And one that just won't go away.
No country in history ever sent mothers of toddlers off to fight enemy soldiers until the United States did this in the Iraq war
It's not something that civilized societies do.
I know women DID fight in the Israeli forces - in the early days. Everyone had to fight.
I really have no problem with it. If a woman can pull her weight all the power to her.
Phyllis is 'round the bend on this one. She's normally less shrill and strident, so this one must be smackin' her between the eyes for some reason. (Daughter, Niece, Daughter-in-Law in the military?)
We have an ALL VOLUNTEER MILITARY. If you're a woman with toddlers (or if you want them in the near future) don't VOLUNTEER to enlist in a combat unit! The military isn't FORCING these young mothers into combat; they willingly signed on the dotted line...and took the pay and benefits, college tuition reimbursement, enlistment & re-enlistment bonuses, free healthcare, and the paid delivery of their children while they were on duty should that be the case.
There are hundreds of jobs in the military that don't involve combat, and never will unless we're in WWIII when it'll be 'All Hands on Deck.'
As a female combat veteran myself, these pieces never hold water for me. What's the TRUE AGENDA behind not wanting women in combat? Not wanting women in the military at all, which is where Phyllis is coming from. She can be a real 'Anti-Woman Woman' when she puts her mind to it.
Does she rail against female police officers and firefighters? How about female EMTs or First Responders? What's more dangerous than that? (I don't know; just asking, because I don't recall her opinion on those jobs; and the military IS a JOB for all intents and purposes.)
Well written article, though. She supports her assumptive* arguments well, and the average Joe & Josephine that have never served would easily swallow it. ;)
* 2. assumptive - accepted as real or true without proof;
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/assumptive
The problem is, the PT requirements aren't the same for women, so most aren't......
What's your take on the draft?
Having experienced it, I'm not enthralled with the idea of bringing it back.
Because not enough war hawk neo-con men signed up?
By Jon Dougherty
© 2001 WorldNetDaily.com
Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots – mostly feminists who themselves will never have to face an armed enemy soldier – pushing lawmakers to drop a ban against allowing women in combat.
Israel – a nation of about 6.2 million people constantly at war with its neighbors – allowed women in combat, the idiots shriek. Why, then, must the American military, as regards ground combat roles, remain so androcentric, so "male-centered"?
It's time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel's experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn't successful. It was a disaster by Israel's own admission.
"History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle," wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.
"For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield," Luddy said.
Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: "Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat."
"Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically," said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review.
Furthermore, Israeli historian Martin Van Creveld has written extensively about the failure of the IDF to successfully integrate and use women in combat.
Finally, even Israeli citizens don't relish the thought of allowing their women into combat roles. In 1998, a survey conducted by the Jerusalem Post newspaper found that 56 percent of Israelis don't want women in combat.
There are now and always will be idiots who say the Pentagon should put women in any combat unit they wish to serve. Most of these people will speak with the ignorance of never having had to experience the horror of combat, as well as the luxury of never having to worry about engaging in armed conflict themselves.
But to use the "Israeli experience" as an allegedly successful model for the U.S. to follow is not only absurd, it's disingenuous. It is a lie propagated by radical feminists like ex-Democratic Rep. Patricia Schroeder who have falsely claimed that such a goal is merely an extension of "the will of the people."
Perhaps if more lawmakers – and Americans in general – were exposed to military service, the idiots who seem to be dominating this debate wouldn't have many sympathetic ears.
Imagine two young soldiers, one male and one female, sharing a foxhole. Assigned to guard their unit's perimeter. It's a quiet, boring night. What are the chances that their attention might be drawn to each other and away from their duty to protect their sleeping comrades?
Their lack of self control could conceivably result in the death of everyone in their unit if the enemy exploited their compromised position.
I have no problem with women serving in the military, but not at the expense of jeopardizing mission safety or effectiveness.
We should keep in mind that those pushing for women and homosexuals in the military, and women in combat, are the ones who wish us ill. Their desire is to weaken us in anyway they can. All too often even when they force through their malevolent ideas they turn out to be disappointed in the results. Americans of all stripes are very adept at turning lemons into lemonade and the liberals into pouters.
Why do we not, as a general practice, commence regular beating of women here at home in order to properly toughen them up for combat duty? And the children---well lets just strip them of their mothers right now--get them off to some kind of immediate rotating foster care so they can prepare for the day when "combat mommy" does not return. Are we not a better people than to allow this to be done to children in our name?
If you want to see recruiting plummet, intermix these social promotion graduates in with the land combat force. Many soldiers, including my own would then understand that we clearly do not want the best force, but rather the kowed general career ladder climber Pentagon pc player composite real killing machine.
Females do belong in the military in every role they can realistically qualify. Some can bench press 300--and out chuck a backhoe--those with no children we can talk about. As a rule--just say no.
The title of this article is correct !
EVERY woman ever taken prisoner has been raped.
That might of some influence in this conversation.
Is there a fifteen percent quota for females?
In todays modern combat the front lines are everywhere, from the chow hall, to the medical clinics, the libaries, to the convoys going out with supplies for the troops in the field & civilians. Are they in combat, from the time that they put the uniform of our country on not only they are but ALL members are!
The question being unsaid should women be in the miltary? They have proven to be a very valuable reasource to be utlized just like any other tool in our arsenal of freedom!
Response: True enough, but try and stop it.
She should have gone into more detail regarding the disgraceful antics of Heather Wilson, Mark Kirk and Ike Skelton in undermining Ducan Hunter...