Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Soldier mom refuses deployment to care for baby
Yahoo News ^ | Mon Nov 16 | RUSS BYNUM

Posted on 11/17/2009 5:35:06 AM PST by MuttTheHoople

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 last
To: BenKenobi

“Men and women are fundamentally different from one another”

Really? I had no idea.

“but for too many, ‘serving’ is the last thing on their mind.”

I’d be willing to be that if you polled all those that enlisted after 9-11 the majority would dispute that.


41 posted on 11/17/2009 7:56:48 PM PST by swmobuffalo ("We didn't seek the approval of Code Pink and MoveOn.org before deciding what to do")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: swmobuffalo

Where did I say the majority or even a significant number felt that way?

I agree with you that by far the majority of the servicemen want to give something back to the United States. All I am saying is that there are a few who take the substantial benefits provided by the military wrt to education, and then refuse to deploy.


42 posted on 11/17/2009 8:11:25 PM PST by BenKenobi
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: sassy steel magnolia

Those of us who have seen the grim horror at the sharp end of infantry combat (as I did in a Mech Infantry outfit in Vietnam) are concerned at the rhetoric of many of those pushing the women in combat agenda. Daily we are regaled by the sight of 110 lb. women routinely beating the stuffing out of 250 lb male behemoths in choreographed entertainment fantasies like Buffy the vampire Slayer, Dark Angel, Tomb Raider and the Matrix Reloaded. We all listened breathlessly to the initial (later revealed as inaccurate) reports of brave little Jessica Lynch mowing down hordes of Iraqis.

It is only natural that with this continual barrage of opinion shaping that an attitude will begin to form that women are just as generally capable of participating in infantry combat as men are, with a comensurate erosion of the rationale for excluding them in the first place.

This is not to say that women can not serve in positions that enhance military capability, they are already serving in them, and serving well and honorably. It was Nazi Armament Minister Albert Speer who cited the German failure to mobilize their women in the manner that the Allies did in WWII as a significant factor in the Nazi defeat. In situations involving large scale mobilization, they are essential. (Don’t forget that the Soviets only did it because of the hugely staggering quantity of casualties that they suffered, on a scale that we can scarcely concieve of) That is not the case now as most personnel requirements could be met with the available pool of qualified males. Today, the issue is clouded by feminists and their societal influence ranging from lefist cum Marxist to liberal gender equity advocates. All too often combat readinesss, morale and unit cohesion is secondary to remaking the military institution into one which advances a radical social agenda. The decision to incorporate such large numbers of women into today’s military is a political decision, not one of military necessity has was the case with the Soviets during World War II.

One of the problems in assesing the impact of this issue vis-a-vis the Iraq war is the fact that we handily defeated them with the forces that were already in place in the invasion phase. Due to a combination of the skill of our superbly trained, equipped, motivated soldiers; and the ineptitude of our enemy (but they are getting better) our casualty rate has been thankfully far lower than we should have been reasonably able to expect given historical precedents. Notwithstanding this the question must be asked as to what would happen should we face an enemy that could inflict the sort of casualties on us has was the case during the fighting in northwest Europe in WWII? The United States Army was forced to comb out military personnel who had been assigned to the Army Specialized Training program as technical personnel (aircrew, radar operators, etc) and convert them to infantry to replace the staggering losses. Since 14% of the Army is not deployable to such duty (women) this does not bode well for such an eventuality. While we can continue to pray that we will never again face an enemy that will be able to attrite us as the German and Japanese Armies did, we MUST not plan as though it will never again happen. The Iraq and Afghani conflicts as they are presently playing out IS NO TEST OF THIS PROPOSITION.

Many commentators are relentless in their determination to ignore the considerable body of factual evidence indicating that the present policy of sexual intergration is inconsistent with certain vital forms of combat readiness. Study after study (reinforced by my 20 yrs of anecdotal observation in the active duty military and NG) highlight the physical unsuitability of most women for the tasks of the combat soldier, and often even the support soldier. My personal observations include the inability to change the tires on military vehicles, clear routine stoppages on M60 medium MG’s and .50 cal HMG’s, carry heavy loads any appreciable distances at necessary speeds, lift and evacuate casualties, and an inordinate disposition to injury. The reason that the military adopted “dual physical training standards” was to ensure politically acceptable numbers of women, since 40-60% of them would be washed out if they were required to meet male physical training requirements. My son, a reservist in a NG chopper unit, is contemptuous of what he describes as continual coddling of female soldiers. He is planning to transfer to an infantry unit.

In situations of full mobilization, women are essential. I believe that women are a militarily valuable asset, provided that asset is used in a manner that makes the military ready to fight, and subordinates feminist social engineering to that end.

Hundreds of thousands of women have served and are serving their country honorably and well. I honor them for their service and recognize them as comrades and fellow veterans. We can only hope that their service will be continued in such a manner as to enhance the ability of the military to fight. The potential consequences for the individual soldier and the military’s mission are too serious to subordinate to social engineering.


43 posted on 11/20/2009 2:13:46 PM PST by DMZFrank
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sassy steel magnolia

“been a squadron section commander and handled issues similar to this; it’s not easy for anyone involved.”

It was easy enough in the Reagan Navy. Me brudder, on a LST and a destroyer tender in the 80s, saw his ship/shore rotation go from 3 years/3 years to 5 years/1 year because the Navy’s machine shop women at sea often got as pregnant as possible as quick as possible to get (mandated) shore duty. Pregnancy/child issues are usually easily solved in the military and in the factory where I now work. Answer is, almost always, women with pregnancy/child issues get special allowances, and the rest of you will hafta take up the slack.


44 posted on 01/14/2010 6:08:08 AM PST by flowerplough ( Pennsylvania today - New New Jersey meets North West Virginia.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-44 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson