Boehner's 3 Candidates in Arizona could lose while GOP wins everything statewide

http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2014/03/25/tobin-makes-friends-in-mexico-forfeits-them-in-cd-1/

http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2012/06/18/martha-mcsally-undercut-gop-nominee-update/

http://www.arizonadailyindependent.com/2014/06/15/dirty-tricks-lawsuit-filed-against-surging-chuck-wooten-in-cd2/

http://seeingredaz.wordpress.com/2014/03/23/gop-establishment-meddles-in-contested-primaries/

May I ask what she did wrong?

The story going around the army at the time was that she was fighting the burka. That was it. Yes, there was contention about women in the military and ‘follow orders even if you don’t like them’ but most people were fine when she won.

Especially the females. Covering up was irritating a lot of them and not because it’s sexist. It inhibits movement and is unsafe.

“Covering up was irritating a lot of them and not because it’s sexist. It inhibits movement and is unsafe.”

It was for travel in vehicles, and it was meant to protect them from being beaten. The military accepts a LOT of things we don’t like in order to not offend the host nation, and to protect our folks there.

McSally got to leave the base BECAUSE she was a she. Most men, including myself, went to PSAB many times and NEVER got to go off post. Ever. Tent City was 1/4 mile to a side of tents, and we lived there full time.

She also bypassed the chain of command so she could appeal to the SecDef. That normally gets a guy in heap big trouble, but McSally was protected by the females in Congress - not a very nice group of creatures to have as friends, if you are a conservative.

She later went to “the Legislative Fellowship program, during which time she lived in Washington, D.C. and advised John Kyl on defense and foreign affairs policy”...and I don’t know of any military officer who respects someone who did that. It marked you forever as a politician, not a fighter.

From Wiki:

“McSally’s suit alleged that “the regulations required her to send the message that she believes women are subservient to men.”[9] In addition to the issue of religious garb, McSally noted that policies also included other requirements:

In a “60 Minutes” interview broadcast on CBS on Jan. 20, she described the discrimination she experienced under the policy: “I have to sit in the back and at all times I must be escorted by a male . . . [who], when questioned, is supposed to claim me as his wife,” she said. “I can fly a single-seat aircraft in enemy territory, but [in Saudi Arabia] I can’t drive a vehicle.”[9]

During this process, she was granted audience with several high level officials, including two Secretaries of Defense, William Cohen and Donald Rumsfeld, which was atypical of a service member of her comparatively junior rank and position, especially in light of her public protest.”

She was ALL ABOUT HERSELF. No one thought she was endorsing the Saudi policies, nor did anyone expect her to...but we complied because it provided the best protection for our people. All of them, not just McSally.

Here's another take on it:

"Then she lays out her arguments to them: The State Department does not require its female employees to wear the abaya. Nor does the Saudi government insist, at least not formally. Wives of military personnel stationed there do not have to wear the garment. Nor was there an abaya rule for our military women when the Iraqis invaded neighboring Kuwait and U.S. troops drove them out. Furthermore, the policy specifically forbids male military personnel from wearing traditional Saudi garb."

"After seven years of buttonholing brass on the Saudi policy, she gave up working within the system and filed the lawsuit."

Now, how to you feel about the soldiers who recently fought the Army's new regulations in the court of public opinion? (They also won and now ALL tattooed soldiers are grandfathered in, for all purposes.)

I know what happened. I was there at the time.

So, why did we force women to adapt to Saudi dress and not men?

Because the Saudis resented the women more than the men, and were more likely to kill them! Because the Saudis were more likely to commit attacks on US personnel out of resentment for our presence if they saw western military women than men.

It was done to lower resentment and reduce the probability of attack, which was always higher when someone traveled off post. That is why many of us MEN were not allowed off post AT ALL.

Try spending a few months in the same tent city, eating the same crap food, sharing latrines with 5000 of your closest friends, and a trip off post to a compound where folks ate good food & could drink sounded pretty nice - but very few men got the chance. Why? “To lower resentment and reduce the probability of attack”.

Force protection. That was #1. Keeping our basing in Saudi Arabia, always a touchy matter, was #2. The convenience and comfort of our military wasn’t even in the top 10. It never is. The needs of the military trumps the desires of the soldier.

“Now, how to you feel about the soldiers who recently fought the Army’s new regulations in the court of public opinion? (They also won and now ALL tattooed soldiers are grandfathered in, for all purposes.)”

I think it is a sign our military is going downhill and heading for the toilet. However, asking to change the policy as part of the normal review is one thing, and it would have been acceptable for McSally to have made a similar attempt - within the command structure.

But she did not. She was all about advancing “women’s rights” as trumping military needs. She was a politician in uniform, and she was all about advancing her agenda. Self over service.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.