So what you're saying is that a woman has never, can never, and will never reach general rank in any armed service on her own merit? That every single instance is and alway will be because of affirmative action?
I would say a sane, conservative society wouldn't allow women in the military at all except in extremely limited service areas such as medical care. But then again, I don't consider conservatism to just be the acceptance of what was liberalism 40 years ago.
Only exceptional women can make it to the top on their own merits in this aspect of a man’s world - the world of making war. It is possible that she is one of those very exceptional women who did so, but the odds of that in the very politically correct, new feminized military, are very low.
The military has had to lower its standards across the board in order to be able to make itself look good to the Leftists who are running the country.
Not my comment, but sounds about right to me. Automatic laugher, sorry. And empirically, the fruits of the process that has produced our female general officers to date—can you say Janis Karpinski?—appear to bear out that summation.
No, I’m saying that they are desperate to promote women to high rank.
This woman may be perfectly competent. But the odds suggest that she’d maybe be a colonel still if she were a man. Also, that it’s extremely unusual to put a refueling specialist in charge of a military mission like this.
I’d say the same thing if they put a male general in charge who had worked his way up in Supply. Supply is vital, but it doesn’t prepare someone to lead in battle.
We’ve seen what happens when they are desperate to have woman pilots. The result has been that a higher than average number of women pilots have crashed their planes or had other problems. Not that a woman couldn’t be a competent pilot, but that some were promoted beyond their capabilities simply for affirmative action reasons.