Posted on 01/25/2013 6:54:36 PM PST by NKP_Vet
With little discussion or fanfare, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta lifted the ban on women in combat that has been in effect for as long as there has been a U.S. military. Feminists and some women serving in the military are applauding the move as a victory for equal rights. They claim that justice requires nothing short of opening all positions to females, regardless of the consequences to combat effectiveness, unit cohesion, or military readiness, factors whose importance they minimize in any event.
What is perhaps most striking about Secretary Panetta's action is that it reverses the combat exclusion policy that was last reviewed thoroughly during the Clinton years -- and which even Democrats embraced.
There is little question that there are a number of women who might make good combat soldiers, provided they could pass the same physical, endurance and strength tests with the same acceptable scores that current combat troops achieve. But whether a handful of exceptional women might succeed -- or opt into infantry units for that matter -- is not the relevant standard. The question is, would women's presence in combat situations enhance military effectiveness or compromise it?
One study of a brigade operating in Iraq in 2007 showed that women sustained more casualties than their male counterparts and suffered more illnesses. Female soldiers experienced three times the evacuation rate of male soldiers. And of those evacuated for medical reasons, a shocking 74 percent were for pregnancy-related issues
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
"I served in the US Army Special Forces; I was on a Strategic Reconnaissance team. Are you telling me that a young woman is willing to sit in a hide site for long periods of time with two guys on high-protein diets? The effort to emplace women in combat units is simply a act of treason that will deteriorate the combat effectiveness and allow the ACLU to make more money off the Department of Defense. The sole purpose of the US Government is to provide security for the United States; all other functions are secondary. Once that security is compromised, the country is lost"
Yup. Since these will be he same troops Colin Powell and McCrystal will be leading against the American people....maybe a mixed blessing for us.
The Arabs, Russians, and Chinese will be emboldened by it when laughing themselves silly.....pillow biters and women led by a community organizer.
Yeah. Scares me, too.
Let’s tie this equality idea to reinstating the draft.
For every woman in combat it means that there is a sniveling, metrosexual “man” unwilling to fight for his country.
If women are to be in combat then women should be required to register for the draft.
Women in combat means women will die.
Hard.
It's time for feminism to get the shit kicked out of it by reality.
You are right. Women should be required to register. The next two wars should be exclusively fought by women since it is time things got evened up from the two last world wars. Just imagine a brigade of PMS women attacking a group of rag heads.
those packs they wear in combat have to wear weigh over 70 lbs that’s a lot for woman who weighs around 120...major problems long term
Yes, Pregnant women as cannon fodder, and GI Jane being fought over, in the front lines, by all the men.
THHTOP IT!!!!
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.