Skip to comments.Women in Combat? Secretary Mattis Steps Into a Minefield
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:
"Its a very, very tough issue. Because it goes from some peoples 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. Theyre cocky, theyre rambunctious. Theyre necessarily macho. And its the most primitive, I would say even evil, environmentyou cant 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 doesnt make sense
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
I have, but you have more credibility than many combat vets who support such idiocy.
Correct. A country that sends women into combat as a matter of principle is no longer worth fighting for.
Our current President has never served in the military. He’s doing a pretty good job and so would the right woman who never saw combat. The criteria for eligibility to be President is 35 years of age and a NBC. It’s says nothing about gender or military experience.
Martis speaks gobbledygook
Mattis certainly gave a convoluted response in this instance. Was he saying that soldier in combat are evil? Perhaps I misunderstood.........................
When dropped in to a minefield in the dark, the troop movement rarely appears to be a parade ground maneuver.
>> NO, women do NOT belong in combat.
The ONLY people advocating otherwise are attempting to undermine the military to further a social agenda.<<
Exhaustive studies by the USMC have documented that women in combat roles are routinely slaughtered when faced with males in battlefield environments. Unfortunately there has been documented fraud in attempts to enable women to qualify for admission and to pass Army Ranger qualification courses.
>>The dirty little secret is that the military is pushing women and homosexuals into these roles because they cant find enough straight men to do the job.<<
You have that backwards. Not enough straight men can be found to risk their lives unnecessarily by serving in a military that has been severely weakened by its PC recruitment of homosexuals and women.
>>Of course you’re going to have to come up with a few hundred thousand more guys will or able to serve...<<
Yes, and as in times past, those guys would be known as draftees. Not a problem!
>> Weak Link: The Feminization of the American Military<<
Yes, excellent book. I read it then gave it to my Feminist step-daughter. Apparently it shut her up because she hasn’t come at me with any more PC nonsense.
Your model is skewed. Germany was running ragged over Russia, defense of homeland everything goes.
For expeditionary wars of diplomacy (failed), why waste the reproductive and nurturing component of our society?
Can women d the job? No, not really. can they sit in offices and push data? certainly. can they fly combat aircraft? Should they ? Why? to prove they are “equal” when everything parameter wise must be skewed to fit the paradigm?
Every person on this forum who served with females in ground units ( USA, USMC) know that they do not deploy nor stay deployed nor do their jobs w/o high turnover, failure and supplemental manpower. It is a fact that DOD hides to fit the agenda.
And yes, combat is evil, some of the actors are too.
Living in a state of war vice a state of society is a wonderfully horrible thing. Gloves come off, kill or be killed. Moving in a population of people who is a mix of either neutral or enemy but impossible to differentiate until bad things start happening is a hard way to spend time. Everyone who has experienced it either hates it with a passion or is motivated beyond words to the excitement of it and surviving.
Ask anyone who was beyond the wire for the last 17 years in direct combat roles and you’ll see a 50/50 split- those who tremble and those who feel an adrenaline rush at thought of o the time on mission. The former seek cover of sorts, the latter buy crotch rocket or do extreme sports etc. We all find ourselves in one or both categories over time as warriors. Survival guilt, fear of the truth of our actions/inactions and shadows of battle buddies past haunt most of us far too long.
The high suicide rate of todays military experienced men, serving or veteran, attests to the extremes of response.
Combat vet males kill themselves at an out of sorts rate compared to similar non veteran males. Combat vet women crumple but survive more often. Ask them.
Still, I advocate all young men should enlist/commission and serve in the military at least for a full MSO, then decide what life is about. They’ll be grown men or weeded out.
Remember the Russian female snipers ...
Shirley, you are being sarcastic?
Thank you for your service!
“Everything in the military should be geared toward increasing combat effectiveness, and minimizing breaks in unit cohesion. If it doesn’t increase combat fighting ability and solidify unit cohesion as a whole - it shouldn’t be done.”
You are absolutely correct!
I spent 28 1/2 years in the USN and USNR, and in those years of service saw NOTHING which would recommend allowing women in ships or in (or near) combat roles. In other words, women serving in harm’s way did not result in “increasing combat effectiveness, and minimizing breaks in unit cohesion.”
Senior officers who maintain the opposite position are after their next promotion, and are not looking to “increasing combat effectiveness,” or “minimizing breaks in unit cohesion.”
Keep in mind that the people who made the decision to allow women to go in harm’s way DID HOT HAVE TO GO IN HARM’S WAY THEMSELVES!
It probably will not be done, but we, as a nation, should repeal the insanity of women in combat roles in the military! There are plenty of jobs that women can do and not be subjected to horror of war!
I humped a full load Ruck Sack in the Infantry in Nam. We had thirty something NCO’s that were breaking down from the effort, no way a woman with much less upper body strength would have been effective. Combat Infantry is not for sissies.
Maybe. And don’t call me Shirley.
Imho, women don’t belong in combat arms.
Having said that, numbers matter. For example, attrition. Losses in MOS. There are other examples where a country (sovereign state etc), might not exist if women were not in combat arms.
So, keep women from direct combat if possible.
I believe we have a volunteer force. Women are not pushed into infintery that is their decision. Stop degrading our Military.
I'm not sure what you're referring to, Top? The Haditha incident occurred in November 2005 - Mattis was already serving at MCCDC, so he couldn't have had anything to do with the incident on the ground.
Aside from that, Mattis was later the convening authority for the courts martial, "And as the convening authority who signed off on many of the key decisions along the way, including granting immunity to Marines who, the forensic evidence suggests, may have committed serious crimes, Mattis made such an outcome all but inevitable, the film contends." https://www.businessinsider.com/haditha-film-raises-questions-about-mattis-role-in-iraq-war-massacre-2018-4
Sooooo, judging by that Mattis granted immunity to most of the folks involved, and the prosecution's case fell apart.....except against one Marine who pled guilty.
Not really seeing how he turned his back on anyone - he didn't force the Marine to plead guilty and he signed off on immunity for just about everyone else.
I'd be more pissed at murtha (spit), who, from the floor of Congress, declared the Marines guilty before a trial was ever held.
I will say, that I have met Mr. Mattis. I found him to be genuinely concerned for the welfare of his Marines, and genuinely concerned for not just a competitve edge on the battlefield, but to "overwhelmingly tip the scales in our favor." He seems one who searches for the best solutions no matter who has them. And aside from that, demanded action and deed over words.
Those are just my observations......you may have insight I don't.
“I believe we have a volunteer force. Women are not pushed into infintery [sic] that is their decision. Stop degrading our Military.”
The MOS is decided by needs of the service not as desired. The feminists want it both ways. Mattis isn’t walking on eggshells for nobody. The politicians and the know nothing press have degraded the military enough. Let the experts make the decisions.
Correct. No women in combat. Women should be in non-combat support roles behind the lines of fire.
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.