Posted on 10/14/2019 6:56:59 AM PDT by RomanSoldier19
Deep in the dark North Carolina woods, a small white light flickers in the heavy underbrush. It’s after midnight and a soldier is taking a risk by turning on his headlamp to find his way.
(Excerpt) Read more at thestar.com ...
The reason Special Ops training is hard is that it is special and very difficult. If they reduce the requirements, they are spitting on the service of those who went through the original training. Not everyone can be special. Our enemies train hard and we should train hard too. If someone can’t make it through, they they should not be in our elite military forces.
“The goal is to meet evolving national security threats and to shift from a culture that weeds out struggling soldiers to one that trains them to do better. “
This is code for destroying the traditional military and turning it into yet another tool for the left.
There won’t be any AMERICA because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race!” ——— “Chesty” Puller
They’ve been coming in since 65’.
We are thoroughly infiltrated and compromised.
Embrace the power of “AND”; yes it is absolutely intentional, though it is still stupid.
If it were just carrying loads, it wouldn't be such an issue. Women in combat, or in combat leadership positions is just a God-awful disaster on so many levels, for so many reasons.
People will just do the sickest, stupidest things over social politics, which is one reason why I'm beginning to develop such a deep hatred for the modern left.
It bothers me, not as a civilian, but for the military personnel who will be part of an under-performing unit which will place all of their lives as well as the mission at risk.
Grr. How did we get here?
People mistake this reticence of mine on this subject as a lack of respect for women, if not outright sexism. It isn’t, I have plenty of respect for competent and tough women. But this has nothing to do with competence and toughness. It has to do with an environment where you need every little single advantage you can get, and a 25% reduction in physical strength is a dramatic reduction that shouldn’t be there when the time comes and it is needed.
I don’t blame women who may seek this path to advancement or service, since if I were in their shoes I might do the same.
I blame the people who allow it.
I could care less if a woman can “perform” to (what used to be) the standard for these tip of the spear combat roles. The vast majority can’t and the university trained leftist social engineers force the standards down until enough can to claim a win.
It’s a deconstruct of our Christian culture where we traditionally hold women in a position of high esteem and safety for the good of our society. That effort has been in play for over fifty years. The long game of incrementalism is paying dividends against our core values and beliefs as nation founded on Christian principles.
Communists win again.
During my month at Camp Mackall (last century), anyone who dropped out of a run, or any other training activity, was immediately packed up and an empty cot was all that remained in their tent. The article mentions snivelling about rain... a heavy thunderstorm, or jumping into the river for training, were the closest we got to a shower or laundry for the month.
Dropouts were assumed to disappear to a holding company some place - not SF - to await orders for Vietnam. This was strong motivation to use the last ounce of endurance to complete every run, obstacle course, or training exercise.
How things have changed!
LOL, I almost spit when you said that...Susan Sontagg...the name alone would be enough to invalidate it.
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 recently 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.
I usually include this graph to illustrate the point, based on commonly accepted medical assessments performed outside of politically correct constraints:
When personnel are in a combat situation, I can certainly imagine times where that nice loader and transporter thingie for those rounds 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:
Actually, see the linked article above in my post...carrying heavy things IS a problem, not for just the inability to carry as much on average, but because women suffer more lower extremity injuries due to their relatively lesser bone mass and muscle mass in their legs.
There are many motivated women who work hard to develop their musculature to overcome this relative deficiency, but they have to work harder than men to get their muscle mass up (unless they are actively taking steroids to close the gap on the naturally produced steroids that men make for themselves) and when they stop working hard at it, they drop off much faster as biology reverts to the norm.
It isn’t hating women to say these things. It is stating fact. But since we live in times where stating facts can get you branded with a host of derogatory terms, we are forced to either shut up and by our silence tacitly approve this dangerous weakening of military standards, or speak the truth and accept those maledictions from the politically correct crowd.
It all seems like a done deal now, though. We have made that choice and are going to live it when the time comes. Actually, not we in the soft behind the lines civilian world, those who are in harm’s way are going to “live it”.
God help them, both the men who are going to be in it, and the women who our civilian and military leadership put there.
We went through all this crap back in the early eighties when I was working out of the S3 shop at the Ranger Department at Ft. Benning. The SF community at Ft Bragg had caved and allowed a female to attend their Q course. In the process of her own failure and subsequent poor peer evals, all hell broke loose and we ended up having to justify via a staff paper why females should not attend the Ranger Course. That went through all the channels to DoD level. Our boss took the heat but ultimately prevailed then. Fast forward 30 years to the jackassery before us now. The left NEVER relents.
...and you are right- it isn’t just about the infantry, or any combat arms branch. Ever see a female soldier (mechanic) try to pull a 5 ton truck tire off for repair or a female refueler manhandle hundreds of pound of fueling equipment? The vast majority can’t do it without assistance from a male who has his own tasks to perform.
But all of that is besides the point. We have a bigger problem in play- a loss of importance in the role of motherhood and building strong families to maintain a strong nation, which is what this Lefty “female equality” garbage is all about.
Chesty was one heck of a man!
Thanks for your service...!
No, you are right. The Left never lets up, and I admit, that puts us at a disadvantage.
I have likened it in the past to having to man a dike holding back the ocean.
You have to have people 24 hours a day watching it, looking for weaknesses, looking for leaks, looking for cracks, always being vigilant.
On the other side of the dike is the Left. They are vast, pressuring from all points, and unrelenting. When the find even the smallest crack, hole, or crevice, they put pressure on it, from all sides, many of them at once.
Anywhere we don’t fight back, we lose ground, ground which is rarely retaken. The Left is like a one-way ratchet, once they gain, they simply absorb it, and go to the next advance.
It requires conservatives to be on guard all the time, fight for every inch, and call out for battle when the Left gains ground. Unfortunately, one of the strengths of conservatives is also a weakness.
We don’t do battle with the Borg-like insistency and soul-less remorselessness of the Left, and we have to pick and choose our fights, which means we lose ground inch by inch, but over time, the Left achieves their goals.
There is always hope, but it is a fight.
I agree. Like many of the arguments we have with the left, we let them build their argumentative bases on flawed foundations. We nitpick over details instead of attacking the foundation.
In this case, it is the loss of the importance of motherhood.
I oppose females in combat simply because of the impact on morale (men are different around women, that is not even a point of argument) and in a combat situation, you get superiors hitting on subordinates, you get love triangles, you get resentment and envy, you get women who guys help (as you said) instead of doing their jobs, you get a lot of unnecessary things.
Add to that the logistical tail of tampons, birth control pills, pregnancies, resources spent on separating the sexes and different facilities, you could go on an on.
For what? A social experiment? It is criminal.
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.