Posted on 02/09/2016 5:19:02 AM PST by Kaslin
Conservatives didn't understand why George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney questions about birth control during one of the debates back in 2012. It seemed like a bizarre question since it was a non-issue at the time, but it turned out to be foreshadowing of the Democrat strategy to make birth control a central part of the election.
We may have seen the same thing in the New Hampshire debate as liberal moderator Martha Raddatz asked Republican candidates if they thought young women should be forced to sign up for the draft. Surprisingly, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all blundered right into her trap and agreed that we should take the radical step of forcing young women to sign up for a potential draft.
If one of those candidates ends up as our nominee, he would deserve the brutal wave of attack ads Democrats should launch at him for taking such a thoughtless position. He would also deserve to bleed female support – and maybe male support, too. When you start telling fathers that you want to take their baby girls and force them into a situation where violent armed men are going to try to kill them, don't be surprised when their protective instincts naturally kick in and they decide you're not someone that they want in the White House.
The rationale for potentially drafting women is Defense Secretary Ash Carter's foolish statement about putting women in combat, "(A)s long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They'll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat."
Sadly, even many of the people in charge of our troops seem to have forgotten that the first purpose of our military is to kill people, destroy things and win wars. Instead, they're focused on turning our military into a politically correct social experiment despite the fact that will accomplish nothing other than getting more of our soldiers killed.
Because women are shorter, lighter and don't have the same level of muscle mass as men, only small percentages of women are capable of meeting the minimum qualifications for most combat positions. If the military was being honest instead of tilting the scales for public relations reasons, it would also admit that there may not be a woman on the planet who can truly meet the almost super human qualifications for elite military units like the SEALs or Rangers.
Additionally, while we should certainly appreciate women who serve our country, it doesn't change the fact that the more women you put into combat, the worse our military will perform. That's just what you'd expect and as the Marine Corps found out when it put women to the test, that's exactly what happens.
One measure showed that the musculoskeletal injury rate for women was 40.5%, compared with 18.8% for men.
...All-male units performed better than mixed-gender units on 93 of 134 tasks, or 69%; gender-integrated units performed better than all-male units on two tasks, which were not identified.
All-male infantry squads were faster in each tactical movement, with differences more pronounced when "crew-served" weapons such as machine guns had to be carried in addition to the standard assault load.
All-male infantry rifleman squads were more accurate shots, with notable differences in all weapons except the M4 rifle.
Men in the provisional infantry platoon who had not attended the infantry course were more accurate marksmen than women who had, hitting 44% of targets with the M4 rifle versus 28% among women trained at the infantry school.
All-male squads were notably better as a group when tackling obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example: "When negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top."
Keep in mind that we're talking about women who want to be there and are probably much better athletes than the average female. Some of them are undoubtedly fine soldiers and all of them deserve to be lauded for choosing to serve, but that doesn't change the fact that most of them are apparently liabilities for their units. Furthermore, those women would be head and shoulders better than 18 year old draftees. So, who in his right mind thinks that in a time of national crisis so severe that we'd need a draft that we should force our military to sort through millions of 5' 2", 120 pound girls who've never been in a fight so we can say that it's "fair?" Incidentally, that's what this whole dumb idea is about: "fair." It's a way to shove it in feminists' faces - "Oh, you really want to be equal? Then why don't you try combat! Ha ha ha!"
Can't we set the "get evenism" and political correctness that says "men and women are exactly alike" aside and just note the obvious truth about differences between our genders? Have we gotten so mired in this faux feminism," "You go, girl" culture that we can't even admit that men are generally much better suited to kill other men than women?
It is a tragedy that so many of our young men have given life and limb fighting for our country. It would be even worse if we had another emergency so severe that we'd need to draft unwilling young men to fight. However, if we ever stoop to drafting women and forcing them to fight our battles, it would be one of the most foolish and shameful moments in our nation's history.
My Two Cents:
The author is correct that it was a terrible political mistake for any conservative to introduce a bill requiring women to register for the draft.
We should be arguing for preserving the exclusivity of all male direct combat units (Infantry, Armor, Field Artillery, Combat Engineer (Sappers)) and stressing the legal vulnerability the Democrats have created by lifting the ban on women in such units. If the requirement for exclusive male draft registration is to go away, let the courts strike it down and ensure the Democrats suffer the political consequences for their political correctness folly.
Just a side note, it has been 40 years since anyone has been drafted. Essentially, there is no draft today.
In the end, that is Obama's goal. One of them anyway.
Exactly. It is basic reverse psychology. Most women aren’t up in arms about women being in combat as it does effect them. It is a 100% volunteer force and the selective service doesn’t apply to them. By introducing the “this now applies to all military age women”, people especially women are going to push back hard and set it all the way back to women can’t be in combat units.
I am still hoping that this draft effort is to highlight the stupidity of social experiments in the military.
Yes, the draft has not been used, but it is still an option on the table. That is the point of the selective service. It registers all applicable to be drafted in the event a draft is required.
I recall reading comments of a female general of the Russian army, when asked her views of females in the army....her comments, “it was difficult to get the soldiers out of the barracks....”
During the Iraq war, a female soldier was captured, on her release, she was asked how she was treated, she replied, “the men had natural impulses”
I was 34 years younger then. I miss that guy! :-( Except I don't miss being an atheist. I got saved in the Army.
Any party that re-institutes the draft in this day and age is signing their own death warrant. It will never be used again. Today, registering is just another tool of big government to maintain control, much like the requirement for babies to be issued a SSAN.
The military needs plenty of REMFs. Women can’t have it both ways. They need to sign up and have skin in the game.
On a side note, I retire this Friday with 24 years of service. Served with many capable women. But over my time never met even ONE that could last 30 seconds against any of my SEAL or Ranger pals.
Very well said.
,,,,,, stupid is correct almost like having women in an 11B status in combat .
Yes it would be stupid that liberal politicians put us in a position to even consider it.
Except of course Demi Moore!
As I posted before:
In order to be “fair,†the draft should be split, 50/50 women/men.
That fair and equitable split would thereby, by necessity, require ALL combat jobs to be filled with women in order to fill the ranks, and that means physical standards must be reduced, meaning “women standards†for all men and women.
Once that 14th Amendment equal protection lawsuit is filed by the wimpy feminist “male†insisting women must face the same draft he does, a whole bunch of equal protection arguments will flood the courts and the military. And that will destroy our military. After all, that is the ultimate aim of obozo and his sycophants.
Spread the wealth... have women register for Selective Service. They wanted this “opportunity” to go into the combat specialties, so give it to them.
It’s deliberate Leftist strategy to bulk-up a pacifist movement in this country.
They have been apoplectic over the failure to get any substantial anti-war movement going in the days since we went to an all-volunteer force.
The next time a POTUS proposes boots on the ground, and millions are faced with seeing their daughters drafted, that WILL turn out protests in the streets.
Or so their theory goes.
I am sure people were saying the same thing when it came to homosexuals openly serving in the military and women in combat roles.
It is a relevant topic because a couple 4-stars said they support including women in the draft. . .14th Amendment, you know.
Back in the day when the ERA was being debated, Phyllis Schlafly mentioned with the ERA WILL come women being required to sign up for Selected Service and possibly be drafted.
The draft still exists, just not active. . .we even have a budget for it, we are paying for people to administer the draft.
https://www.sss.gov/Portals/0/PDFs/Budget%20Justification%202016.pdf
Company cohesion is also degraded by the presence of women. Men act differently when women are around. Sexist? Maybe but it is a fact. There is a civilizing effect that women have on men, which can be contrary to killing people and breaking stuff. There is also the sexual tension that women bring into the unit. The dynamic of a bunch of 18-20 year old guys and gals in the field will be a mess. There is an ingrained nature in men to protect women, which may cause the men to act in ways contrary to the goals of the mission.
Women in combat. Bad idea.
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.