Trump: I Would Support Women in Combat Roles

Newsmax ^ | 8/23/2015 | Todd Beamon

[JediJones]

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said Friday that he would support women in military combat roles, but would follow that advice from his military advisers "because I would want to hear that without a political bent."

"The answer is yes because they're really into it," the billionaire businessman told Chris Cuomo on CNN. "And some of them are really, really good at it.

"I would really speak to the generals, because I would want to hear that without a political bent," Trump cautioned. "To the public, they say, 'yes, yes, yes,' but I would want to hear it without the political bent."

[redfreedom]

“- - - but if a woman can do the job with NO special accommodations let her - - “

I fully agree. But this will never happen in todays culture. It’s not about what people can do without making special accommodations.

The best example I can come up with is our current President, not even remotely qualified for the job, and having to use a teleprompter as a special accommodation. Just think how silly this is, could anyone even remotely imagine JFK or Reagan using a teleprompter???

But getting back to the subject at hand, for a couple decades or so it has been very common to read about a fire department, police department, and the military relaxing standards to allow more women in. This is a special accommodation. This unto itself is sexist.

Someone mentioned Russian snipers of WWII. When a nation is about to be brutally crushed with prisoners shot or burned to death or beheaded, as in the case of what’s going on now in the middle east, many women are indeed taking up arms. In such a case, I’d willingly fight with and depend on a woman determined to kill the enemy just to survive. But until we get that bad off, they should stay out of the combat arms.

[Savage Beast]

I would too, provided that:

1. It's voluntary

2. The women's corps is entirely separate from the men's.

3. The decision to establish and/or retain a women's corps, or not, is entirely that of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and for the sole purpose of protecting the nation--and NOT because women (or anyone else) have a right to positions in the military.

A battalion of anthropophobic lesbians could be excellent in a fight against America's enemies.

[MasterGunner01]

If the women want to compete for combat slots (notice that only women officers want this — as a fast track to promotion), then they should do so by doing exactly the same things as their male counter parts. There should be no dumbed-down set of expectations and performance for the women while the men bear the full requirements. This is hypocrisy of the rankest sort. If the women candidates are so good, they need to compete on a level playing field. Let the best candidate win.

Unfortunately the PC Brigade won't hear of this because getting marginally qualified women in these slots is paramount for their agenda. I would wonder how these PC women soldiers would have borne the Siege of Bastogne in the winter of 1944-1945? More to the point, could America have won the Battle of the Bulge with women fighting with the 101st Airborne or 4th Armored Division? I don't think so.

[Lumper20]

Yes, and those coming home missing legs and some missing arms are mainly the result of riding up and down main supply routes and other roads. This is the Generals fault for their rotten tactics. Go back to Aghan just after 9/11. SF took the entire country with all of two A teams. One team jumped in and met up with a legendary SF SGM working as a CIA contractor before linking up with the Northern Alliance. Another team jumped in down south and linked up with Karzai. After they had taken over the country the Marines came in and their General F’d things up.

[ac-rep]

just as I think its inappropriate for men to use violence against women, it should be inappropriate to send women off to use violence against men

[rlmorel]

Thanks for your service and welcome home, Lumper20.

Women in combat is insanity, and those who support it in any way have never been in combat, have not taken the time to look realistically at the issue, are politically compromised, or are simply ignorant. For a really good assessment of this situation, written by a female Marine, check this link below by Jude Eden-"Jane of Trades", USMC on women in combat and training.

In particular, about halfway down is her seminal piece: Women in Combat: The Question of Standards, by Jude Eden. I cannot recommend this page highly enough, she served in the USMC in the Middle East, honorably, in non-combat roles, and she knows of what she speaks.

Here, from that article, is the passage that says it all: "...Meanwhile, the argument to maintain the combat exclusion makes itself easily in every aspect. Including women in combat units is bad for combat, bad for women, bad for men, bad for children, and bad for the country.

The argument for the combat exclusion is provable all the time, every time.

Political correctness has no chance against Nature. Her victories are staring us in the face at all times.

The men just keep being able to lift more and to run faster, harder, and longer with more weight on their backs while suffering fewer injuries. They just keep never getting pregnant.

The combat units have needs that women cannot meet. Women have needs that life in a combat unit cannot accommodate without accepting significant disadvantage and much greater expense. Where 99 percent of men can do the heavy-lifting tasks typical of gunners, but 85 percent of women cannot, there is no gap women need to fill..."

And it isn't just the infantry, either. I watched a video of USMC artillery, and they were humping 155mm artillery shells off the back of a truck. They were pulling them off at chest height, duckwalking them over 15 yards, putting them on the ground, then going back and getting another one.

I think they are somewhere around 100 lbs per round.

Sure, there are women who could do that. But the average woman could not.

When in a combat situation, I can certainly imagine times where that nice loader and transporter thingie is not going to be available, or you are simply in a situation where you gotta move the rounds fast using a bunch of people.

To boil it down, my objection to women in combat is twofold: First, simple differences in physical capability and function between men and women, and Secondly, the effect on morale and logistics associated with military activity due to a mixing of the sexes in that environment.

[JimRed]

"I would really speak to the generals, because I would want to hear that without a political bent," Trump cautioned.

After Obama's gutting the military of senior officers who might oppose his policies, I doubt you'll hear anything from any general without a political bent.

[rlmorel]

I hear what you say in this respect, but I disagree, and here's why.

I base my disagreement on this graph I created to show the point on which my belief that females are unsuited for combat primarily hinges, and the fact that what this graph displays has effects on everything from unit morale to logistics and unit readiness/capability:

The graph above compares average male physical capability and body structure as compared to average women. The red hatched area is the the physical area where the negatives from a PHYSICAL perspective (This ignores and does not include logistical and morale based issues completely) the DISADVANTAGES of allowing females into combat units outweighs the positives. (Note, the only positives in my mind in any case no matter what are Politically Correct based positives, there are no operational positives of any kind. This only displays the physical negatives.)

All the assumptions above the graph after the word "NOTE:" are medically studied and accepted from mainstream medical sources. It starts with the basic premise that the strongest woman is 25% weaker than the strongest man (at best, some say the difference is closer to 30-35%) and goes from there. There are two other assumptions I have made: the curve with the average male strength is broader than the overlapping curve with the average female strength, because I believe that across the male gender, physical strength is innately more broadly distributed by nature than it is withe females, simply due to the production of testosterone in our bodies. So I believe the distribution of average strength in females is narrower due to natural physiology.

[DeoVindiceSicSemperTyrannis]

Another reason for me to not support Trump. I don’t want to register for the draft. :-(

[Lumper20]

I agree. I liked it when women were nurses and admin types. They are damn good at those jobs.

[Lumper20]

I watched the debate and every damn one supported In fact two acted like know it all’s. One was Cruz and the other was Carson. It was not Trump who was asked first.

[dfwgator]

Unfortunately, it seems all of them support it.

[Lumper20]

That is Cruz. Trump is like the others in that not a damn one has ever served. Trump’s campaign manager does listen and will get things to Trump. Trump will listen to the truth and change.

[MasterGunner01]

I agree with you, but there's much more to be gained by keeping females out of the combat arms. You’ve just scratched the tip of the iceberg. I was in the service when this PC “everyone is equal” BS started and it has GOTTEN WORSE. The PC admirals and generals are mostly a bunch of eunuchs when this subject comes up. They are completely cowed by the feminists and the left’s agenda.

[GilGil]

When women are discussed in American society they are given all kinds of advantages from the government because it is understood that they are a minority and that men have unfair advantages.

All of the sudden when women are thrust in the armed services they can do anything a man can do because they are just like men.

I’m confused. When in civilian society, women need all kinds of subsidies and laws to protect them against men.

But when they are in the armed services they are interchangeable with men.

Why the double standard?

[Revolutionary]

The military’s job is to win. Putting an WNBA player on an NBA team would not be smart. You might find one or two, but that is not what would be shoved down the throats of the military.