Only a Barbaric Nation Drafts Its Mothers and Daughters into Combat

nat review ^ | 2/9/16

[doldrumsforgop]

The most disappointing moment of Saturday night’s debate came when Jeb Bush, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio each embraced the idea that women should register with the selective service, making it possible for America to draft women into ground combat. The argument for registration is based on the new Pentagon policy opening up all combat jobs to women. Women have served in non-combat roles for decades without any serious push for selective-service registration ensuing. In fact, the Supreme Court, in Rostker v. Goldberg (1981), has used the fact that men and women have different roles as justification for rejecting constitutional objections to the all-male draft. We have repeatedly condemned the Obama administration’s decision to open all combat roles to women, and we have mainly done so by citing a combination of contemporary studies and historical experience to make the case that gender-integrated ground-combat units are less effective than their all-male counterparts. But that is not the only argument. Indeed, there are other fundamental reasons to oppose not just the presence of women in the infantry but their forcible conscription into its ranks. Such a policy inverts natural law and the rules that have grounded our civilization for thousands of years.

[JBW1949]

I forget who made this comment about women and the draft during the debate:

“Imagine how scared a mother and father would be if the draft was started and their daughter may be called up...”

Well, imagine how scared a mother and father would be if the draft was started and their SON may be called up...

For a parent, it works for BOTH son and daughter....

[gunnut]

From Rostker v. Goldberg:,p.

In the majority opinion, Justice William Rehnquist wrote “[t]he existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress’ decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.” Implicit in the obiter dicta of the ruling was to hold valid the statutory restrictions on gender discrimination in assigning combat roles. Men and women, because of the combat restrictions on women, are simply not similarly situated for purposes of a draft or registration for a draft therefore, there is no violation of the Due Process Clause. The Supreme Court therefore reversed the decision of the district court.

[PapaBear3625]

Anyone not eligible for combat does not belong in the military, and should not be eligible for military benefits.

Make non-combatants civilian employees.

[DoodleDawg]

But drafting women is barbaric and shouldn’t be done unless under extreme circumstance.

I would say that conscripting men should only be done under extreme circumstances as well.

[Dr. Sivana]

They could draft some of these ultra-orthodox men first,

[central_va]

Here's the problem. Women take up the cushy jobs that men need to recover from arduous duty. Face it, every non front line job in the military is a pretty easy gig for the most part. Low paying but not really hard.

Now take a sailor who has been on a destroyer for the last 4 years with a CO and XO who were far from pleasant to work for (psycho perhaps). The ship was deployed at sea for two of those for years. The ship was under manned so even in port he was on the ship one out of three days. So basically this sailor spent 3 out of the last 4 years in a metal smelly metal box being tossed around the ocean like a cork half the time. Conditions are not much better than a convict in prison.

Ok, now his TOD is up and its off to shore duty? Hurrah! Maybe supply depot in Hawaii? Maybe teach at a Navy school in FLA? Well bad news sailor all those jobs have females now. So your choice is another G-D destroyer for 4 years or quit. Sucks.

[JediJones]

The biggest problem with western, wealthy societies is “postponing” having kids. Which also inevitably leads to having less of them.

Women having the choice to work is no comparison to forcibly conscripting them into military service.

What do you do when you’re breast-feeding your baby and the draft notice comes in? Or when you have 3 toddlers and both you and your husband get drafted? By this ridiculous “equality” standard you couldn’t even let the woman stay home in that case, you’d have to flip a coin to see if the man or woman got to stay home.

[armydawg505]

The left wing lunatics want women in every combat arm of the military, let their women sign up for the draft too.

[Ancesthntr]

Both the Soviet Union (vs. Germany in WW2) and Israel (vs. the entire Arab World in their War of Independence) used women in combat roles (mostly as snipers). In both cases, literal national survival was at stake. While the Soviet Union under Stalin WAS a barbaric nation, this particular fact did not make it so - and Israel was NEVER a barbaric nation.

Now, when you have a nation that does NOT have its continued survival at issue on the battlefield, forcing women into combat roles IS, IMHO, barbaric. Of course, we’re just opening the roles to them, not forcing them to do anything, so we’re not quite there yet (from this perspective).

Personally, I think that it is a HUGE mistake to put women in combat roles outside of literal national survival situations, especially given whom we are fighting right now. The Moslems will not only not treat women better, they will purposely treat them WORSE if they are captured. This is an insane policy, one that will degrade our combat capacity and leave women incredibly vulnerable. Women simply don’t have the strength (with 0.001% being an exception) to cut it in combat. Flying a drone from the middle of Nevada - fine and well. Humping a rifle and an 80-pound pack in the field - not so much.

[Trumpinator]

Americans are trying to integrate woman into unisex units which will fail. History shows that female warriors do best in all female units and usually as support for men.

[Tax-chick]

That’s an excellent point which had not occurred to me at all. Good job!

However, in a hypothetical, national-emergency, World War II-type situation, that consideration might have to be let go.

[central_va]

I have lived that experience personally.

[Ms Mable]

If Rubio and Bush lets all those illegals and refugees stay here, will they be forced to register for the draft?

[Tax-chick]

Thank you for your service!

[Neidermeyer]

Discriminating against men on the basis of need shouldn’t be an excuse when requiring them to sign up but giving ladies a free pass.
********************
I’m too old but if I were to be drafter I’d simply say that I “identify as a woman” and am ineligible.

[central_va]

I think spending 8 straight years on a destroyer would have turned me into a psycho......

[RummyChick]

The Vikings had Shield Maidens. Or so says the show Viking on History Channel.

[Ancesthntr]

I’ve been to Israel, the women on duty they ride buses and hang out on street corners like a secondary police force. They are not combat troops at all.

So have I, and I agree with your analysis - at the present time. Things were lots different in the late 1940s, when Israel was at risk of being destroyed at birth.

[PIF]

Fair fight - woman in combat about to be dead ...

[i_robot73]

Welcome to the club.

I find it more asinine to send our sons/fathers into wars, not of their choosing, that our govt does not wish to WIN.

Do we not have enough examples (Swiss, Israeli, Russian...) that women should be, at the least, TAUGHT the same skills? That’s not tantamount to putting them into fox-holes.

Those that ‘fought’ for equal-rights/pay/ability/etc.: You burnt those bras/bridges, sleep in the bed you’ve made.

Completely agree on the last point (re: raising pay). Course, I wouldn’t trust govt ‘promises’ either...