This is the first time women in close support roles being harmed has happened in 12 years because that is the length of time between insertions. If another gulf action had taken place 3 months after the first one, it would have been the first time it had happened in 3 months. Since it is not at all "1 in 12 years" of constant conflict your statement about getting rid of 100,000 female soldiers because of the lack of frequency fails. BTW, does that "100,000 female soldiers" include all those in rear support and clerical jobs? There's been Bosnia and Afghanistan. Once every 12 years isn't bad.
Adult females can certainly make informed choices, but should a blind person be able to make an informed choice to be a beach lifeguard?
But freeing up a better choice of men for the infantry saves lives.
Obviously, women "pushing buttons" as well as men can get shot and captured pushing those buttons. Was Miss Lynch pushing buttons in that Jeep?
I don't know what her job entailed.
The only reason one would be against putting women into combat as hands-on warriors is to protect their lives. You lose that reason by putting them in jobs that place them in danger from an enemy.
We put them in jobs that are most likely to save lives.
So, your comment about good women "button pushers" is an avoidance of the issue. I'd damn sure shoot anyone pushing a button that means my death or injury in a war situation.
As well you should. Having a better military protects us all, including women.
For sure, self-responsibility, and protection of the innocent are benchmarks of conservatism. But, preservation of a nation full of innocents (our children behind the lines) and the responsibility for protecting our nation from those who mean all the people therein harm indicate we should be using those who can do the job best. That is not women.
Women can do the button-pushing jobs as well as men. Having an all-volunteer force protects us all. Freeing up a better choice of men for the front lines protects those men also.
Women have been protected from harm and deferred to in all civilizations for a reason.
There've been many women associated with the military in our culture's history.
Do you not understand, with your focus on "adult women making these choices", that there are many things adults of either sex cannot do by custom, law and biology in the US?
Women can do button-pushing jobs.
Keeping women in their traditional rear support and clerical jobs would cause "a human resource supply problem, then a recruitment problem, then a financial problem, then a morale problem, then an excessive casualty problem"? It hasn't in the past. We won two world wars and numerous conflicts with that policy.
With a higher casualty rate.
Yes I suppose that if we use women on the front lines in maintenance and other capacities than direct infantry involvment could release more men to those infantry tasks. So what?
Due to the law of diminishing returns, freeing up a better choice of men for the infantry saves lives, that's the "so what".
Relative few would be released this way, and when those front line positions are challenged by a run-in with enemy combatants, the men therein can fight and have a chance to prevail.
But it only happens once every 12 years. In that time there may be 10,000 military incidents. A higher quality of soldier in those 10,000 incidents due to women filling the button-pushing jobs saves many more lives over the long haul.
As I said before, we have won two world wars and numerous conflicts not doing that.
With a higher casualty rate.
The point was that tolerating a thing brings it about as well as actively advocating for it. I don't understand your response.
I advocate filling button-pushing jobs with women. It frees up more men for the infantry leading to better choice and therefore less casualties.
Yes, people here say uncomplimenting thing about Miss Lynch. As I said, that is the price for being willing to be used as a tool.
So it's her fault she's being called a whore and white trash by some here?! No way! She's being called names because there are some that are hateful, jealous, and insecure. It's not her fault at all.
Tool she is; your saying "no" denies observation. There may be some of the left that decry her being used as an icon, but it is the left that is using her that way.
The left hasn't been holding her up for anything much, they loathe the military and have been putting down the rescue. Some unsavory elements on the right are the ones that are using her in a dispicable fashion.
Monarchy is not used in every civilization. Protection and nurture of women is; that makes women the "elite few" and well deserved for they are, among other more spiritual things, the only portal whereby more men and women can get to the Earth.
I don't think we're going back to the fifties where women were locked in their houses by their husbands barefoot and pregnant all the time. lol Our culture has had it's times when women were allowed freedom of choices, this is nothing new. Hell, we use to keep female slaves and worked them to the bone. Some reverance.
I ask the same question I have asked before: why search out the rare voluntary strawberry in the watermelon field? Why not just stick with the strawberry field?
What are you talking about?
