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.