Posted on 10/19/2018 5:20:53 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
...Jim Mattis has largely avoided the major controversies that have plagued his fellow Trump cabinet members. But if the reaction to his recent remarks at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) are any indication, his luck may have begun to run out.
During a September visit to the military school, Mattis offered his thoughts on women serving in combat infantry jobs, later interpreted by the Associated Press as a “dim view” of their prospects. The comments were further panned by those advocating the integration of women into combat, who characterized Mattis as “poisoning the well” and “sabotaging” efforts to integrate women. Other reactions, some from veterans, were even less flattering.
Are these reactions justified? Better yet, what exactly did Mattis say? A male VMI cadet, who went to bat for his female classmates, asked the secretary about his thoughts on women in combat. The following quotations are part of a longer reply, but these appear to be the most contentious points:
"It’s a very, very tough issue. Because it goes from some people’s perspective of what kind of society do we want… it goes to the almost primitive needs of a society to look out for its most vulnerable."
"How did the infantry get its name? Infant soldier. Young soldier. Very young soldier. They’re cocky, they’re rambunctious. They’re necessarily macho. And it’s the most primitive, I would say even evil, environment—you can’t even explain it."
"This is an area we are going to have to resolve as a nation…the military has got to have officers who look at this with a great deal of objectivity, and at the same time remember our natural inclination to have this open to all. But we cannot do something that militarily doesn’t make sense…"
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
The Russians did in WWII with excellent results.
To the best of my knowledge as snipers only.
See the book and/or movie, "Enemy at the Gates".
Correct.
“So no women pilots? No women on aircraft crews? No women on combat ships? No women in Army or Marine units that could possibly come under fire?”
That’s right. Only one question. Does it help unit fighting effectiveness and cohesion or not. Having women on ships has caused huge morale problems.
Women are being maimed in combat. There are even books and magazine articles glorifying it---photos of less-than-modestly-clad female Iraq/Afghanistan veterans showing off their prosthetic devices. They've been in the Humvees, in combat uniform, carrying combat weapons and gear, firing those weapons at the enemy---they've been serving in combat. I don't know how many have died in combat.
It's not wrong for a woman to take up arms when enemy troops are marching down her street in her own country. She looks out the window, yes, the kitchen window, okay. She sees the enemy, she grabs a rifle. But to recruit them for combat and send them abroad? No.
When Congress changes the actual laws that are BEING BROKEN NOW that prevent women from serving in combat, then women will also be subject directly to any potential draft. Women will be required to register for selective service, and report for combat when their numbers are called.
IT'S COMING. I OPPOSE IT.
‘...homosexuals into these roles because they can’t find enough straight men to do the job.’
true as well of organized religions today...
Why not just ban them from the military altogether?
“...why would they need women in combat now?”
To provide apron strings for the SoiBoys to hang onto in order to follow them into combat?
You mean return to the way it was before the 1970's? Ok.
To the extent that means COMBAT.
‘To the best of my knowledge as snipers only.’
yes, but the question concerns their deployment on the front lines...
That's a good question.
Although, I think we could still have Nurses Corps or Admin Corps that were rear echelon. I just wouldn't have them compete for promotions against men, and I wouldn't colocate them in combat areas.
Interesting assumption. Is there any data on that you could point us to?
Why have them in the military at all? We managed to survive up till World War II without them, other than a few during World War I. Go back to an all-male armed forces and that way you don't have to worry about it. Of course you're going to have to come up with a few hundred thousand more guys will or able to serve...
That’s ignorant. I’ll mention Golda Meir and Margret Thatcher as counterpoint
Women should not be on the front lines in combat. No argument. Pilots, nurses, support personnel good to go
They were not banned from military before the seventies, they had their own branches of each service.
Pilots and support personel
Let's not be sexist here. There are male nurses and I'm sure you can find guys who can type and file and shuffle papers. Do that and you can eliminate all those pesky females from the ranks entirely.
Was he saying that soldier in combat are evil? Perhaps I misunderstood...
No. Most of us are not familiar with the new Pentagon speak - used when mortals (aka civilians) ask real questions for which the Pentagon types will not answer ... It is called gobbledygook. Which is evasive and another way of saying they know best and have no intension of altering the social experiment no matter how many lives are lost - this is their baby and they are birthing it.
Mattis and his perfumed prince ilk have to go ...
I didn't say ban. If you read my post return it the way it was before the 1970's. The medical and legal services had women. No combat at all.
Ok.
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.