Senior defense officials say Pentagon chief Leon Panetta is removing the military’s ban on women serving in combat, opening hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war.
If so, American combat effectiveness starts its decline. Women have served in combat support roles for a long time. They must be talking infantry, cavalry, armor and artillery. These units currently don’t allow women to serve in them. It is the law.
There are many good reasons for this but one of the most important is that these units must serve as a team in the most trying conditions. They must live together in filth and hardship for weeks and weeks. I cannot tell you how many times I have slept in the cold rain piled up in a shelter with two or three fellow soldiers. These men were my brothers. We lived together, we showered together and we slept together.
The last unit I served in was a school unit in the USAR. I taught PLDC. For the first time in my career I served with women. Literally everything changed. There was constant talk of who was sleeping with who. Who was breaking up. Who was cheating. It was absolutely, positively NOTHING like the band of brother warriors I had experienced in the cav and infantry units I had served in. There was no way my school unit could deploy and fight effectively. It would be like going to war with the people in your civilian office.
For obvious reasons, I tend to think of the military from the perspective of a man. It is hard for me to imagine many women serving in the testosterone soaked, masculine, highly competitive combat arms units I served in as a young man. Hell, it is hard for me to imagine my current much older self in those units. They are the realm of young men who are, as is crudely stated, young, dumb and full of cum. This is the territory of heterosexual men.
Even more importantly, female soldiers have been subjected to affirmative action regarding physical ability. Women, for the most part, can’t pass the physical fitness requirements that men are required to meet. To “correct” this, they lower the standards for women. An example scorecard is below the fold. Men are drummed out of combat arms units for PT test scores that would get a female soldier a letter of commendation. Either the job requires physical standards or it does not. Separate requirements for men and women are political in nature. Would a 5’1″, 110 lb woman carry my 6’3″, 225 lb son to the aid station if he were to be wounded?
Finally, if the United States has adopted a feminist culture in which conservative men are castigated for their so-called “war on women”, in which vagina monologues are the new political discourse, in which abortion and birth control are the primary focus of national policy, in which women far outnumber men in institutions of higher education, in which heterosexual men are redundant and unnecessary as fathers and even unnecessary in marriage, is there reason to tackle the masculine heavy lifting of being an actual trigger puller in defense of the nation?
This is social experimentation and political correctness at the expense of combat effectiveness and just one more example of the collapse of common sense in America.
There is a military tradition in my family going back to the Civil War. In fact, it predates that. Using ancestry information online, I recently discovered that I have at least one ancestor who served in the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War and another who served in the Prussian Army during the War of Austrian Succession. I have grandfathers who served in World War I and my father’s father was killed in action in World War II. I served as a rifleman and paratrooper as did my son in the 1st Ranger Battalion in Iraq and Afghanistan.
That tradition has come to an end. I will strongly advise my youngest son to eschew military service.