We need to get the social engineering and the social justice warriors out of the military and use science and logic and rational common sense in what works best for the defense of this country.
Isn’t it incredible that people have to be reminded of what common sense looks like today?
Women belong in REMF units ONLY. Not infantry squads or armor/artillery units. Great pilots.
No women in combat. Period. Too many reasons why it is counter-effective militarily. That doesn’t mean they can’t be extensively effective in other military roles, as they have been historically. Stop making arguments for the woke and left position. It makes you look really stupid.
Re defensive situations - street to street fighting, would not want to stumble on to a squad of mama bears with guns defending their lair.
I remember my late grandfather telling me that women should not be allowed in the military, period. He spoke from experience; he served in the occupation forces in postwar West Germany shortly after the war ended, and no doubt saw up close what war did to other soldiers. He simply believed that women should not be subjected to those horrors.
My grandmother was even more emphatic. Even though she was very liberal on some issues, she firmly believed that a woman’s place is in the home.
Having women in combat roles is NOT A PROBLEM as long as they are properly trained. Oh yeah, and as long as there’s never combat.
And so that’s the problem with the Neocons - they sit back and do not lift a finger while our military is being destroyed by the Leftists (force-in DEI, women in combat, LGBTs in combat, men being told they’re the scum of the Earth, and leftist grunts not being immediately kicked out).
And then, after all that crap, they start wars with Russia, are close to starting a war with China, and even want to start a war with Iran.
NONE of those countries have any of the garbage the Left has imposed on the US military - yet the Neocons still want to fight those countries, without even considering the need to clean up their own military first? They can go to hell.
And sorry Neocon supporters, but that is EXACTLY where we’re at now - hopefully Pete can start fixing it, but if the Democrats push back hard, Pete won’t be able to fix the recruiting problem - because kids will understand that all his work could be undone the next time a Democrat takes office.
The problem with the “defense camp” is that it would still be subject to the horrors of war. People suffer in unimaginable ways. They get their faces shot off. They get massive burns, lose their legs, lose their minds.
I met one young man during FR’s days supporting the wounded soldiers at Walter Reed hospital who was wounded in the throat by friendly fire. He breathed (and smoked cigarettes) through a stoma in his throat.
No woman should be subjected to this stuff. Period.
The standards should be set to the height needed for maximum combat readiness. If an exceptional woman can meet those standards, then fine. But under no circumstances should the standards be lowered with the goal of increasing the percentage of women at the cost of combat readiness.
Common sense says no women in combat roles. Period.
Offense vs Defense roles. We kinda sorta have a dichotomy with direct combat roles and combat support. The combat roles already include offensive and defensive strategies. Defense can be one of the bloodiest of all combat roles. You don’t really get to run a defensive unit onto the battlefield as in football.
Never in combat a MOS, Special Forces, or Airborne and if the powers that be insist the physical requirements need to remain the same for them as for the men.
Some mistakes posters always make is
one= keeping women from combat is all that is needed, there is a huge list of everyday civilian jobs in which women are second rate to incapable of doing, and none of them are about combat, an army in the wild is physical for everyone.
two= if a rare woman can do the job let that woman or two in, except that any women changes the entire culture and even changes the supply system and medical needs, and will also get injured early from routine physical work and collect her pension the rest of her life (a problem that exists now).
three= that rear units exist, the rear areas not only need a lot of physical labor to put together, move, and then be put together again but they are also where the most juicy parts of the military is, the electronics, the intelligence, the medical support, ammo, food, supplies, the parts the attacker from any modern army most wants to kill and disrupt, the rear has to be able to fight, and besides, the rear is also part of the military culture, it can’t be feminine.
As we have seen, men do not want to offer up their lives for work that girls can do, and after 2 generations of women in the military we know for certain that females change the military culture into what it is today.
A military cannot be a fire breathing, bare chested warrior type organization constantly pushing itself to the limits of physical fitness and toughness, focus, and aggressiveness, when females are part of the mix.
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna is so pretty. 😍
No women in combat, they don’t belong on Navy ships either.
Let’s imagine this. Women in combat situations in the Mid East. They get separated from their unit and get captured by Islamic Soldiers. I wonder how they will be treated? I know. Let’s ask those women hostages just released by Hamas and ask them how they were treated.
“...would have equal opportunity to do the roles required for combat. We need to get the social engineering and the social justice warriors out of the military...
How about getting the right infomation out of congress. The military is almost equal in its selections of positions. Can a 100 pound woman be allowed to tryh for an army ranger position that requires being able to run a mile with a 90 pound ruck ahead of a firefight? Of course she can. Most don’t make it and are eliminated from the slot.
The 75th Ranger Regiment, also known as the Army Rangers, has an authorized strength of 3,623 personnel. This includes 3,566 military personnel and 57 civilian personnel. Of that 143 woman have graduated ranger school. 3%. Despite being introduced as a gender-neutral assessment, the ACFT prioritizes brute strength, lowering fitness standards for men and hindering the integration of women into combat roles.
wy69
The left would like to use the draft to centralize power and politicize the military further. And they would like to draft women.
Female members of the Israeli Defense Forces, I recall, were captured by the Palestinian hoard on October 7 and were sexually assaulted and killed.
We sustained 58,200 combat deaths during Vietnam when women were precluded from combat arms. 8 of those deaths were women, all nurses. If women were nor precluded, not only would there have been more female deaths, but there would be proportionately male deaths from the male instincts to protect them. No amount of training females for combat is going to result in changing the male instinct to protect women and put both genders at risk..
I don't believe men want to protect every woman. Probably only the women who look like Rep. Luna. LOL.
The real reason women shouldn't be in combat is that a woman can become pregnant.
We shouldn't want a possibly pregnant woman in combat because a baby could be in harm's way.
Also, if a woman is captured by the enemy and raped, she could become pregnant, and a baby would be in harm's way.
That's the reason. Why doesn't anyone else ever make that point?
BTW, I knew many women who served in the military, but not in combat roles, and they would've agreed. Common sense.