Posted on 10/29/2008 1:12:38 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Barack Obama has consistently and very publicly staked out policy positions far to the left of the American public on such issues as taxes, abortion, and same-sex marriage. But one issue has slipped quietly under the radar: If elected president, the Illinois senator would require women to register for the military draft. As commander in chief, he would also consider assigning women to roles in close combat, also known as "the point of the spear."
"Women are already serving in combat [in Iraq and Afghanistan], and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground," Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Oct. 13. "Barack Obama would consult with military commanders to review the constraints that remain."
While it is true that some women are already serving in combat, they are usually doing so in support units and against the Pentagon's own rules. In 1994, Clinton defense secretary Les Aspin issued the "direct combat assignment rule" that today still governs in theory, though not in practice. In a Jan. 13, 1994, memo, Aspin wrote that women might not be assigned "where units and position are doctrinally required to physically collocate and remain with direct combat units that are closed to women."
Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, said the military now routinely assigns women to support units embedded with close combat elements. The Army is also assigning them directly to infantry units, she said.
"Women joining infantry support units should know they will be in harm's way—there's no disputing that," Donnelly said. "However when they are told they will not be assigned to a close combat area, they should expect not to be. That breaks faith."
Feminist groups have long complained that men and women in the U.S. military should serve in identical capacities. During a CNN/YouTube debate last year, Obama compared the role of women in today's armed forces to that of black soldiers and airmen in World War II.
"There was a time when African Americans weren't allowed to serve in combat," Obama said. "And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we're equal."
That's true for men of all races, but not for men and women in the demanding environment of war, said former Army Capt. Michele Jones. "It's not a matter of opinion; it's just a fact," said Jones, who from May 2004 to June 2005 commanded a truck company out of the 89th Transportation Corps base at Fort Eustis, Va. "Women are not built the same as men. They cannot carry 150 pounds on their backs. They can't carry fully loaded, heavy weapons for long distances."
Ground commanders also cannot realistically deploy them in the same way as men. "There were a lot of times I was tasked to provide armed security for convoys staffed entirely with local nationals, all male," Jones said. "There was no way I was going to send women to provide security for a convoy full of nothing but foreign men, for obvious reasons."
Jones said commanding a war-zone unit with up to 50 percent women caused other problems, such as sexual and emotional entanglements. Also her truck convoys routinely came under fire during her tour. "My male soldiers told me they felt more protective of the women in the unit," she said.
That's normal human nature, she added, but noted that the shift in priorities can change the outcome in battle.
Obama's contention that women should serve in direct combat roles echoes that of feminist groups that have long complained men and women in the U.S. military should serve in identical capacities. Elaine Donnelly said that view reveals the Democratic candidate's "ignorance on the purpose of the military," which is to defend the American people, not serve as an equal-opportunity employer.
"In the fierce environment of direct ground combat, like Fallujah in November 2004," Donnelly said, "women do not have an equal opportunity to survive—or to help fellow soldiers survive."
“”Women are already serving in combat [in Iraq and Afghanistan], and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground,”
All the Obomber idiots love to talk what they think is military-ese. Watch for it. It’s really awkward and never seems to quite fit the conversation...
He'll pay them back by forcing them into combat roles, potentially by drafting them. Ironic, no?
And don’t forget this little gem;
Another Barack Obama Gaffe: A Civilian Army?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igDoHZ0hVUY
Good grief...
I wish he’d resolve all of his “maternal abandonment issues” before he sends thousands of startled high school cheerleaders into active war zones.
This guy really hates women.
Ladies, get fitted for your Burka today...you know how those muslim guys treat their ladies. But, you go ahead and vote for hussein if he’s got your twiddles tinkling....
This makes sense for Obama. Democrats are already talking about requiring a real draft for any future conflicts, designed to raise opposition to any future invasions. So females would support democrats to avoid the draft ever being used on them. You never see elected republicans think this far ahead.
I’m telling you, Obama wants a big war so that he will be in control of everything.
no draft!
no women registering for draft!!
no woman in combat!!
no women with children under 18 on active duty!!
Let us see how the “sophisticate” “holier than thou” liberals will get out of this one, being a soldier, that is, and not just “sophistication” at the defense of poor orphan boy Iran or Chinese so called “rusty” nukes “suffering” under high tech US ones...
It depends on what your meaning of soldier is, of course. I can see gays and other “sophisticate” pseudo-fighters pretend while garnering a free pay check doing nothing. They’re good at believing they’re not racist when they say a behavior such as gay or islam is a race (as if races had specific idiosyncracies). Now let me see if they are good at facing an increasingly crazed and hungry government, allowing abortion to satisfy its tax money appetite and property seizures via fiat city ordinance like “tax policies”. Now they’re going for the whore, for the “woman” meat.
Mark my words. A man can keep being a man and keep his integrity in and out of the army. A woman cannot. She takes pills, abort and has hystorectomies. She undergoes thus virtualy life changing and condemning sex changes. She is not a woman anymore, she is a “soldier”. Gays and women in the military? Ah, there is no such thing... and thank God.
The left is notoriously anti-draft of any kind, but even those who think it would be ok, do not want girls being drafted. This needs a LOT of play.
personally i have always that especially with alot of todays youth that it wouldn’t hurt for every young man and woman to serve their country for at least 2 years out of high school. i think it would be a great learning chance for all of them in regards to responsibilty, discipline etc. this does not mean sending women into combat roles as their are many roles outside of combat that they can perform well to support the troops. again just my opinion. and yes i have 3 daughters before you ask.
Democrats are only opposed to Republican wars. you didn’t see protests in the 90’s when clinton went all over the place
I can see how a war with china is possible under Obama. Remember what Biden said: gird your loins.
Why? [Flame suit ON]. Think of the sheer terror that specialized PMS brigades will inflict upon our enemies! Whole armies will flee in fear - we'll be victorious everywhere!
Seriously, and with all due respect to the ladies (I have a mom, wife and 7 y.o. girl, all of whom I love dearly and respect), this SOB says that he wants to "change America." Change America - NOT change our priorities; NOT change the culture inside the Beltway, but CHANGE AMERICA. Folks, he's NOT kidding:
Woman in combat.
Wealth redistribution.
Opposition stifled by "Fairness" Doctrine and ACORN involvement in the FEC and DOJ.
Campaign fraud on an unimagined scale.
Civilian disarmament.
Etc., etc.
You are right. They are trying to redefine the word and attribute “Soldier”.
A volunteer is a real soldier. A draftee is a slave and a democrate, turning the military in some hopeless democratic institution. God forbid national security decision would now be voted upon or culturaly influenced. Our military would turn into Earth Flatters and refuse to learn geography by mere collective nonsense vote.
Wow, this should be a major topic immediately. I bet most Americans don’t want their “little girls” having to sign up for the draft and serve in dangerous combat roles.
I’ve already emailed this article to friends and family. Hope others will do the same. This needs to be top headlines.
Maybe it’s not that kind of Army they’ll be drafted in to. Think, Tienamin Square.
it has to be their choice. Obama wants to change America, including gender roles, and forcing women to fight will do that. That’s what the Soviets did.
remember the little girls singing about Obama “who will lead us”
Also, if Zero wins, then you can count on openly gay people in the military.
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.