Posted on 10/19/2018 5:20:53 AM PDT by Colonel Kangaroo
...Jim Mattis has largely avoided the major controversies that have plagued his fellow Trump cabinet members. But if the reaction to his recent remarks at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) are any indication, his luck may have begun to run out.
During a September visit to the military school, Mattis offered his thoughts on women serving in combat infantry jobs, later interpreted by the Associated Press as a “dim view” of their prospects. The comments were further panned by those advocating the integration of women into combat, who characterized Mattis as “poisoning the well” and “sabotaging” efforts to integrate women. Other reactions, some from veterans, were even less flattering.
Are these reactions justified? Better yet, what exactly did Mattis say? A male VMI cadet, who went to bat for his female classmates, asked the secretary about his thoughts on women in combat. The following quotations are part of a longer reply, but these appear to be the most contentious points:
"It’s a very, very tough issue. Because it goes from some people’s perspective of what kind of society do we want… it goes to the almost primitive needs of a society to look out for its most vulnerable."
"How did the infantry get its name? Infant soldier. Young soldier. Very young soldier. They’re cocky, they’re rambunctious. They’re necessarily macho. And it’s the most primitive, I would say even evil, environment—you can’t even explain it."
"This is an area we are going to have to resolve as a nation…the military has got to have officers who look at this with a great deal of objectivity, and at the same time remember our natural inclination to have this open to all. But we cannot do something that militarily doesn’t make sense…"
(Excerpt) Read more at theamericanconservative.com ...
I’ve never served in,or near,combat so it could be argued that my position lacks credibility.However,I believe that the only military women who should be allowed anywhere near combat are physicians,surgeons and nurses.
If the United States and other major powers did not employ women in combat in World War I or II, why would they need women in combat now? Caring about women means not putting them in harm’s way unnecessarily.
But I don’t understand. Every movie or TV show I see lately shows women in combat kicking the a$$es of all the men. How could this not be reality?
Martis speaks gobbledygook and has to go.
PC has its hooks in us so deep that a significant portion of our population (just short of a majority) has lost its basic common sense. The unfortunate truth is that we will need a near apocalyptic disaster, major war loss or severe economic depression to bring our Society back to reality.
For a while, I thought 9/11 did the trick. But, 17 years later, we have only gotten crazier.
Still crazy after all these years.
“Martis speaks gobbledygook”
Mattis certainly gave a convoluted response in this instance. Was he saying that soldier in combat are evil? Perhaps I misunderstood...
NO, women do NOT belong in combat.
The ONLY people advocating otherwise are attempting to undermine the military to further a social agenda.
Same with women in the military. When women are added to the front line, the nation becomes reluctant to put the front line in danger.
The Left supports pacifism because it weakens the nation.
One thing to bear in mind — a lot of lusty men want to bunk with beautiful babes. Better yet — shower with them. Their opinions need to be taken with a grain of salt.
At the very least — physical standards should not be watered down for front line forces. Some forces could be light on front line activity and more specialized. They need not have such high standards.
But frankly there will be an increasing need for desk jockeys who view monitors. The need to analyze intel is becoming a bottomless pit in modern warfare.
Yeah, Mattis needs to rent Atomic Blonde!
He’d be a fool not to want such a badass in his unit.
So no women pilots? No women on aircraft crews? No women on combat ships? No women in Army or Marine units that could possibly come under fire?
In DC, a “gaffe” is when someone actually tells the truth.
There are lines to be drawn re: safety and yes, at times warfighter group cohesion.
We should leave it to our military leadership, unencumbered by PC considerations, to determine where those lines are.
They might want to consider Rush Limbaugh’s proposal for the creation of the “All American Amazon Army.”
Absolutely yes.
The dirty little secret is that the military is pushing women and homosexuals into these roles because they can’t find enough straight men to do the job.
‘The Left supports pacifism because it weakens the nation.’
perhaps...but I, for one, am reluctant to commit anybody’s child into harm’s way, male or female, without there being a compelling purpose for doing so...
He then continues to lay out the dichotomy - we live in an 'open society' where 'equality' is ostensibly desirable. "But we cannot do something that militarily doesn’t make sense...."
I don't see anything wrong with those statements. The environment needed to develop young men who can kick open a door and shoot some other young man in the face without second though is pretty savage, some could even say evil indeed.
We do live in an open society. Officers should look at the situation objectively and ensure that the military reflects American values while understanding "...we cannot do something that militarily doesn’t make sense...."
male VMI cadet, who went to bat for his female classmates,
in other words some college student, Lt wannabe with just enough information to be dangerous tries to play stump the chump with SecDef.
I
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.