Posted on 07/25/2007 3:09:28 PM PDT by bnelson44
It should raise eyebrows when Democratic presidential candidates, and particularly Sen. Hillary Clinton, say that 18-year-old girls should have to register with Selective Service. When the question came up during Monday’s “YouTube” debate on CNN, all of the candidates who answered—Sen. Christopher Dodd, Sen. Barack Obama, John Edwards, and Mike Gravel—said that they opposed the draft, but if there were one, women should be part of it.
Hillary Clinton’s answer was particularly ironic, since her husband Bill Clinton famously avoided military service in the Vietnam era. I am not aware that young Chelsea Clinton, or the daughters of Pres. George W. Bush, for that matter, have done volunteer work for the military or other good causes. But the issue goes beyond the personal choices of presidents’ daughters. We’re talking about lethal combat here—on a co-ed basis. Perhaps we should give this idea a try with non-lethal combat first—starting with the Army/Navy football game. Which team wants to make political brownie points by going first?
Historically, no American has been drafted unless there was an unfulfilled need for “combat replacements” to directly engage the enemy with deliberate offensive action. In that environment (think Fallujah in November 2004), female soldiers do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. Actual warfare is not “fair” or “equal.” It is not even civilized.
And yet, here we have a privileged woman expressing her intent to force other women’s daughters into combat on an equal basis. Hillary and her friends should not get away with that. Nor should they be allowed to change the subject to “national service,” or some sort of tax-funded “public service academy” established to train activists for liberal causes. I hope that it is never necessary to reinstate the draft—a last resort in time of national peril. But if that day ever comes, the needs of the military and national security—not feminist egalitarianism—ought to come first.
No, but just like in WW II women can take rear echelon jobs to free up men to go fight at the front.
A nation that considers females war expendables is at the tipping point of civilization. Let’s hear from the GOP candidates on this. Silence is approval.
My son the tanker tells me there are no rear echelon jobs in Iraq
Who said anything about in Iraq?
Right now, if your in the Army or Marines, you are going to Iraq.
It's also the plain fact that there are not enough supposedly Red Blooded American Men volunteering for all the military jobs that need to be done. (There also aren't enough military "slots" for all the jobs that need to be done, which is why we are sending DoD civilians and contractors to the war zone to do jobs traditionaly done by Joe Snuffy).
Thus, until we get a draft, we need those women. If they can do the job now, as they seem to be able to do, they could do the job after a draft is reinstated. You could even have a draft into the combat support and combat service support fields, which is were most women serve anyway. We have no women tankers, or infantry or Bradley crews. We do have women pilots, flying everything from trash haulers, to bomb droppers, including the the Big Boys like the BUFF, and the smaller fighter attack aircraft like the F/A-18, the F-16 and of course the Warthog (A-10).
No, No, No and NO.
Completely idiotic. I would fight such a bill proposal to the end, and the feminist leftist probably will to. Ugh what a country.
How many support male personnel do we have on duty in the USA?
Not many that don't go to Iraq or Afghanistan sooner or later. Much of the support duties have been handed off to civilians.
This country doesn’t owe me a damn thing. I owe it everything. And I can never repay the debt I owe to those that have made that ultimate sacrifice.
It may be old fashioned, some might find it sexist - my wife is the heart and soul and glue of our family and my daughter follows in her footsteps, I’m not about to put them in harm’s way.
To force our wives, daughters, aunts, cousins to sign up for the draft...puts them in harms way !
The time may come where ALL may have to take up arms to fight once again for freedom. So be it.
But not today, not on my watch. Not while I continue to draw the breath of life.
Semper Fi
What did the GOP do to reverse the KLINTOON and get women out of combat in Iraq and women off Navy ships?
Nothing.
Small wonder that now the leftist crazies will go the next step.
Ask FReeper Allegra, a female civilian who is there now, and has been there for a good fraction of the time since about a month after we dragged the wimpering Saddam out of his spider hole.
Excuse me, but isn’t the war in Iraq?
Depends on what you mean by "support". Very few in the Army who are not just back, training to go, or about to go. There are of course slots in R&D, procurement and so forth. Some of them are filled by the walking wounded. Others require a combat arms or at a least operations background. If they don't the job is likely getting done by a civilian, either DoD or contractor, and in some cases even if they do. We have one twice retired guy in the office where I work who has been all three, military officer, DA civilian, and now contractor.
We also have a Captain, male, who lost an eye to a bullet. We also have some female officers and NCOs.
As far as women in combat: NO WAY! In my one year of Army experience, I've met some good female soldiers. But all of them are the type you go to parade rest for. But a lot of them seem to be ala Jessica Lynch (i.e., panicking under pressure, forgetting how to operate a M-16, etc.).
Not the kind of people I would ever want protecting my back in combat. Of course, not that the male soldiers are all great, because they're not. But males were designed for combat, women weren't.
Amen. I suited up in WWII as a combat infantryman from the Budge on. I could not believe that this is the place for a female in any war. Maybe up in the air is different or from a ship but living in a hole in winter ground makes no sense. If women think the 'need this experience' I don't want them in my outfit.
Would anyone want Lohan or Paris Hilton watching their back? And what about a woman’s right to choose? Wasn’t that Hillary’s and Planned Parenthood’s passion the last 3 decades? Which way do they want it?
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.