It is utterly unnecessary. We have a population of 300+ million, of which there are MORE than enough qualified males to fill the current slots.
Our armed Forces is small, elite and the Army is comprised of less than 1,00,000 personnel. There is no logical reason to have has a significant portion of that relatively small force a group which is not required to meet the same physical standards as the men, which BY LAW cannot be deployed to missions which require them to directly engage, close with, and destroy the enemy or to be plugged in as emergency replacements for those who do, which requires a seperate logistic train to include seperate housing, and whose injuries and death impact civillian and military morale in ways that the deaths of males WILL NOT DO, at least untill the baleful effects of cultural marxism continue to corrode the civillizational impulse that has always attempted to mitigate the horrific effects of war against women and children.
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.
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 current COIN/Anti-Terrorist wars as they are presently playing out ARE 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.
We won a World War with 16 million people in uniform against the most formidable battlefield enemies that we have ever faced, with half of today’s population and over 400,000 dead, WITHOUT the need to place women into direct combat roles. This reasoning is being impelled by radical feminism and Cultural Marxist elements who care nothing for the combat effenciency of the Armed Forces, but are concerned with fundamentally transforming and undermining one of our most vital institutions.
Amen, read my last reply.
Your post is one of the best I have seen on this subject, DMZFrank, and you speak of which you know (Welcome home, FRiend...:)
I think you are spot on when you point to the cultural shaping that has been going on for nearly forty years now, to convince the public that women are every bit as physically imposing and capable as men. It is a dishonest and destructive meme they advance. I enjoy a good movie as much as the next person, but when two elite fighters of different sexes go head to head, in reality, the woman is going to lose the vast majority of time. There will always be one who may win occasionally, but the laws of averages and naked reality are a cruel master.
Excellent post.
Excellent post, Frank.