See other National News Articles
Title: The Cowardly Push to Get Women into Combat
Source:
time.com
URL Source: http://nation.time.com/2013/07/25/t ... push-to-get-women-into-combat/
Published: Jul 25, 2015
Author: Mark Thompson interviewing
Post Date: 2015-09-07 12:44:17 by GreyLmist
Keywords: Robert Maginnis
Views: 310
Comments: 20
AUTHOR Q&A July 25, 2013 Earlier this year, the Pentagon lifted the ban on women serving in U.S. combat units – including elite special-operations units like the Navy’s SEALs – if they can clear the physical and mental hurdles. While official Washington has saluted and moved on to other matters, there remains a rumble of opposition, especially evident when chatting with soldiers and Marines. Some argue that the existing standards – which already have kept several women from passing the Marines’ grueling infantry officers course – will basically act as a bar to women in the more demanding kinds of combat. But Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and West Point graduate, fears that won’t happen. He spells out what he sees as the dangers of opening combat billets to women in his new book, Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat. His key concern is that, under political pressure, the military will ease its standards, resulting in a less-capable force. Battleland recently conducted this email chat with him. What’s the key thing you learned in writing Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women into Combat? Pentagon brass are kowtowing to their political masters and radical feminists to remove exemptions for women in ground combat in defiance of overwhelming scientific evidence and combat experience. This craven behavior is terribly dangerous for our armed forces, our national security, and especially the young women who will be placed in harm’s way. Pentagon officials insist they won’t lower standards to enable more women in combat units. Do you believe them? I don’t believe them, and neither should the American people. The Obama Administration and the Pentagon say they will maintain high standards “to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender,” in the words of former Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta. Personnel policy, however, is driven by the “diversity metrics” outlined in the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. Diversity, not military readiness, is the highest priority. General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has admitted as much. In the press conference announcing the rescission of the 1994 rule excluding women from ground combat units, he said, “If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high?” The proper question is “Do we have the personnel we need to meet the current high standards for combat units?” The answer right now is yes. There is no shortage of able-bodied male volunteers who meet the existing, battle-tested standards for ground combat positions. So why ask the services to consider changing the standards? Because this has become more about politics than fielding the most capable fighting force. What do you see as the three biggest risks to letting women serve in the combat arms? There are a multitude of risks—far more than most people realize, especially those without military experience. Among the many risks I discuss in “Deadly Consequences” are these three: — Second, women who serve as ground combatants, whether by choice or under compulsion, will suffer disproportionate physical and psychological harm. — Third, the already serious problem of sexual assault in the military will get worse. Notwithstanding the Administration’s wishful thinking, this prediction is borne out by the statistics. What do you think will happen, given the push to let women serve in combat, if the nation ever needs to reinstitute the draft? Lifting all combat exclusions for women virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court will declare male-only conscription unconstitutional. And a return to the draft is far more likely than most people realize. The unsustainably high cost of the all-volunteer force, especially with $17 trillion in national debt, and the expected requirements of future military operations will probably lead to a resumption of the draft, however politically unpopular it might be. When that happens, women will be drafted and forced into ground combat roles. The Joint Chiefs of Staff endorse the idea of women serving in combat. Are they the “cowards” you refer to in your subtitle? They demonstrate a cowardice of silence because they know better. The scientific evidence and the lessons of combat experience are utterly one-sided: women are unsuited for ground combat service. Congress has the constitutional responsibility to set the rules and regulations governing the armed forces (Article I, Section 8). Unfortunately, Congress is as cowardly as the Joint Chiefs. Putting women in combat is as historic a change of military policy as anything I can think of, yet neither house has held full hearings on the question in over 20 years. The politicians are running scared. You said letting openly gay men and women serve in uniform would be a disaster, and likely lead to problems with recruiting and retention. None of that has come to pass. So why should we pay attention to your arguments about women in combat? It is much too early to assess the effects of open homosexuality in the military. The Pentagon has not released any external or internal surveys on recruiting and retention since “don’t ask, don’t tell” was repealed. The Pentagon survey conducted prior to the repeal demonstrated substantial opposition within the ranks, which continues today. What we do have is the Pentagon-sponsored 2013 Sexual Assault Prevention & Response Office survey, which found a giant increase in unwanted male-on-male sexual contact since the repeal. According to the New York Times, 13,900 active-duty men and 12,100 active duty women said they had experienced unwanted sexual contact in 2012, the first full year after repeal of the homosexual ban. The proportion of female victims is much higher, of course, but the Pentagon obviously has a serious problem with male-on-male sexual assaults. Is there cause and effect here or merely correlation? It is too early to say, but there is certainly no basis for declaring the new policy on homosexuality a success. Poster Comment: "Congress has the constitutional responsibility to set the rules and regulations governing the armed forces (Article I, Section 8)." -- not the Executive branch, not the Judicial branch, not Pentagon Policies nor any office or branch of the Armed Forces, not the Council on Foreign Relations and not the UN [See: usconstitution.net: AIS8 + 4um Reference]. Recommending both links within the opening article.— First, standards will be lowered. As a practical matter, there has to be a certain minimum number of women in combat units for the policy to succeed. That can be accomplished only by “gender norming” the standards for combat service. Lower standards will inevitably degrade combat effectiveness, and the nation will be less secure. There is also good evidence that the policy will harm military recruitment and retention.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All (#0)
(Edited)
Some comments at the article site: "'Oh please let me serve men and die for men, may I? Please!' - said no Radical Feminist ever." "Except you are not serving and dying for 'men.' You go to war for your country." "Feminists don't want women in combat. They want the illusion of women in combat through a few token women who 'chose' to do what men must do. They need this illusion to keep people from noticing that feminism is about securing privilege for females and has nothing to do with equality. They know that if women were ever actually required to accept the equality they pretend to want, women would run from feminism as fast as they could." "It is time to call the feminist bluff. Draft the women. Do not enlist or re-enlist another man until all units, specialties, services are 50% female. ... Same for all military schools, ROTC that create officers. That won't happen only because feminists are liars. They will never accept equality, it would kill the movement in a day." ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Women wanting to join the military should read "The Valleys of Death" first.
Bottom line truth; the other stuff is just PC garbage for the weak-minded. “The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
4um Ref. with some info on that book about the Korean War by a Veteran of it who was also a P.O.W. for many months. ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
Putting women in combat is as historic a change of military policy as anything I can think of, yet neither house has held full hearings on the question in over 20 years. News & Commentary - Center for Military Readiness articles: The missions of Army and Marine infantry, armor, artillery, and Special Operations Forces have not changed, and all of them require superior physical strength. Congresswoman Sanchez continues to push for women to be assigned to these units, even though more than thirty years of research and tests have not produced empirical evidence that women are interchangeable with men in the combat arms. [The NDAA 2015 Sanchez-amendment] language could be interpreted as a mandate to implement recommendations of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) in its 2011 report. Among other things, the MLDC calls for "gender diversity metrics" (another name for quotas), enforced by a Chief Diversity Officer (CDO). MLDC recommendations, if fully implemented, would make military promotions contingent on support for gender diversity metrics. 3 On April 22, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the right of Michigan voters to forbid, by law, gender-based quotas and reverse discrimination. December 1, 2014: Problematic Proposals in National Defense Authorization Act for 2015 (NDAA) in the House bill approved in May, (H.R. 4435, Sec. 527), Armed Service Committee members waived through several ill-advised provisions that feminist Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) was allowed to sponsor and roll into a package that was passed on a voice vote with no advance notice. (Reportedly, this was done to avoid a debate over Sanchez proposals that were even worse.) Among other things, Sanchez wants to create the presumptive impression that Congress already has approved women in the infantry, despite the fact that the House has not had a hearing on the subject since 1979, 35 years ago, and has conducted almost-zero oversight since the administration announced its intent to order women into the infantry by January 2016. overt pressure for gender quotas is showing up in the Navy's submarine community. According to an October 3 The Hill report titled Enlisted Women to Begin Serving on Submarines, the women will soon be integrated onto ballistic missile submarines, which are larger than fast attack submarines. According to Navy Cmdr. Renee Squier, head of the Office of Women's Policy for the Chief of Naval Personnel, the plan is to first integrate female senior enlisted sailors onto submarines and then junior enlisted female sailors. Using the language of social experimentation, Squire said, "The goal is to have each unit have 20 percent in order to build a 'good ecosystem' for female submariners." [My note: more on that at 4um Ref. "Women in Subs - Whatever Could Go Wrong?"] CMR has published June 5, 2015: Military and Civilian Leaders Press Congress for Oversight on Women in Direct Ground Combat MCC letter co-signers sent identical letters to the Chairmen of the Senate and House Armed Services Committees, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) and Rep. "Mac" Thornberry (R-TX) on May 21. During a sparsely-attended mark-up session on May 29, the House Armed Services Committee drafted the House version of the National Defense Authorization Act for 2016 (NDAA). Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) who has established a pattern of sponsoring controversial feminist amendments at the last minute, revealed a proposal that appeared to take Chairman Thornberry by surprise. Sanchez wanted to repeal the law requiring the Department of Defense to notify Congress of policy changes regarding women in direct ground combat. Decisions on matters such as this, affecting all military communities and civilian women as well, should be made by accountable members of Congress, not federal courts. But Congresswoman Sanchez, who is now a candidate for the U.S. Senate, is more interested in pushing her feminist agenda. Sanchez and committee colleagues Susan Davis (D-CA), Tammy Duckworth (D-IL), Niki Tsongas (D-MA), Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) and Arizona Republican Martha McSally failed to understand that the notification law is about congressional oversight, not women in the military. When it started to look like the Sanchez amendment might fail, Congresswoman Davis suggested a substitute amendment that would reduce the notification period to only 30 calendar days. The limited time period, which could be triggered by an administrative order while Congress is out of session, would invite unfettered administration action with no oversight or public scrutiny at all. With a weak voice-vote, the House committee approved the substitute amendment, signaling a willingness to surrender policy-making authority of the legislative branch on a matter of paramount importance. Signers of the Military Culture Coalition letter have asked House members to reconsider the ill-advised bill language, and senators to non-concur with it. The Senate will vote on its version of the bill sometime in June. Decisions by Default Disrespect Military Women Regardless of the number of notification days, the question is whether members of Congress care enough about military women to pay attention to their concernsand best interests Respect for both women in the military requires diligent congressional oversight, to include open hearings with non-Defense Department experts and an objective review of research findings produced since 2012. Starting in 2005 and up to the present time, policy changes have been implemented with little or no congressional oversight. The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has not heard testimony about women in combat since 1991, 24 years ago. With the exception of five minutes in 1993, neither the Senate nor the House found time to hear testimony about the findings of the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services, which recommended that most of women’s combat exemptions be retained. The House Armed Services Committee has not held hearings on the subject since 1979, 36 years ago. Given these years of inattention and neglect, Congress and the Senate have an even greater responsibility to ask serious questions about policies that would impose on female soldiers heavier burdens and greater risks than military women have ever faced in America’s history. While looking away for decades, Congress and the Senate have allowed major media and a few aggressively feminist members to push for co-ed land combat as something “good” for women. Never mind that an official Army survey found that 92.5% of female soldiers said they do not want to be assigned to direct ground combat units. Multiple studies and reports over the past thirty years have confirmed that female personnel would suffer disproportionate injuries that would shorten their careers and possibly their lives. Unless military leaders ask for exceptions, the Obama Administration plans to order “gender integration” in the combat arms, including the Ranger Regiment, Delta Force, and Navy SEALs, by January 2016. This controversial, unprecedented policy change would affect all men and women in every military community, and very likely would affect civilian women of Selective Service registration age as well. Pentagon officlals are not even considering the impact on mission capabilities; the stated goal is "gender diversity metrics," another name for quotas. The fact remains that these decisions should be made by accountable, elected officials, not administration officials, gender diversity ideologues, or academics seeking Defense Department contracts for more “study.” If members of the Senate and Congress really want to show respect for military women, they can start by taking this issue seriously, asking questions and challenging false assumptions during oversight hearings that are long overdue. More CMR info at: "Diversity" for Women in Land Combat - Essential Resources - Center for Military Readiness ------- "They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
I've come to the conclusion that in this day and age making peace takes courage and that the default position of war is the coward's way.
John Howard says: There are 4 schools of economics: Exodus to Europe: Who’s to Blame?
#2. To: GreyLmist (#0)
#3. To: GreyLmist (#0)
They demonstrate a cowardice of silence because they know better. The scientific evidence and the lessons of combat experience are utterly one-sided: women are unsuited for ground combat service.
#4. To: Cynicom (#2)
Women wanting to join the military should read "The Valleys of Death" first.
#5. To: All (#0)
(Edited)
Congress has the constitutional responsibility to set the rules and regulations governing the armed forces (Article I, Section 8).
May 15, 2014: Sanchez Pushes Gender Quotas and Women-in-Land-Combat
respect for military women is not the issue. Rep. Sanchez confuses the experience of being "in harms' way" in warzones with the mission of direct ground combat units such as the infantry. These are the "tip of the spear" units that seek out and destroy the enemy with deliberate offensive action.
Provisions of concern to the Center for Military Readiness, which should be reconsidered, are excerpted here: H.R. 4435, Sec. 527 and here: S. 2410, Sec. 523 & Sec. 552
a comprehensive report[s] on why expectations regarding physical standards in co-ed land combat units cannot be met [My note: 4um Ref. with 2 linked pdf reports]Nearly 100 distinguished retired military and civilian organization leaders have co-signed a Military Culture Coalition (MCC) letter expressing concerns about the lack of congressional oversight on the issue of women being ordered into direct ground combat units such as the infantry Co-signers of the MCC letter include a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, high-ranking former leaders of the Marine Corps, Army, Navy, and Air Force, decorated land combat veterans, and influential leaders of civilian organizations that support sound policies in our military. Some newly-elected members of Congress, such as Rep. Ryan Zinke (R-M[T]) and Rep. Steve Russell (R-OK) (pictured) are taking the issue seriously, but others clearly are not.
The documents posted ... provide factual information and historic context on the issue of military women in or near direct ground combat. Current articles are posted in the Issues Research & Analysis Section of this website under "Women in Combat."
#6. To: GreyLmist (#0)
Marxism: steal everything
Keynesianism: steal by counterfeiting whenever needed
Chicago school (Milton Friedman): steal by counterfeiting at a steady, predictable rate
Austrians: don't steal
'Wiped off the Map' – The Rumor of the Century
#7. To: PnbC (#6)
Profoundly true. There should never be skulking, clotured or unrecorded voice votes in America's House of Representative or the Senate -- especially on issues of war. American citizens should be there for every legislative voting session, recording all of them for us and they should be paid to do their duty of vigilance, even if it's in an alternative currency -- similar to Election Monitors. I've come to the conclusion that in this day and age making peace takes courage and that the default position of war is the coward's way.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#8. To: All (#0) (Edited)
Diversity, not military readiness, is the highest priority. That pdf file is 162 pages. I think it's a time.com copy of the doc but can't copy and paste text from it. Am posting a few details and transcriptions from it here: Dated: March 15, 2011 Opening sentence: The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2009 establihed the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. From the same page: diversity of our servicemembers is the unique strength of our military. ... given in this report is a new definition of diversity for the 21st century. From page xvii: An important step in this direction is that DoD and the Services eliminate combat exclusion policies for women ... to create a level playing field From the Conclusion at page xviii: the military must revise and develop policies consistent with the new diversity vision. ... strength that comes with diversity. From page 16: example of the strength that comes with diversity ... In the new model of diversity and diversity management put forth by the Commission, From page 102: Following the development of their diversity strategic plans, both DoD and the Services need to strengthen and finalize their diversity management policies, From page 117: An important step in this direction is to remove the restrictions that prevent women from engaging in direct ground combat. Additional sites with more on the MLDC report: [Description] The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday. We learn more from Retired Air Force Gen. Lester Lyles, chair of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission. FEDERAL DRIVE 5 years ago [Article excerpt] the commission recommends Defense and the Services should eliminate the “combat exclusion policies” for women. Military diversity group says there are too many white men [at the] top - The Daily Caller, excerpts: 03/07/2011 As if the military did not have enough to worry about with two wars, troops around the globe and members of Congress calling for the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya (a de facto act of war), the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) Monday released a report informing those in uniform that there are too many white men in their uppermost ranks. Ordered by Congress in the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, the report seeks to increase diversity. “Leveraging diversity as a vital strategic military resource will require the commitment, vision, and know-how of leaders at every level,” the report continues. “Without this commitment to instill respect for diversity as a core value, the needed cultural change may not take place.” To that end the commission has provided 20 recommendations to cure the military of its white male scourge — including increasing the eligibility pool, making diversity a “priority,” allow women in combat, instituting more outreach efforts, implementing “diversity strategic plans” and requiring official explanations when a minority or woman is not nominated to 3- and 4-star positions. From comments at the Daily Caller site: "Can we please keep the damn PC Police out of the military, you know, the people charged with keeping us all alive." "More tax money wasted by the Left." "Remember elections do have consequences" "these people (Democrats) decide social promotion is more important than protecting the nation. Not that we needed another reason to throw them out of office, but stuff like this makes it easier." "This bunch of social engineers are hell bent on destroying everything in their path. Demoralizing the military is another step in destroying the country." "Eventually, this kind of nonsense will lead to two Americas. Eventually, those among us who are still practical, self reliant Americans, will no longer be willing to live under the thumbs of these statist types who want the government to control every single solitary facet of our lives. I no more wish to live under this kind of system than I would live in North Korea or any other tin pot dictatorship. I would also suspect that there is little support for this type of nonsense in the office corps." "So the primary function of the military is "Diversity" rather than victory or taking care of the troops. Diversity over the lives of our troops" "is not our military voluntary? Why does the military care that most of the people who want a career in the armed forces are white?" "When my son attended MC Officer Candidate School at Quantico last summer, I was also surprised by the virtual absence of any minority candidates out of the 300+ graduates. As the commanding officer (an African-American colonel) told us, these officer candidates are self-selected. They spend their first 3 years in college preparing for those 6 weeks of OCS. All they have to do is perform what the Marine Corps asks of them. If they choose not to do it, it's their decision. As far as I could tell, he saw them as one color - Marine Corps Green." Personnel policy ... is driven by the “diversity metrics” [quotas] outlined in the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission.
Addressed to: Obama and the 112th United States Congress
Military Leadership Diversity Commission Archives - FederalNewsRadio.com
Report: military leadership too white and too male
CAROLINE MAY
Political Reporter "Ever notice that "diversity groups" almost always lack diversity themselves?"
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#9. To: All (#0) (Edited)
A: Lifting all combat exclusions for women virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court will declare male-only conscription unconstitutional. And a return to the draft is far more likely than most people realize. The unsustainably high cost of the all-volunteer force, especially with $17 trillion in national debt, and the expected requirements of future military operations will probably lead to a resumption of the draft, however politically unpopular it might be. When that happens, women will be drafted and forced into ground combat roles. From a Center for Military Readiness article at Post #5 above, May 15, 2014: Sanchez Pushes Gender Quotas and Women-in-Land-Combat Ms. Sanchez asked Marine Lt. General Robert Milstead about women who aren't interested in "that combat thing." Could such assignments be a matter of "choice?" Gen. Milstead responded by noting that military assignments are not voluntary. "That's why we call them orders," he said. Published on Jul 31, 2013 Q: What do you think will happen, given the push to let women serve in combat, if the nation ever needs to reinstitute the draft?
Unwilling women will have no choice, however, as Congresswoman Sanchez herself confirmed with a question she asked at a HASC [House Armed Services Committee] Personnel Subcommittee meeting last June.
From DocGTV.com [10.25 minutes]
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#10. To: All (#0) (Edited)
More on the foreign political pressures of "diversity management" to fashion combat for women at 4um Title: "U.S. military pressed to design special line of combat boots just for women" - Post #4: info on UN Women HQ, CFR/Council on Foreign Relations, genderandsecurity.org and Handbook of International Relations. From a July 24, 2013 book review at amazon.com of Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat: The REAL war on women is pushing us into combat 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. 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). From examiner.com June 13, 2014: Israeli study finds, 'Women Don't Belong in Combat' - Dothan Marine Corps - Examiner.com Col. (res.) Raza Sagi, a former infantry regiment commander, declared: "The feminist experiment in the Israeli military a failure." Lochamot Betzahal. He noted the higher rates of "serious injury among women serving in combat units." Sagi, like many, believe women were allowed into combat units based on a [series] of campaigns launched by "radical political groups" that pushed for women to be allowed in combat. We all know that men also suffer from injuries during their combat duties, but the studies prove that women have a much higher percentage rate of incurring a serious injury. It's a ridiculous notion that most feminists and those who believe women should be in combat have the idea that there's no difference between men and women serving in the military. "The book describes ludicrous measures by which women's lesser suitability for combat roles is masked. These include lowering the bar of requirements for women wishing to enter combat units, placing benches next to walls that trainees jump over (only for the women to use), running laps in circles (instead of straight-line runs from point A to point B) to make it less obvious that the women are lagging behind the men, and more, according to the Arutz Sheva article. The same exact things that happened in Israel, the lies, misleading intentions and lowering the training standards is beginning to occur here in the U.S. In Jan. of 2013, the Obama administration announced its intentions "to change the long-standing combat exclusion policy that limited women to support jobs in the military; At 4um Title: "U.S. military pressed to design special line of combat boots just for women" - Post #11: News & Commentary - Center for Military Readiness Also: Israel exists under constant threats, so most able-bodied citizens are conscripted to serve in the military. On May 18 the Jewish Press quoted the Hebrew-language YnetNews.com in reporting that even with personnel shortages, IDF officials have decided that women will not be assigned to armored tank units Washington Times reporter Rowan Scarborough researched the largely-unreported news from Israel and wrote a front-page story that should give American policy-makers pause: [1] Women's Combat Roles in Israel Defense Forces Exaggerated, Military Traditionalists Say [May 25, 2015] In the article Center for Military Readiness President Elaine Donnelly commented, “Uniformed Israeli women patrol the borders or help to train men for combat positions, but these important missions do not involve ground combat, meaning deliberate offensive action against the enemy. None of America's allies, much less potential adversaries, are treating women like men in the combat arms.”political pressure ... the Council on Foreign Relations ... the UN
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.
A new Israeli study claims after 13 years of research involving women participating in combat roles in the IDF that women are not suited to be in combat units, according to the website Arutz Sheva.
Article February 20, 2015: New British Report Shreds Case for Women in Direct Ground Combat - News & Commentary - Center for Military Readiness
Article June 9, 2015: Israeli Defense Force Decides: Armored Tanks Will Stay All-Male - News & Commentary - Center for Military Readiness, excerpts:
While some American military leaders are preparing to order women into combat arms units such as the infantry by January 2016, the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and the British Ministry of Defence (MOD) are moving in the opposite direction. The Israeli and British decisions to keep certain land combat units all-male reflect extensive field tests and U.S. Marine Corps research confirming major differences in the physical capabilities of military women and men in the combat arms.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#11. To: GreyLmist (#10)
Double bunking would be nice?
#12. To: All (#10) (Edited)
Co-Ed Combat sites: Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn't Fight the Nation's Wars Hardcover – November 8, 2007 by Kingsley Browne The Truth About Women in Combat - The Daily Beast Coed Combat Units - The Weekly Standard Why Not All-Female Combat Units - TIME.com CONSTRUCTING THE CO-ED MILITARY - ELAINE DONNELLY* CMR COMPILES DEFINITIVE SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ON CO-ED BASIC TRAINING - Search - Center for Military Readiness
Co-Ed Combat by Kingsley Browne - Conservative Book Club
conservativebookclub.com/book/co-ed-combat
amazon.com/Co-ed-Comb...dnt-Nations/dp/1595230432
amazon.com/Co-ed-Comb...dnt-Nations/dp/1595230432...&linkCode=as2&
thedailybeast.com/art...the-truth-about-women-in- combat.html
weeklystandard.com/ar...-combat-units_697822.html
weeklystandard.com/ar...-combat-units_697822.html?page=2
weeklystandard.com/ar...-combat-units_697822.html?page=3
nation.time.com/2013/03/2...-all-female-combat-units/
scholarship.law.duke.edu/...rticle=1130&context=djglp
cmrlink.org/content/article/34471
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#13. To: GreyLmist (#12) (Edited)
>Gasp< Time rag calls for SEGREGATION! How can they even USE this word, such a painful reminder of Jim Crow? "of course women are perfectly capable of killing other human beings" -- oh yeah, they're that all right as any Forensic Files fan knows. www.mintpressnews.com/wom...-unspoken-truth-domestic- violence/196746/
#14. To: All (#0)
Deadly Consequences by Robert Maginnis - Regnery Publishing The Obama administration has announced its intention to change the long-standing combat exclusion policy that limited women to support jobs in the military; now women can hunker down in foxholes on the frontlines. President Obama is dead set on eviscerating our military by pushing women to the frontlines. He isn’t the only one to blame, however—this policy is the product of a naïve culture that blindly embraces government-hosted violence in the name of equal opportunity. But there is no evidence women are clamoring for ground combat assignments. Worse yet, there is significant reason to believe that women in combat will lead to a wide range of devastating consequences, many unforeseen and unintended by proponents, but no less dangerous. Pentagon insider Robert L. Maginnis exposes the cold truth behind this contentious topic, debunking barefaced myths about “gender equality” in combat situations in his new book Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat. Civilian feminists view ground combat as a glass ceiling for women’s equal opportunity. They could not care less about our fighting ability or the threat it poses for women and for the men they serve with. Women in the U.S. Armed Forces are regularly held to lower training standards than men. That means that when they’re called into active combat situations, they won’t bring the same physical strength and skills training as men do. In training, male Marines are required to lift 40 pounds, while female trainees must only lift 20. If a ship is sinking and the only way to save it is to lift a 40-pound piece of equipment, the female Marines will be less qualified for the task. On top of this disparity is a looming draft. Security experts foresee another American draft within this generation; if women can serve in combat, every male and female over the age of 18 will be in danger of being called up. Controversial and starkly factual, Deadly Consequences is a resounding indictment of a policy that is bound to erode not only the American military, but jeopardize American security and society as well. FREE Email chapter from Deadly Consequences. Request form at the above Regnery Publishing site. @ amazon.com: Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat Hardcover by Robert L. Maginnis. Scroll down for 4 Pages of recommended Book Reviews: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4ISBN: 978-1-62157-190-2
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#15. To: All (#14) (Edited)
4um Title: In 'Historic Step,' U.S. Military Opens All Combat Roles to Women Fri Dec 4, 2015 He acknowledged the decision could lead to more debate over whether women would have to register for the draft, an issue he said was already under litigation. The U.S. military is currently an all-volunteer force, but young men are still required to register in case the draft is reactivated. Asked whether the decision opened the door to women being required to serve in front-line combat positions, Carter said members of the military had some choices but not "absolute choice." "People are assigned to missions, tasks and functions according to need as well as their capabilities," he said. "And women will be subject to the same standard and rules that men will." The decision drew a rebuke from the Republican chairmen of the armed services committees in the Senate and House of Representatives. 4um Title: The San Bernardino Shooting Is Following The False Flag Mass Shooting Script – Episode 833 Recommending that approx. 8.5 minute commentary on these reported topics: @ 19:40-21:13 ... UK votes to bomb Syria, the war begins [zerohedge.com + rt.com] @ 21:14-22:31 ... Turkey and Russia have suspended the pipeline talks [sputniknews.com] @ 22:32-24:26 preparations for major war ... Ashton Carter says all combat positions are now open for women [stripes.com] @ 24:27-25:27 Gulf of Tonkin-like Incident concerns ... US Aircraft [Carrier] Harry Truman arrives in the Mediterranean [zerohedge.com] @ 25:28-27:25 ... World War III Big Bang [thenational.ae: A new round of international talks on ending the war will be held in New York, UN scretary-general Ban Ki-moon said on Thursday. Diplomats said the talks were likely to be held on December 18.] From the above stripes.com article Dec 3, 2015: Carter opens all military jobs to women In 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta directed all combat positions be opened to women by Jan. 1, 2016, and he gave the services and the Special Operations Command three years to provide the recommendations and data on whether some frontline combat jobs should remain closed. The recommendations were delivered Oct. 1 to Carter and Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The Army, Navy, Air Force and Special Operations Command recommended no job exceptions, Carter said. All jobs must be available for qualified women by April 1, he said. “The Marine Corps asked for a partial exception in some areas such as infantry, machine gunner, fire support reconnaissance and other” specialties, he said. “We are a joint force. And I have decided to make a decision which applies to the entire force.” The Marines in September released the executive summary of a controversial report that led to their recommendation to preclude women from serving in those positions. The study, which took place while Dunford was still serving as commandant of the Marine Corps, examined 100 female Marines and 400 male Marines at Camp Lejeune, N.C. and Twentynine Palms, Calif., and found females were more injury prone than their male counterparts. Dunford was absent from the announcement Thursday. Carter said Dunford was not at the podium with him because “[I am] announcing my decision.” Republicans on Congress’ armed services panels on Thursday called for hearings on Carter’s decision, specifically referring to his denial of the Marine Corps request to continue to deny some positions to women. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., chairman of the Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers in the House and Senate have 30 days to review how it could impact the military and will ask to see the 1,000-page Marine integration report that was the basis for the service’s position. “We expect the department to send over its implementation plans as quickly as possible to ensure our committees have all the information necessary to conduct proper and rigorous oversight,” McCain said in a released statement. Rep. Joe Heck, R-Nev., chairman of an armed services subcommittee, said the House review will focus on whether the DOD was thorough in weighing whether opening all combat jobs to women will benefit national defense. He said he plans to call DOD officials to testify. “Our first priority must be to ensuring the safety and security of our troops and of Americans here at home,” he said in a release. “This must be the foundation of any changes to the structure of military units.”
+ 2 minute video at Source: reuters.com Carter said the opening to women would take place following a 30-day review period, after which they would be integrated into the new roles in a "deliberate and methodical manner" as positions come open. The waiting period enables Congress to review the decision and raise any objections.
+ 44.5 minute audio at Source: x22report.com [news segment on war-relevant issues at 18:43-27:25] @ 18:43-19:39 ... USS Ross arrives in the Black Sea | 3 week time-limit because US is not a state sponsored actor in the region [sputniknews.com + 4um Posted info: Montreux Convention 1936... Development of the Convention since 1936]
Since 2013, more than 110,000 formally male-only positions have opened to female troops.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#16. To: NeoconsNailed (#13)
@ nation.time.com: Why Not All-Female Combat Units? Gender-based segregation currently exists in the U.S. military and it works exceedingly well; The question of whether or not gender-based segregation is analogous to racial segregation is simple. I do not believe they are. Our society routinely segregates based on gender, men and women do not share locker rooms, public showers or bathrooms. The Pentagon has begun the process of integrating women into combat units. However, men and women side-by-side in the same infantry units will almost certainly lead to more problems and a weaker military. [combat] units should be gender-segregated. That would give [...] women full access to opportunities afforded to men, while preserving military readiness. >Gasp< Time rag calls for SEGREGATION! How can they even USE this word, such a painful reminder of Jim Crow?
As a male combat veteran of two tours in Iraq with infantry units, the view from here is that women should have their own, separate, combat units.
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#17. To: Cynicom (#11) (Edited)
U, elsewhere @ 4um: "Stalin (communist) said lady for every mans bunk." ... U2 and many times: "Never trust a Russian. Your life depends on it." @ time.com: "A combat unit isn’t a civilian company where a bad intra-office romance causes hurt feelings. Divisiveness in a combat or combat support unit can cause [division] in a finely-tuned killing machine, and ultimately cost lives." @ weeklystandard.com: "Women are four times more likely to report ill, and the percentage of women being medically nonavailable at any time is twice that of men. ... [those] under the age of 30 (as are 60 percent of female military personnel) [tend] to become pregnant. ... During pregnancy (if she remains in the service at all), a woman must be exempted from progressively more routine duties, such as marching, field training, and swim tests. ... If a woman can’t do her job, someone else must do it for her." @ scholarship.law.duke.edu: "If a submarine’s captain were faced with a female sailor in acute medical distress, or a pregnant sailor who fears birth defects due to carbon monoxide and other toxic elements in the atmosphere, what is the skipper to do? An immediate, unexpected trip to the surface would compromise the sub’s undersea mission. In addition, mid-ocean evacuations, accomplished by means of a basket dangling from a helicopter, would be extremely perilous for all concerned, especially when a sub is operating in deep ocean or under polar ice. ... evacuations due to pregnancy have already occurred in a formerly all-male FSC [forward support company]," Double bunking would be nice?
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#18. To: GreyLmist (#16)
This must be about 20 years old. :-( Our society routinely segregates based on gender, men and women do not share locker rooms, public showers or bathrooms.
#19. To: NeoconsNailed (#18)
Nope: March 25, 2013 This must be about 20 years old. :-(
-------
"They're on our left, they're on our right, they're in front of us, they're behind us...they can't get away this time." -- Col. Puller, USMC
#20. To: GreyLmist (#19)
If only people in THAT year could have known some publik skools would be banning single-sex kiddie lavatories now.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest