Women In Combat: Good Idea Or Bad?

Women-in-Combat-450x338

Yesterday it was leaked that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta is planning on opening up combat roles for women. Ostensibly, women aren’t to serve in combat in the military, though in reality quite a few of them are already exposed. In fact, there is a member of the House right now who lost both of her legs while flying helicopters in combat (Rep. Tammy Duckworth).

But Panetta’s plan would throw open all combat roles for women. Is it a good idea or a bad? I think it depends on how it’s done.

Republican Senator James Inhofe doesn’t think it can be done. “I do not believe this will be a broad opening of combat roles for women, because as the 2012 report indicated, there are ‘serious practical barriers which must be resolved so that the department can maximize the safety and privacy of all military members while maintaining military readiness,” he said in response to Panetta’s announcement.

The report Senator Inhofe is referring to seemed focused on manipulating standards and qualifications procedures to achieve certain racial and gender diversity outcomes. I’m fine with the concept of women or gays or anyone of any demographic serving in our military up to and including in combat roles, but what I don’t want to lower standards (or create separate standards) that might lower readiness and compromise effectiveness just to check off a few boxes on some PC checklist.

We shouldn’t have women in combat just because some politician thinks there ought to be more women in combat. There ought to be women in combat because they’ve earned their way into those positions, just like everyone else.

If that’s how this is pursued, then I have no problems with it. But I worry about the politicians and military bureaucrats being more concerned with appearances than military readiness.

Rob Port is the editor of SayAnythingBlog.com. In 2011 he was a finalist for the Watch Dog of the Year from the Sam Adams Alliance and winner of the Americans For Prosperity Award for Online Excellence. In 2013 the Washington Post named SAB one of the nation's top state-based political blogs, and named Rob one of the state's best political reporters. He writes a weekly column for several North Dakota newspapers, and also serves as a policy fellow for the North Dakota Policy Council.

Related posts

  • 11B40

    Greetings:

    On the one hand, I see this as an example of “it takes a village to hollow out a military”.

    On the other, why should the sexual dysfunctionals have all the fun. Let the combative heteros have a chance to get some.

    And somewhere in the deep, dark depths of Indiana, which are very, very deep and really, really dark, a look of stunned shock makes its way across the face of former Pvt. Jessica Lynch (and formerly all of 5’2″ and 90 lbs) as she deeply ponders.

    What’s left now ??? Anyone want to double down on the midgets/dwarfs/littler people ???

    • slackwarerobert

      waht about the she-it’s? Do they get have to be in the front and back lines?

  • 11B40

    Greetings, again:

    Somewhat more seriously, the question for me isn’t the oft proffered yet quite misleading, “Can they do the job ???” but rather “Can they do the job so much better that their performance will surpass all the attendant accommodations their presence will require ???”.

  • RCND

    I have no concerns with opening up combat arms roles and special operations ones to women, so long as they can meet the rigorous physical standards inherent with these roles without adjustment because they are women. Right now, each service has a physical fitness test with different standards for men and women. In addition, combat arms and special ops have unique physical training reflective of what they have to do. So long as those unique standards are not adjusted because they are women, and they have to meet the same physical fitness test standards as their male counterparts, let them in, Those standards won’t be adjusted in real combat, so they can’t be in selection and training either.

    It is interesting to note that the USMC opened up The Basic Course to female officers recently. Every male Marine officer is first trained as an infantry officer, and TBC does that. Three female Marines gave it their all, and should be commended for trying, but they quit in the middle because they could not keep up with the physical demands.

    Women in the military do engage in combat all the time. That is a given. But there is a big difference between combat in the course of conducting their daily responsibilities, and actually going into combat with the intent of taking it to the enemy in prolonged operations. So long as they can meet those standards, let them serve in the roles

  • $8194357

    I dunno…
    Will they shoot American citizens?
    If they will Barry will advance them along the insiders fast track…

    This ain’t your daddys America.
    Barry Soreto

    http://godfatherpolitics.com/9112/obama-tailoring-military-leadership-to-only-those-who-will-shoot-fellow-americans/#ixzz2IuMLNLtR

    Obama Tailoring Military Leadership to Only Those Who Will Shoot Fellow Americans

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/9112/obama-tailoring-military-leadership-to-only-those-who-will-shoot-fellow-americans/#ixzz2IulX7kY8

    “Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”

    When you think about everything Obama has done to undermine the traditional integrity of the US military, it all makes sense. He forced the military to accept homosexuals and then took action on any who opposed that measure. Then Obama started attacking the military retirement system making a military career less attractive than before. Then he took action against military chaplains who stood up for their faith. Lastly, the Pentagon has issued orders for troops in the Middle East to remove all religious symbolism, however this is largely enforced against Christians and Jews, but not for Muslims.

    The Obama administration was outraged when American soldiers burned a stack of Qurans. He said nothing about the Qurans being defaced by Muslim prisoners and Obama said nothing about the stack of Bibles that were burned at the same time.

  • Hal414

    If we go this route, it’s only fair to require females to sign up for selective service.

    • badlands4

      My son was extremely surprised when he had to register and found out that his sister didn’t ;) I agree with you

      • $8194357

        Hope all is well with your son, badlands…

        • badlands4

          He isn’t the one who is military, it is his sister, which is ironic is it not? ;)

          • badlands4

            But, thank you :)

          • $8194357

            I will pray for a “Hedge of God’s protection be round about her”..
            God Bless you and yours…

      • slackwarerobert

        So what did he think about illegals that obama say have been here since they were children don’t have to sign up either?

    • RCND

      What’s fair is fair

  • sbark

    I’d say 4 divisions on rotation of a week per month………timed to PMS
    They’d wipe out anything in their way……………after that–not soo much

    • yy4u2

      In lieu of waterboarding, give them ladies a mic; drives many good men insane.

      • ‘Tom Crawford

        Hrmmm is it considered torture if we fill a room full of women, not fully covered as terrorist so want, and have the terrorist in the middle and they all nag him till he talks….?

        Or maybe no one says anything and they all just stare at him for hours on end….when asked why they are staring or whats wrong they say “NOTHING” or “FINE”…hehe

        • PK

          Yeah torture jokes, real funny. Have you read what we’ve done in our torture camps? Of course not, if you have you wouldn’t make a dumb ass comment like that.

          • ‘Tom Crawford

            PK dont get your panties in a twist. Learn to live and laugh a bit. Tragedy is all around, if you cant find or supply a smile you will be a very depressed person…regardless, I could careless about you or your opinion. If it is a true terrorist, I have no problem doing whatever it takes to get the info that will save the lives of Americans – even going so far as to make them listen to Justin Beiber…

          • PK

            Many people were innocent. Sorry if i don’t find torture of innocent people funny at all. By the way, it’s against the law to torture anybody, guilty or innocent.

          • ‘Tom Crawford

            Hrmmm then they should put Justin Bieber in jail, along with Obama….they both make my ears bleed….

          • slackwarerobert

            Actually, it was saddam’s torture camp. We just utilized it as a spoil of war. And we did nothing blomberg doesn’t do to the poeple of new york, or the TSA does to us if we are dumb enough to fly.

  • badlands4

    As a military mom of a daughter, I find myself conflicted. Women are already in combat since there is no front line anymore when deployed, so it seems a little grandstanding to show the “progress” we are making. Also, fact of the matter is women are different. It seems silly, but monthly cycles are an issue as are the differences between what would happen to a man vs a woman if they are captured. I guarantee you that is an issue I, and every other mother of a daughter in the military, thinks about. It is also something every guy is going to think about. Men are wired with a protective gene when it comes to women and you cannot tell me that men are going to be as careful and rational as they would normally if they knew a woman was captured. They won’t. They will be more reckless for the simple reason that they are going to have a huge pull to get her out of harms way for reasons different than they would a man.

    On the flip-side, and I realize it is a complete contradiction, if you can cut it without ANY special treatment compared to the men, you have earned your place. As it stands now however, women have different, lesser standards than men do so how can you be sure they are truly qualified?

    As I said, very conflicted on this.

  • Neiman

    What is very bad is another Obama Czar/Secretary ruling on policies impacting the nation out side of Congress. This is more of the dictatorial nature of the Obamanites.

    • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

      Old Pal, if women in combat is good enough for God’s chosen people, why is it not good enough for us Americans too?

      • Neiman

        Staring with more lies, hey coward? I am not your pal, but you keep calling me your pal knowing it is a lie, because of your sick obsession with me.

        I notice you avoided every point I made in my last comments to you under another thread, because to answer them you would only have to pile lies upon lies, knowing the truth would expose you for what you are and hold you up to contempt before God and man.

        More lies, as usual, I spoke of the tyrannical nature of Obama and his administration in enacting this change outside the people’s representative sin Congress, not about whether women should serve or not. The Obamanites do not see themselves as servants of the people anyway, but their lords and masters.

        As most women are quite masculine today anyway, most men quite feminine and the military is turning pink, I really do not have an opinion. It is not how God designed men and women and family, it is not His best plan for family, children and the nation, but by your party’s unhealthy, demonic influences, this is now an atheist, Christ hating State, so why worry about it, you folks have brought down His Judgment on us anyway.

        The family today is a joke, children are sex objects or inhuman tumors to be murdered in the womb. God had a better way for us, we kicked Him out of the country.

        • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

          Thanks yet again, Old Pal, for demonstrating why you are SAB’s greatest commenter of all times.

          You wind up your declared opinion:

          most women are quite masculine today anyway, most men quite feminine and the military is turning pink

          with:

          I really do not have an opinion

          Yerda bestest, Old Pal! Teh bestest!

          • Neiman

            Does your earthly father know your mother was having carnal knowledge with Lucifer to produce you?

            Liar – I am not your pal.

            Liar – I did not offer an opinion on women serving in combat.

            Liar – you apparently can’t even spell, that last line makes you look like the idiot we all know you to be.

            Oh, still avoiding my questions as usual, right coward?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            That’s sure some Christ like banter you got going there, Old Pal.
            Does your made up god allow that?

            And you are not my pal, Old Pal.

          • http://ndgoon.blogspot.com Goon

            Do you ever do anything other than stalk Neiman?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Yes.

          • Neiman

            No, he is obsessed with me, I think it is a psycho-sexual lust.

          • Neiman

            Lies – all lies – all the time. You keep calling me your pal, in that way expressing your psycho-sexual lust for me and then deny calling me your pal. How sick is that>

          • awfulorv

            Couldn’t you and RBB carry on your incessant warfare in your own kitchen, as most couples do? Why must you conduct your battles from separate rooms, over the internet, and involve the rest of us in your jealous squabbles? Better yet, why not try a trial separation or, if that doesn’t work, divvy up your sticks, and stones, and cut the knot that binds you.

          • Neiman

            Couldn’t you stop being a oozing, puss filled, odorous rectal sphincter of a faux human being? Look in the mirror, the homosexual crud looking back is you.

          • awfulorv

            Could I be of help in removing that huge hook from your cheek?

          • Neiman

            Oh, I thought we were playing insulting each other for fun and profit.

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Liar – I did not offer an opinion on women serving in combat.

            Perhaps. You did offered what you pretend to believe is your made up god’s military make up:

            It is not how God designed men and women and family, it is not His best plan for family, children and the nation…

          • Neiman

            Prove me wrong! Oh, you can’t. Talk about a made up god, you serve one that will save you without all that Jesus business and you can mas murder babies too, as you are an accomplice to 55 million of them. Your god says homosexuality is good, heterosexuality a sin.

            Yes, God designed the family for the good of each human being and society, but you liberals hate the family and have perverted it and as you can kill the babies, why not the mommies too?

          • http://realitybasedbob.sayanythingblog.com/ realitybasedbob

            Old Pal, God’s chosen people have combat gals. You support God’s chosen people, dontcha? Of course, as you’ve said before all but 144,000 of them are condemned to hell, anyway, so I guess it doesn’t matter after all.

          • Neiman

            Gals? That is very misogynistic of you.

            I don’t know what “dontcha” means, some strange language, well I guess for an idiot it is okay.

            I never said all but 144,000 Jews are condemned to hell, more lies. You just cannot do anything but lie, can you child of hell?

            I am not your pal, more lies. Every time you call me your pal, you add to your lies and show you are a pathological liar.

            Still afraid to tell us how your god gets you to heaven without Jesus? Why are you so timid about your anti-christ god? Well, I don’t blame you, once you tell the truth about that you are finished here and anywhere else. Also, with your limited vocabulary and IQ in the single digits, I guess even forming a sentence on your own is a challenge.

            God’s Chosen people have often gone against His Will and have suffered His discipline for their rebellion, but I never said I was for or against women in the military, you are just lying by implying I have, that is all you have is lies. I can be for a person and still not agree with all they do, unlike you liberal lemmings that will go off the cliff and into hell for your messiah Obama,

        • two_amber_lamps

          10x

      • http://flamemeister.com flamemeister

        Think for a second—oops! for you a couple of days—about Israel’s geopolitical circumstances.

      • slackwarerobert

        I don’t remember women going in first on the maneuvers into gazza or the incursions into lebenon. How is it they never have a female soldier captured in all this time, when they have soldiers kidnapped all the time?

        But I am glad you understand it is their land. God would never give it to a bunch of terrorists who think allah is god.

  • Daniel Mickelson

    Let the qualified ones fight, and end the selective service system.

  • Yogibare

    Another bad idea whose time has come to satisfy the political correctness or the social justice thinking that afflicts our American political leaders. There was a most interesting article in the Wall Street JOurnal today about a soldier telling of experiences as they were leading into Baghdad in 2003. It was not a place for a mixture of men and women.
    If we see this burden of men-only-warring as unfair to men then we need to stop the warring. Or, get over it !

  • schreib

    Wow, this really says a lot for a society when it thinks its ok to send women into combat. Only if we were fighting on our shores should that ever happen

  • schreib

    Great, more women for the enemy to rape

    • slackwarerobert

      That is why I always admired pineapple head noriega. He raped everyone, men women and children. No discrimination. No favoritism. You went to his prison, you put out.

  • joe mauer

    I’d trust my back more with the average female than old cut and run rob.

    • schreib

      now, now, now—be nice

  • schreib

    Any unit is only as strong as it’s weakest link. Few women could hold up to the same standards as their male counterparts. This will only get guys killed. And what about any hanky-panky going on in the trenches? And what about 2 guys competing for a female? We cannot deny that these are the things in nature. I don’t have a problem with women serving, as I was in the army myself————–and there was a lot of fooling around being done. Men are natural protectors of women.

    • Anti-NCAA

      It is simple physiological differences. Nothing sexism about it….

  • Onslaught1066

    If the whole idea is to allow women to climb the rungs of the promotional ladder that are denied to non combatants then the question becomes,what wars will liberals start in order to accommodate our ladies in waiting and with whom.

    Wither goest thou, O’ once pacifistic dems?

  • matthew_bosch

    So in cases of enemy rape of Women soldiers, do we have to authorize abortions at VA clinics, paid for by taxpayers?

    • slackwarerobert

      Since it already happend under bush in the first war, maybe obama should open the books and tell us the policy? What is the policy when OBL jr, sets up his manufacturing facilities using our women instead of his burka babes? Do we bomb them to stop the production of suicide babies?

    • $34543430

      Do we for rape within the military?

      • awfulorv

        The obvious solution, lovely Seejai, are Chastity Belts, to be worn by all female combatants. The keys to the belts would be under the care of the Butch…err Base commander.

    • slackwarerobert

      Or we can just allow UGLY women in combat. Then we only need to worry about blind soldiers. Can achmed attack a unit with 72 virgins?

  • spud

    Good or bad but the right word is inevitable.

  • Random Passerby

    As others have noted, this decision opens up several complicated issues.
    1) Selective Service – do women get included in this, i not, why? (equal protection and all that)
    2) training and standards – do standards get “gender normalized” (lowered because of physical differences) for females? if so, then why are the standards so high for males? If not, then what is the blowback for ‘lack of female representation’ in those fields where they were not ‘normalized’?
    3) logistics – woman have higher sanitary needs than males. how will that be handled?
    4) Effects of war – what post trauma care will be provided? reconstructive surgery (will that include boob jobs?)? results of battlefield/prisoner rape? (abortions? adoption assitance? lifetime comp for an unexpected dependant?)
    5) effects on readiness – if a female gets pregnant, she is out of any remotely dangerous job for the duration(that is standard now, not new, not news). she get replaced by a male? she get replaced period? will combat arms units have to be overstaffed to compensate?
    6) effects on law – I am going to takei tas a given that combat arms soldiers will be forced into deep and heavy (and overbearing) sensitivity training…given that that is unwelcome to begin with…additionally, what will be the effects of female presence? will the males be constantly written up for sexual harassment (if so, the effect on promotions, and legal status?), and what to do if the female decides to cry rape (real or as revenge) in the field?
    Disclosure: I’m not oppsed to gays in the military (worked for the Roman Legions, and they didn’t do to shabbily), but I am fairly opposed to the whole female in combat arms thing. These are the EASY questions to identify.

    • Anti-NCAA

      Add to that the mental anguish an infantryman in a foxhole at that moment when chaos occurs. Does the male instinctively attempt to protect his mate in the foxhole, thereby taken focus away from the enemy and onto a female troop? Does it lead to potential sexual assault in combat conditions (more than currently happening) because of that pending ‘unknown’ of death? Not all conditions are in garrison and around other troops. Will we expect a ‘timeout’ occur as women need to medically maintain hygiene in remote locations when it’s impossible to do as such? There are other factors including those that Random Passerby addresses.

      As a 23yr retiree I don’t know if we’ve answered all of those questions before moving in that direction. I don’t mind the roles women serve in combat support and combat service support units….. it’s an entirely different picture in the combat arms echelons. Houston, we’ve got a problem….

      • Random Passerby

        Also not addressed is the effect of fraternization in a combat environment. If there is ‘foxhole dating’ what’s going to be the effect on the rest of the squad? Will this be addressed by assembling gay/female formations to avoid this? If so that has its own cans of worms…

  • WOOF

    We would have saved thousands of lives and not have had
    the last two wars of choice if there were a draft, especially if there
    was an attempt to draft women.
    Everyone should serve.

    In real war, everyone gets a chance to fight, and die.

    • slackwarerobert

      We would save thousands of lives if we actually FIGHT the wars. We would save billions if we just carpet, ad fire bomb the enemy. $1.5M missiles to blow up a limo when $15,000 worth of bombs will do a better job is stupid. If you don’t want to get blown up with the nuts, kill them yourself so we don’t have to bomb.

      • WOOF

        We went to Iraq to occupy the place and strip its resources, a more expensive endeavor. Fighting was an unforeseen 10 year circumstance. The welcomed as liberators meme.

        • willieB

          Hey dopey…where are the “resources” we stripped?

          • WOOF

            We lost willieB. The losers don’t get the spoils.

          • willieB

            But…but…obama said we won. And if we lost, according to you, how could we have stripped the resources but lost the spoils?

            You dope.

          • Ken

            Once again, woof is shown to be the moron he always has been, and always will be.

        • slackwarerobert

          We have plenty of sand of our own, we have plenty of idiots of our own. They had nothing except untraceable WMD’s that we could use. It is far easier to strip resources when you scape the building off from on top of them.

  • VocalYokel

    Bad idea.

    Given the fact that many men have an instinct to protect women, I’m not sure that the psychological effect of seeing them killed and maimed would set the same as when it happens to another guy…while there is camaraderie among soldiers, the male/female relationship is different, no matter what conditions under which it is developed.

    If this politically correct fiasco is allowed to go forward, it is imperative that women be able to pass the same physical requirements as their male counterparts.

    Failure to do so will place not only themselves but those around them in jeopardy.

  • devilschild

    This isn’t news. Panetta is only acknowledging what they have been doing for the past 12 years in Iraq and Afghanistan. Those two conflicts have given the military a better understanding of whether or not women have what it takes to be on the front lines. Apparently they have done an exceptional job.

  • headward

    they will be a distraction so no they shouldn’t be in combat. Also they should be on the same standard as men in the military. This causes a huge gender pay gap for women getting paid more for less work.
    Remember this is the military and they can discriminate all they want.

  • slackwarerobert

    I don’t care as long as they shoot first and ask questions later. The only problem is the cost, now we will have to double up on infrastructure at the training, and field units. We are supposed to be cutting costs, not doubling them. Put them in with the gays, and the lesbians in with the men.

  • ‘Tom Crawford

    If they can hack it on the front lines then so be it, give them their due.

    If people are worried about “attacks” or such, then our soldiers better learn more self-control. Personally I dont see that being an issue.

    There is a male instinct to try and protect women when coming to harm…and if the enemy exploits that to make our soldiers talk that could be an issue, but then again, proper training should help with that.

    Again, if they can hack it, let them.

    As for Selective Service, they can register for that as well – it should be all over the age of 18 regardless.

  • awfulorv

    Women do quite well in their “battle of the sexes” at the present time, using their “natural” weapons. Therefore, Unless our potential enemies suddenly opt to change to an all female force, this could be quite interesting. The time may come when simply “flashing” an enemy will cause them to flee the field of battle, rather than gaze upon a naked female Infidel.

  • slackwarerobert

    Will it be a hate crime if you frag your incompetent female commander? Will the new york times publish a female wearing “I Love NY” panties in a fire fight? Won’t females using flash bang holsters upset the terrorists? What does geneva say about pregnant POW’s?

  • $34543430

    I didn’t think they were saying let’s put women in combat by means of affirmative action, but let’s make it legal for women to be in combat (or lift the ban in the policy). Huge difference.

    • slackwarerobert

      They never do, but that is the inevitable result. Look at that fire fighter case, blacks were to stupid to pass the test so you have to lower the standards. It will be the same thing. It isn’t what they say now, it is what they will do in 5 years from now. Remember bush said homeland security and TSA would be ok because honest reputable people would be in charge. Now they molest children and desecrate peoples dead relatives.

  • $34543430

    I’ve heard people say, “Women are too emotional to do combat.” (Not necessarily here) And also, “Men will be too worried about protecting the women.” If that’s true, it seems like men need to control emotions. And given the ridiculously high rate of sexual assault in the military, I doubt that’s overwhelmingly the case (I work for the DoD, so I get a lot of statistic-packed training modules).

  • The Fighting Czech

    will this be included in Title 9!! Lets see, women arent able to compete against men when it comes to throwing some hoops, or swatting at a puck…. so they got to have their own playpens where boys arent allowed……. But it comes to Tossing Grenades and shooting at people that are shooting at them… NO problem they can be right there in the heat of things with the boys… sounds a little goofy….Part of me is ok with women in combat if the Combat groups are exclusively women, Just like the sport teams. No men allowed..

  • awfulorv

    I think I see where this might be going. Ike, after leading the troops to victory in Europe, was a shoo in for POTUS. Michelle Obama, appointed to lead an all girl army, and victorious over an easy, push over foe, say Liechtenstein, Micronesia, or Anguilla would, no doubt, think her chances for POTUS greatly enhanced, by such a ploy. You didn’t think she’d be content back in Chicago running a hospital’s maternity ward now, did you? Anythings possible, and all bets are off, with this bunch of yahoos

  • Neiman

    Just over ten percent of women in the military said in 2008 they’d had an unintended pregnancy in the last year – a figure significantly higher than rates inthe general public, according to a new study.

    The findings come amid news that the Pentagon will lift the ban on women in front-line combat jobs starting in 2016.

    “It does definitely have implications for troop readiness, ability to deploy (and) troops in combat missions if they are potentially at high risk for unintended pregnancy and pregnant women can’t be deployed,” said Dr. Vinita Goyal, who has studied unintended pregnancy in female veterans at Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/01/24/us-pregnancies-servicewoman-idUSBRE90N1B820130124

  • Matthew Hawkins

    A real problem I foresee are training costs.

    The strength of our military is not our elite forces, but our average forces. Most 18 year old boys cannot pass the Army PT test, as easy as it is. But send him to boot camp and most will come out soldiers. I would like to see a study, but without lowering the standard I am not sure most girls will pass. Each washout is expensive.

    We are technologically advanced enough that I think some combat roles can be opened with reduced fitness standards. But I would probably still restrict infantry.

  • Lynn Bergman

    Only about 115 women volunteered for combat roles in 2012. I believe they may be looking at an “Amazon” special forces unit(s) that would obviously be unexpected by enemies (all women). Suggest we be open minded and think of how in Israel women do it all.

    • slackwarerobert

      Well when the front lines are 50 feet from the rear lines, it is pretty much pointless to define combat troops.

  • Kyle

    If the physical fitness and mental fitness standards are the same for both male and female, then I have no problem with women going into combat roles. But if you let one do less than the other, where does that leave the rest of the soldiers in combat when shit hits the fan and they need to taken out of a hostile situation, at that point, lesser standards for physical fitness are pointless.

  • mickey_moussaoui

    Incidental rape will go up

    • slackwarerobert

      But excuse for it will go down. How can you yell rape when you have a machine gun with you?

  • Yogibare

    Is his another “let’s change the subject” from the debt and deficit problem and the lack of action by the Senate. This should change the conversation for awhile.

  • slackwarerobert

    So, what about the national guard? Most of the troops over there are not the army. We got enough of our troops killed just letting the french in.

  • Jeremiah Glosenger

    If some feminist on steroids wants to run around the desert getting shot at–that is her choice as long as it doesn’t compromise our military’s capabilities. That is a totally different ball game from when you suggest that my wife or daughters should be subjected to involuntary service such as the draft. There are large groups of people who feel that it is a responsibility of men to fight the wars should a draft be necessary and to protect women and children from that where possible. They should not be subjected to having the women among their group drafted just because some others hold the view that they should be fulfilling every duty society obligates men to.

  • Flamejob5

    Congrats to the statists on yet another victory! There can’t be many gender-equality hurdles left to overcome towards the completion of our unisex society.

    I can hardly wait for Congress to attack the misogyinist NFL, MLB & NBA associations.

    Cause… Natural Law is so 19th century.

Top