4, 2015

Yesterday Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter broke his promise to weigh the decision on opening combat units to women “based on the analytic underpinnings and the data supporting them” and “rigorous analysis of factual data.” His somber announcement, greeted with no fanfare and the noticeable absence of now head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Joe Dunford, will be celebrated by none but ISIS. America can take no pride in the decision that forces active duty women into a very unequal opportunity, subjects all young women to Selective Service obligations and puts all those serving in combat at greater danger and risk. They are set up for no less than failure, increased disability and death by those who completely disregard both women and combat effectiveness in favor of fake diversity that does nothing but weaken us against our enemies.

Carter ignored the overwhelming majority of active duty women who don’t want this, as, for example, a 2014 Army survey showed that 92.5% of its enlisted women don’t want to be assigned to combat units. Opponents of women’s exemption would have us believe that almost all military women are sexists against themselves. Not only absurd, it’s insulting to all military women who know how much harder military life is on our bodies and the many additional high risks we face in combat that men don’t. Stellar performance by an unusual few women is irrelevant to establishing a policy with such far-reaching consequences.

Once integration begins the military must not only prove it has a few superstars who are willing and able, it must guarantee the steady flow of them. As it is, not nearly enough women are willing and even fewer are able. Regardless, women are now subject to involuntary assignment to combat units just like men. “That’s why they’re called ‘orders.’” as Lt. Gen. Robert Milstead said before the House of Armed Services committee.

Secretary Carter ignored the data showing military women — not just average civilians but top athletes — are injured at more than twice the rate of their male counterparts. Would he deploy our military with gear or transport that broke twice as often as the alternative? Would he have us believe more than twice the risk of injury is an equal opportunity for advancement? We have to break hundreds to get one who can make the men’s minimum standards, and they will likely have to be replaced far more frequently.

Star athletes who may make men’s minimums are not likely to last long enough to achieve the high ranks and long military careers coveted by the teeny tiny minority who’ve pushed so hard for repeal. Their athleticism will undoubtedly be cut short by the strains of training for and engaging in combat, then to be left with lifelong debilitating injuries. Disabling hundreds of women who might otherwise serve successfully is just the cost of doing business to get the demographic diversity Obama demands.

Carter also ignored the critical fact that women are at a disadvantage physically against men in hand-to-hand ground combat, especially men of the savage nature we’re fighting today who are often amped up on methamphetamines, making them much harder to kill. Wars as recent as Iraq and Afghanistan are filled with accounts of our men struggling to kill these drugged-up psychopaths, regularly face-to-face and with their hands, rocks, knives or whatever is at hand when the gun jams or the ammo runs out. Women are also higher value targets for capture and torture to an enemy that treats its own women with brutality that makes us shudder.

Obama’s recent refusal (at first) to put “boots on the ground” is precisely why pilots were denied permission to bomb their targets in recent missions in Syria. Infantrymen, in addition to executing offensive combat missions, are the eyes and ears on the ground, ensuring the fewest possible innocent casualties for bomber pilots. No, the need for and the violence of direct ground combat hasn’t changed with technology and is no equal opportunity for women. To cast it as such is nothing short of barbaric, but Carter apparently couldn’t care less.

Carter ignored the fact that quotas for women in combat were already established by Gen. Martin Dempsey in the announcement of the repeal when he said the branches “must make sure that there are a sufficient number of females entering the career field and already assigned to the related commands and leadership positions.” Active-duty women will be resented as standards are lowered to fulfill these quotas, putting everyone and their missions in severe peril.

The secretary also ignored the Marines’ 9-month integration study, which showed that in addition to getting injured more than twice as often, women cannot perform at the level of infantrymen. Marines did their study right and with outside oversight because they knew leftists across America would try to discredit and undermine the results. As I noted previously, all-male units outperformed coed units in 69 percent of the 134 combat tasks. Women were slower, were less accurate shooters, struggled with tasks requiring upper body strength such as climbing over walls and lifting a 200-pound dummy off the field, and retained more than double the injuries of men.

If the figure had been even a mere five percent difference it would have been ample reason to maintain women’s exemption, since five percent is easily and frequently the difference between life and death in offensive ground combat. But in fact the figure was 69 percent! Ignoring that makes no sense! It’s catastrophic for the combat arms, but Secretary Carter will not be the one paying the price.

He says we must pull from the other 50 percent of society simply because they’re half the population. If representation of general society is the paramount goal, ranks should include the blind, old and obese, an obviously disastrous prospect. The point isn’t that women are as ineffective as the blind in combat, but simply that clearly there are other important criteria than simply casting the net as wide as possible.

Carter said, “Always putting the mission and our people first [is what] we will do today.” Hardly. The next president can and should reinstate the exemption in the same administrative way it was repealed, but he or she won’t be able to before much destruction and disruption is inflicted on our military, who this very moment are preparing to engage on the ground in Syria against the Islamic State. God help them.


Women and Hand-to-Hand Combat: Thoughts From a Female Black Belt Marine Iraq Veteran

The author practicing with Marine black belt instructor in Fallujah, 2005.

Being in direct combat units means being the ones who take the fight to the enemy.  Deploying in itself is not combat, and neither is returning fire when getting shot at on convoy.  Real combat, the kind the infantry and Special Forces wage, is bloody, vicious and offensive.  When we’re talking about opening the combat units to women, we’re talking direct ground combat units who don’t have the comfort and distance of the fighter-plane cockpit.  Marine Medal of Honor recipient Dakota Meyer describes being attacked by an insurgent, fighting and killing him with his bare hands.  In Baghdad they were hand-to-hand, men facing each other with knives.

I’ve fought many men over the years as I trained to earn a black belt in Tae Kwon Do and dabbled in Kapoeira and Krav Maga before the Marines, and achieved three of the five levels of the Marine Corps Martial Arts Program which incorporates the best of all forms for hand-to-hand combat.  This isn’t a lot in terms of learning to fight for your life.  Training by fighting men before the Marines helped me to be a better fighter against women of my own weight and rank.  But women are at a disadvantage fighting men, especially those that actually want to capture or kill them.

RhondaRouseyEven the toughest female fighter in the world, UFC Bantamweight champion Rhonda Rousey said as much when the issue came up of fighting Fallon Fox, formerly a man, citing “the bone structure, the muscular structure of a man [after puberty]. There’s no ‘undo’ button for that.”  Tamikka Brents, a female who actually did fight Fox, said, “I’ve never felt so overpowered ever in my life and I am an abnormally strong female in my own right.”  To put females at the front where they are much more likely to have to engage in hand to hand combat with men is barbaric, not empowering to women.  When I joined, I wanted to go to the front.  Being outside the wire the reality of having to fight in close contact looms large, and the enemy we were facing then seems somewhat docile compared to ISIS today.  There was a chance I would face them. In the combat roles, it’s not a chance, it’s probable, and today’s enemy uses meth.  Fighting ISIS on meth hand-to-hand.  It’s every girl’s dream, right?

“Shouldn’t taking that risk be a woman’s choice?” I hear this question a lot.  A woman in this position is not isolated, she is not just taking a risk for herself.  She’s putting everyone around her at greater risk, in no small part because her torture can be used against the men in a way it can’t with other men.  Their natural instinct to protect her can distract him from the mission resulting in disaster.  This is exactly what the Israelis found out in 1948 when they included women on the front lines of combat.  The men dropped everything at the women’s screams, and the Israelis declared the experiment a disaster and a failure. Contrary to the myth that radical Islamists are averse to fighting women, the Israelis found that their enemy fought more viciously because the prospect of defeat by women was so abjectly humiliating.

Capture and torture is every deploying woman’s worst nightmare, and all that advocates for women in combat can say is that it’s not fair we want to protect women more than men at the front, that we’re wrong to consider a woman being tortured worse than a man being tortured.  It may not be fair that women are more vulnerable than men, but we are.  It may not be fair that women are at a disadvantage when it comes to brute strength, but we are.  These warrant added protection, and there’s nothing feminism can do to change it.  Regardless, the policy will get more of both killed.  It’s not that we’re weak, shrinking violets.  Rhonda Rousey sure isn’t, and neither am I.  But it’s not enlightened, sophisticated or evolved to ignore our differences, differences that can mean the difference between life and death on the battlefield.


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.


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


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,889 other followers