[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help] 

Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

Misinformation Doesn’t Kill People—People Kill People

Democrats Intend to Steal the Election

Elon Musk Drops Names of Billionaires Who Are “Terrified” About Trump Releasing Epstein List (VIDEO)

Unconfirmed reports of explosions in Iran, Isfahan (nuke site)

Florida braces for Hurricane Milton, a Category 5 storm, prompting mass evacuations and emergency declarations.

Lest We Forget IDF Intelligence Directorate was warned of impending Oct 7th attack, refused to act on the information

WATCH: Lara Trump Hits Dana Bash with a Major Fact Check

Harry Enten — This is democrats big worry.

Cybersecurity Incident Hits America's Largest Regulated Water & Wastewater Utility Firm

Watch: Hezbollah Unleashes Massive Missile Strikes On Israel's Haifa

This weird metal is insanely bouncy [Interesting series]

Shock Study Finds SIX-FOLD Increased Death Rate in COVID-Vaxxed Kids

FEMA is now DENYING they spent $1.4B on aid for ILLEGALS...good thing we brought THE RECEIPTS!

TDS-RIDDEN SIMP CHAD GETS INSTANT KARMA ⚢ AFTER RUNNING OVER TRUMP-VANCE SIGN

Trump Campaign Releases Inspiring Ad Ahead Of Butler, PA Return

Elon Musk-Founded America PAC Rolls Out Bold Program — Earn $30/hr with Performance Bonuses to Boost Voter Registration

Russia Captures Another Village In Eastern Ukraine, Putting Strategic Pokrovsk Within 4 Miles

Childrens Diets Are Now 70%; Ultra-Processed Foods; Dietitian Warns

Israeli Strikes Hit Aid Trucks In Syrias Homs

US to give Israel 'compensation' if it hits acceptable targets in Iran - report

WEF Demands Ban on Home-Grown Food to Stop Global Warming

Political storm rages over FEMA disaster relief weeks before Election Day

Tren de Aragua gang members arrested in police raid at Texas apartment complex

After being threatened with death by Israel for accurate Gaza news coverage, Palestinian journalist murdered by IDF

Volunteer Hero Says Helene Situation 'Far Worse' Than What's Being Reported

6 Things to Watch In The Upcoming Supreme Court Term

A Slow-Motion Drift to Nuclear War?

BRCC PRESENTS - The Siege at Khe Sanh

Susan Rice Calls Trump A 'Surrender Monkey' For Trying To Appease Putin On Ukraine

Elon Goes "DARK MAGA" - Joins Trump ON STAGE! Media Melt Down Ensues


National News
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: 305
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:

— 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.

— 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.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

#8. To: All (#0) (Edited)

Personnel policy ... is driven by the “diversity metrics” [quotas] outlined in the 2011 Report of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission.

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:

Addressed to: Obama and the 112th United States Congress

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:

Military Leadership Diversity Commission Archives - FederalNewsRadio.com

Report: military leadership too white and too male

[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:

CAROLINE MAY
Political Reporter

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:

"Ever notice that "diversity groups" almost always lack diversity themselves?"

"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."

GreyLmist  posted on  2015-09-09   19:58:05 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 8.

        There are no replies to Comment # 8.


End Trace Mode for Comment # 8.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest


[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Sign-in]  [Mail]  [Setup]  [Help]