Posted on 03/03/2016 10:59:24 AM PST by PROCON
(CNSNews.com) - In a speech marking Women’s History Month, which was delivered at the U.S. Capitol on Wednesday, First Lady Michelle Obama celebrated the decision taken by her husband’s administration to put young women in all combat roles in the U.S. military.
“Thanks to brilliant, fearless women like General Vaught, today, more than 200,000 women are serving our country in just about every role and rank,” said Mrs. Obama. “They’re flying fighter jets, training new recruits; they’re graduating Army Ranger School--and I met those graduates. They are awesome. Fierce! And as you’ve already heard, they will soon be welcome in every combat unit in our armed forces.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
I thought their names were Shasta and Malaria.
No...and I just ate. Have some mercy!
When does the Moochelle report for boot camp and then duty??
She will claim a Wookie exemption, but maybe they would have something in black ops for such a creature..
What is sad is both Clinton and Obama have pushed women into these social experiments. The COED BCT started with Clinton and Obama dumped the queers and lesbians on the military next. As a former Infantry officer who was primarily assigned to mostly Special Forces Groups and only one Infantry Division, I can state my combat experience commanding a company of montagnards with help from great SF NCO’s tells me there is no place for women in the Infantry whether humping it through the bush, the hills, the mountains, the desert or anywhere. Women have no damn business being in the Infantry and those that insist on doing so are going to get good men killed due to a number of reasons. The two women who supposedly graduated Ranger training did not really pass the course. They were recipients of Obama’s wish that they graduate as he was going to be present for the graduation ceremony of MS X and Y. Yes, an Infantry school commandant or his deputy at FT. Benning, GA even led one of these women’s marches. UNREAL. These PC MC social experiments are going to be the death of this country if not stopped.
I think you’re pretty confused about what this conversation was about in the first place. This post doesn’t have the slightest thing to do with the subject of my comments or with the original poster’s (who you insulted) comments.
Go away.
Will her daughters be serving?
“When does the Moochelle report for boot camp and then duty??”
When they institute the Beard Brigade.
Their daughters should register for the draft
Dayum, Mrs. Putin has nice ti....ti....ti.....teeth!
rhonda_penmark,
I read the original posting for this thread and it was about the Obama administration wanting to celebrate his decision to place women in every combat position. And my post was very explicit in that most women cannot fill all the positions. It is my experience that many men can’t do the job. But the point is that opening up the door for the women to consider trying to fill positions that require a body conditioning that they don’t have, and just because they are women getting them, when the military doesn’t even require or expect them to compete with men physically as their annual testing displays alone, is going to weaken our force capacity. So. I know exactly what the post is saying. Further more, unless you are the original thread poster, which was marked Procon, I didn’t even post to you. I don’t have any idea who you are. And I’m not guessing at what I post. I’m a 31 year combat vet, disabled and retired, with experience in theaters in Asian and the middle east, and have earned the right to comment on the topic from practical experience.
Go away? In an open opinion board scenario that wishes opinions about things I spent my life doing? I have probably just as much a privilege to say something about this as anyone. And a whole lot more experience than most. And if the thread originator was insulted, I apologize. But not because of the content of my post. It was my opinion based upon pure fact.
red
DigenesLamp,
Completely agree. But until the military takes it serious that opening up the entire combat field to women that will compete with the men and expect them to succeed, and that hasn’t happened yet, then the possibility for women to succeed isn’t possible. Combat requirements are very stringent and require body capacities women haven’t developed yet, i.e., sustained upper body high strength requirements that their female body doesn’t have due to historical DNA and hormonal development. So, at the moment, there are two ways this political gaff by Obama can be accomplished, 1. most women put in the field will not be able to handle it physically. Or 2. They will have to lower the standards so women would be competitive thus lowering the capacity of the force with less capable people. And that was my point. Obama’s opening up the combat areas for woment makes himn look good in the news for his party getting votes. But not maintaining the force needs for the mission. He’s an idiot.
red
So you are saying that the idea is "notional" so far, and the Military haven't really "rolled over" on this issue yet?
I am not comfortable with the idea that instead of telling him right out, "No", they "foot drag" as a method of dealing with him. It may be more pragmatic with a lame duck, but it doesn't send the right message to the subsequent generations of military that there are certain lines the leader dare not cross.
I think officers should offer their resignation rather than go along with orders which will knowingly get people killed. Yes, Obama is an idiot, but the Military officers should not gracefully suffer an idiot.
I feel for them and for the position into which they were put, but I cannot fathom any other course of action than to offer resignation, and to encourage the resignation of others, if it is the only tool available to make the point clear to an Idiot President, and the subsequent generation of Military . The principle needs to be established that social engineering is not worth people's lives, or loss of combat effectiveness.
DiogenesLamp,
You can’t tell the president “No!” Like it or not, want it or not, need it or not, he is still in charge and can give orders to the Pentagon and DOD to start the transition toward the conversion to using women in combat positions.
But there is still fallout that hasn’t been mentioned yet. Things like joint living conditions that will cause pregnancies. Don’t laugh here, one of the largest reasons for returning women to the states from downrange during Desert Storm was pregnant women troops.
Match that up with physical requirements the women may be able to pass during individual testing and controlled atmospheres, and the real world, and they may find out it is better to want than to have. Many men fail this, many women will also. And they have something to prove and can’t afford failure.
And then there’s the expense. New barracks, different uniforms, pay needs, housing, and many other things on the wish list suddenly become “requirements.” And not to sound crude here, what do they do about female needs in the field? The list of expensive new needs is endless.
The military has sidestepped this topic for many years for many reasons, some mentioned above. But let’s face it, this is nothing more than a political ploy to buy votes for the party. And the liberals have shown a complete disregard for lives, see Benghazi, where Obama called the slaughtering of four people a “bump in the road.” Heck of a price for some votes isn’t it?
red
Please do not mistake my point for being disrespectful to you, but we did not accept this argument when the German Generals made it at the Nuremberg trials.
My understanding of this event in history is that it established the principle that certain orders must be disobeyed even if given by the proper authorities, and such orders fall in the category of immoral and contrary to natural law.
The notion that any order from the President must be obeyed would make of him a dictator, and thereby obviate the very government the Military is sworn to defend.
If you wish to make competing constitutional issues out of it, you have to consider what Abraham Lincoln said.
Was it possible to lose the nation, and yet preserve the constitution? By general law life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. I felt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation of the constitution, through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, and now avow it.
If the President tells you to do something blatantly wrong, you can tell the President "No." You may be punished for doing it, but it is every officer's duty to put the lives of his troops before any trivial concern such as social engineering.
I completely agree on your points. But I’ve got to bring up the same point as before. As long as he is president, he has the law and the Constitution on his side. You can say no. And you can openly defy his answer. But you can’t stop it by saying no. You are stuck with it until he is removed from office because he is within his position to do what he is doing. And as a military officer, you can also cut off your nose despite your face. You say you won’t, they will find someone who will. Happens all the time. And you go to confinement for 20 years for Article 92 or be considered treasonous and spent a lifetime in there. But nothing will change that way.
It’s the same thing as with the creating of the rule in the senate which said a lame duck president couldn’t nominate a chief justice. But the Constitution was never changed so if they want to shut that process down this year, they have to tell a lie and see that his nominee won’t reach the docket. But they have no outright law that they can use to bring it to a halt. It has to be done in covert ways, not above board.
Oh, don’t be worried about disrespecting me with your kind and eloquent words. It is what a discussion is all about. But, please understand, I don’t disagree with what you want to accomplish, I just understand that it is not within the rules of the Constitution and cannot be handled in an upright manner. I can, also, remember when Reid wouldn’t let bills or discussions get to the senate floor for liberal reasons, we thought it was wrong and the incorrect way to handle things.
Lincoln was right in what he said, but you’ll notice there was no attempted change to the Constitution to give the military an option to say no. His was a speech. Not a rule. In a lot of ways, I can understand his position. But changing processes questionable, and I feel dishonestly, is exactly what got us into the problems across the board we have now. Hopefully with a new face and mind in the POTUS position, one that isn’t more interested in himself and what his party can squeeze out of the populous, we might be able to get back on track. We are still the most powerful country on earth. And we did it with rules. We need to stay that way so everyone plays by the same ones all the time.
red
DiogenesLamp
The disobeying of an order for a military member falls under Article 92 of the UCMJ. The only way an order can be refused is if it is an illegal order, the main two being the possible destruction of life and limb or priority one resources.
Enlistment oath:
“I,____________, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to the regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God”
Now, if he is within the law, he can order you to do what he wants and if you refuse, you pay the penalty. You can only refuse “unlawful orders.”
There is nothing in the system to stop him from ordering the action of starting the process to transition women into the combat units. It is not an unlawful order and must be obeyed by the military until it is determined to be. I wasn’t talking about unlawful orders, just the lawful ones. ?Whether I agree with him is not for me to decide. I have no say in it. So until they can prove it is unlawful, it will gain punishment for refusal.
I do, however, have a way to help the situation. Women have not been expected to compete with men in the annual physical aptitude tests for many years. Why not start there. Not only will it eliminate women not even close to the capacity needed to handle combat positions, but it will send them out of the military for not meeting standards like many men. This can be a slippery slope for women. All military people physically will require the same tests. If they fail at the standards men are using now to be able to stay in and go after jobs, then they will have earned their chance. Just like the men!
red
Exactly my point. It is axiomatic to me that placing women in combat roles will most definitely produce destruction of life and limb and destruction of priority one resources.
Do you disagree?
I do, however, have a way to help the situation. Women have not been expected to compete with men in the annual physical aptitude tests for many years. Why not start there. Not only will it eliminate women not even close to the capacity needed to handle combat positions, but it will send them out of the military for not meeting standards like many men. This can be a slippery slope for women. All military people physically will require the same tests. If they fail at the standards men are using now to be able to stay in and go after jobs, then they will have earned their chance. Just like the men!
You know very well that this will either not work, or won't happen. The political decisions are made first, and the evidence contradicting them will not be permitted to interfere with the political decision.
Either the data won't be compiled, or it will be buried so as not to cause problems.
Problem: I don't know whether it will work or not. I can say that in 32 years of military operations and training for combat, troop and instructor for the military, I have yet to find a woman that can physically handle the requirements needed to make sure the soldier is not a burden on the mission in direct combat scenarios. But the power of the politics can normally overthrow the power of the obvious. As long as the liberals can get the public into a frenzy of correctness, it is going to be done, failed or not. And I can't think of one president in office or after that has been injured or killed downrange in history. Especially one that never served like the current potus. red
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.
