Posted on 02/14/2012 7:20:22 PM PST by VinL
Newt Gingrich criticized Republican rival Rick Santorum on Tuesday afternoon for his “complete misunderstanding of modern warfare” over the former Pennsylvania senator’s remarks on women in combat.
Santorum on Thursday said he had “concerns about women in frontline combat.”
“I think that could be a very compromising situation … where people naturally, you know, may do things that may not be in the interests of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved,” Santorum told CNN’s John King.
Gingrich fired back at Santorum, calling his credentials to be commander in chief into question during a press availability at the Tulare World Ag expo during his four-day swing in California.
“We should be very proud of the men and women who put on the American uniform and risk their lives in order to protect this country,” Gingrich told reporters. “I just think that Rick completely misunderstands the nature of modern warfare by his comments.”
The former House speaker... said he believes no matter where you are wearing the U.S. military uniform, you are in combat – something Santorum should understand.
“Whatever your technical assignment, whether you’re a truck driver or you’re working with logistics, or you’re a military person, you’re in combat. And I think that we have to understand that from day one,” Gingrich said.
(Excerpt) Read more at firstread.msnbc.msn.com ...
Clearly you haven’t examined Santorm’s voting record.
Anyone who doesn't understand that needs only to look to the Pentagon on 9-11! There were many military and DoD civilian casualties there including a 2-Star at PERSCOM. Many don't realize more civilians were killed at the Pentagon on 9-11 than military personnel.
The same is true for those servicemembers killed here in CONUS by various “lone wolf” jihadis; such as those killed and wounded in the shootings at Ft Hood; several of whom were women.
If Newt ever says women belong in an infantry rifle Company; then I'll be the first to disagree w/him; but, I don't think he is saying that. I think he is saying that Rick doesn't have a clear understanding of current military strategic and tactical concepts and doctrine. Which I believe is a true statement.
How far back do you want to go?
and which societies?
From a military perspective, women and the military extends at least 4,000 years in all different societies.Notable historical figures such as Joan of Arc and QueenJhansi, Rani Lakshmibai of India were “warrior women”. The Soviet Army in WWII had women prominent in their armies during WWII.
They were willing to try it, I understand, since their situation was so desperate, but they found that women weakened the overall strength of the combat forces, and when they were captured they were invariably raped and used as propaganda tools. Israel, unlike the U.S., is a nation that can't afford to maintain risky social experiments, particularly with warfare.
The idea of women in combat is a charade the equivalent of homosexual marriage or gender reassignment. No sane person with even a minimal knowledge of history or human nature would support it.
He has a doctorate in history...He also grew up as an "Army Brat" with his career military dad - In addition, he has taught in the senior military, 23 years teaching one- and two-star generals and admirals the art of war.” In 1981, he co-founded the Congressional Military Reform Caucus (MRC) and the Congressional Aviation and Space Caucus
Very well said.
you miss my point -— How will our men react when women are tortured?
I guess there are a stubborn few here that just didn’t realize that the point of FR was to go forth and do as JR says. I’d have thought that site would have been named JimsRepublic or some such. If the site is for that, maybe Jim should make you a moderator and you can kindly go through each thread and delete the postings and memberships of those who don’t support the party line. Till then I (and I suspect a good number of others) will keep my own counsel on priorities and candidates.
Fall in line JWalsh! Or Else!! Don’t even think negative things about Newt let alone post them. Your family will cease to love you if you get zotted here. Your work days will be less productive if FR people are mad at you. This is real life - so behave!
You are also forgetting he is a novelist too.
And how will the general public react? I think we're all aware of how detrimental the visuals of men being killed and maimed were to the prosecution of the Vietnam war, and how both the enemy and the American media (but I repeat myself) were quick to take advantage of them to destroy our morale. Imagine if those visuals involved women.
The WASPs used to fly out of Love Field in Dallas and the NAS and Hensley Field locations in Grand Prairie during WW II to ferry the aircraft to the operational units. Grand Prairie is where TEMCO and Chance Vaught factories were located.
Those women were patriots and very brave to do what they did. .....Of course the machine shops and aircraft factories in the area were also full of many “Rosies”, because most of the men workers were deployed.
I disagree with several of the posters above. I don’t believe females should be included in front line, combat because it is instinctive for males to try and protect them and a slight hesitation could be devastating to everyone. Females, in general, will react to their emotions in a given situation more so than males.
Don’t misunderstand. Many women can put their emotions aside and perform as trained, but it only takes one or two in a squad that can’t do so and the squad is gone.
Newt, go away. You never had a chance with all your baggage.
9/11 happened less than nine months into Bush 43’s first year. Spending had to ramp up for domestic and foreign security. Prior to that, the economy was continuing in the right direction that resulted from the last six years of Clinton’s terms...when the Pubs controlled both House and Senate.
The last two years of Bush 43’s second term, the Dems controlled the House and Senate. That’s when the excessive spending went viral! Bush did not have the votes to veto the appropiation bills with all of their pork, as he would have just been overridden.
Scumbag Obama and the rest of the Dems and MSM still ignore all of that and blame Bush 43 for the recession.
Don’t misunderstand me. I liked Bush as my Governor and Prez on Conservative issues, but I backed away quickly whenever he mentioned NCLB (done with Ted Kennedy) and any mention of “comprehensive immigration reform”; i.e. amnesty for illegal aliens.
I appreciate your recollection the Clinton and Bush years. You’re absolutely correct regarding the Congressional impact on each admin. You’re also correct in your characterization of those on the Left that omit the Dems liability in the recession.
Although I was not in complete agreement, I really like Dubya, so it’s not a hard knock at Santorum in making the comparison.
It’s a common misconception that Israel sends women into combat alongside men or in all female units like the Soviets did in WWII. It does neither. Israel has barred women from combat since 1950.
************************
I recall seeing a program on the MIL channel a year or two ago that showed that some of the best snipers in the Russian Army during WW II were women. They were deadly and racked up many kills of Germans!
as a former soldier I have to agree Bryan. I am not saying they are inferior or the lesser sex at all (before someone jumps down my throat), I guess I’m old fashioned, but for me it would cloud my judgement and hinder my reactions.
A lot of men have a natural desire to want to protect the women, and that could have a greater effect on the overall picture. A section of 8, with a woman or two in there, and all of a sudden things can not go like they should be because of man’s instincts. Not all men are like this, but I know I am.
I agree with Santorum. Newt jumps the shark again.
Sorry to say it”s another example of Newt expounding unnecessarily, demonstrating his mental excellency on any subject....too often a bunch of BS.
OK... I just got pwned.
I could however go into a “you want us to be like the French” tirade and continue the argument. But you’re right.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4TGR5j6v9w
Perhaps you could learn to MYOB. Quit trying to control what others think and say. I have seen as many nasty things posted around here about Santorum.
The best way to grow up is respect the fact that others don’t always agree. Ignore negative posts about your candidate if they bother you.
Both the Soviet and Israeli experiments with women in combat were born out of far leftist/communist ideology that strove to erase gender lines and establish complete egalitarianism. I guess if that's your model...
Very true, but there is a huge difference between an 88M (truck driver) who finds himself in a combat situation versus an 11B (infantryman) whose job it is to kit up, leave the wire, and find and kill bad guys.
LOL @ the video
As I suspected, a quote from a history course, taken out of context by a bitter democrat-something woman ... YAWN
“I don’t believe females should be included in front line”
Define “front line “ in modern war. Were the female soldiers murdered by Hasan in the Forth Hood massacre “in front line” or not? Was Officer Kim Munley who stopped the massacre by shooting and wounding the murderer “in front line” or not?
I will tell a secret. Military or civilian people, we are all now “in the front line.” It’s been a long time since the enemy armies don’t go out of cities on a field or hill and battle against each other until one is declared victor like at Austerlitz or Waterloo...
Nutty eh?
Put the rhetoric aside. There is a difference between the front line or the battle zone and being vulnerable to attack in rear areas. Troops in the battle zone are in a constant combat environment. They cannot get up out of the fox hole and meander over to the NCO club to wind down after hours.
Perhaps. Just don’t go for the “fall in line with Jim Rob’s or anyone else’s dictate” on FR program. Should have posted sarcasm warning but I didn’t think it needed it but what passes for clear thought here as of late might make it hard to pick up.
It’s these open boxes where we can type anything we want (save profanity). If Jim Rob or any moderators want to keep things to a party line maybe they can turn these open text boxes into multiple choice drop downs where we can express our choices of varied support for Newt. (that is kinda sarcasm)
As another woman, the way I see it, there are women who are strong enough and capable to engage in frontline combat. And I personally believe chivalry is long dead - most men would rush to their best friend’s side before they’d rush to protect someone just because she’s female (unless there were romantic feelings involved). *
HOWEVER, all that said, women should be held to the same standards as men. In photos of women in the armed forces, many of them have long hair. Aren’t men in the armed forces required to shave their heads? If so, why not the women? It makes me wonder: What other requirements don’t the women have? If a woman is to engage in frontline combat alongside men, she should be held to the same standards.
And, even then, she would have to be incapable of becoming pregnant - just like the men. While many of us are very capable when we’re pregnant, we have to be concerned for another life. I have great respect for the women and men in the armed forces. I’m just commenting on the reality of the situation.
* (One of my teenaged sons just commented: He agrees with Santorum in thinking a man would be more inclined to help a woman. I tend to think my son is the exception to the rule today.)
The quote from your story actually indicates precisely the opposite. It shows Newt was being completely consistent even 17 years later. He told Santorum that if you're in the army, you're in combat no matter where you are. And the quote on your linked page shows Newt saying the exact same thing, that being "in combat" can mean just being on a ship, and that women can perform that duty well. As for the rest of Newt's statement, again, just like the left, you take someone making a joke out of context and try to demonize them for it. Pitiful.
And yet, he went on, if being in combat "means being on an Aegis class cruiser managing the computer controls for 12 ships and their rockets, a female again may be dramatically better than a male who gets very, very frustrated sitting in a chair all the time because males are biologically driven to go out and hunt giraffes."
Give me a break!
Please quote the "misquote." Newt wasn't talking about either of the things you mentioned. He simply said that Santorum's narrow definition of "combat" was inaccurate. I'll trust the judgment of a guy who teaches military history to our troops over the other candidates.
Tell that to the victims of Nidal Malik Hasan. In the war against Islamic fundamentalism, all of our troops are targets, stateside or not.
“In the war against Islamic fundamentalism, all of our troops are targets, stateside or not.”
All of us are targets to one degree or another. And that doesn’t change what I wrote.
Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. How could Newt be against women in combat when he said in his statement that combat can mean being on a battleship and that women would be very good at that job?
or nations on there last manpower legs!
Seems like there’s bigger issues to discuss than this.
Blah, blah, blah...more spin...blah, blah, blah...
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.