The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

#GOPDebate Feedback: Women In Combat Is A Progressive Position

Posted on | February 7, 2016 | 105 Comments

by Smitty

The GOP debate in New Hampshire was relatively well done, once everyone got onto the stage. The one curve ball is the topic of this blog post. Sorry, Governor Christie, there is no “natural right” to serve in the military, and the overall swellness of any individual aspiration to serve is not a basis for policy or military strategy.

The proper basis for any actual veteran (that is, non-careerist, brown-lipstick-wearing senior brass tools in the Pentagon) is this: combat power of the military unit.

Had we shred #1 of intellectual honesty, we’d do a cost/benefit analysis of our decades of experience with co-ed units, and locate the sweet spot of “co-edfication” and combat effectiveness, and be willing to admit that we may very well have sacrificed the ability to win a war on the altar of Political Correctness.

Which, by the way, is not to take anything away from any of the really excellent ladies with whom I (genuinely) enjoyed serving. They rock. The point is simply that their overall rockingness is not the proper question, and, sadly, nothing short of abject ruin will trigger an honest appraisal.

War is The Evil That Men Do. I shall go to my grave unpersuaded that War Is More Awesome When Women Are Part Of The Team.

Comments

105 Responses to “#GOPDebate Feedback: Women In Combat Is A Progressive Position”

  1. Zhytamyr
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:11 am

    As per usual, the left is not making an honest argument. They do not really want women in combat roles, they just want to push men aside. They take something they have no interest in because they are bullies.

  2. Quartermaster
    February 7th, 2016 @ 10:56 am

    I think they realize, as well, that introduction of women is not a good thing for the military. The reduction of combat effectiveness is a feature, not a bug.

  3. Zhytamyr
    February 7th, 2016 @ 11:04 am

    The left grows it’s power by creating a problem that the citizenry cannot fix on their own. An insecure populace will demand safety, & thus a new useless parasitical bureaucracy is born.

  4. Ilion
    February 7th, 2016 @ 11:53 am

    Had we shred #1 of intellectual honesty, we’d do a cost/benefit analysis of our decades of experience with co-ed units, and locate the sweet spot of “co-edfication” and combat effectiveness, and be willing to admit that we may very well have sacrificed the ability to win a war on the altar of Political Correctness.

    That “sweet spot” is at 0 — women don’t belong in the real military, the fighting force. Nor do they belong in the police or fire-fighting forces … nor in the coal mines.

    Oddly, I don’t recall any women ever demanding to be allowed to be coal miners (or plumbers or steel workers). So, in this regard, what’s different about coal mining (and plumbing) vs copping and soldiering? Social status … and the opportunity to order others around.

    Which, by the way, is not to take anything away from any of the really excellent ladies with whom I (genuinely) enjoyed serving. They rock.

    And I say bullshit. Women in the military do not “rock”; they — every single one of them — compromise the mission.

    The truth is that, like most modern men — having been marinated in myth of sexual egalitarianism (by which women are somehow *superior* to men) — you are pussywhipped: since *some* women imagine they want to play soldier, you cannot bring yourself to state the full truth about that perverted desire.

    The point is simply that their overall rockingness is not the proper question, and, sadly, nothing short of abject ruin will trigger an honest appraisal.

    Women in combat is the inevitable logical outworking of the myth of sexual egalitarianism. Women in combat is simply one of the consequences of our society having decided to make women disposable; see: “sexual revolution; hooking-up”. And a society that expects its women to be disposable is a society that doesn’t want to want to continue to exist.

    Ultimately, if you who think yourselves conservative don’t want your daughters used as cannon-fodder by cynical “progressive” politicians and bureaucrats, then repeal the 19th Amendment; but this is something that *women* are going to have to demand.

  5. NeoWayland
    February 7th, 2016 @ 1:49 pm

    All other things being equal, strength and weight are going to win out.

    Given the fact that many of the opponents our armed forces will face don’t follow the nice rules, any female in combat is prey.

  6. John Rose
    February 7th, 2016 @ 2:44 pm

    I would direct anyone interested to Colonel Tom Kratman’s dissertation on this subject…

    http://www.baen.com/amazonsrightbreast

    He’s actually thought about the subject, up to and including such details as carrying capacity, with regards esp. to crew served weapons and light artillery and such.

    Interesting read.

  7. Daniel Freeman
    February 7th, 2016 @ 2:47 pm

    If things continue the way they are, our current government will not exist a century from now. Either it will collapse or be conquered, or we will have a coup or Constitutional Convention to replace it and prevent a worse fate.

    Anything that can’t continue forever, won’t.

  8. Steve Skubinna
    February 7th, 2016 @ 3:14 pm

    I consider it telling that of the two modern nations with experience of women in front line combat, neither of them currently have women in front line combat positions: Israel and Russia (well, the USSR).

    What do they know that we do not? Or more to the point, what do they know that our progressives are willfully blind towards?

  9. Neal Bracken
    February 7th, 2016 @ 4:17 pm

    Quartermaster. Sorry, women are now part of the Rangers, et al. Are you going to try to roll that back? What about the women in the service academies? Are you going to try to end that, too? You have as much chance doing that is putting toothpaste back in tube. Thank goodness!

  10. Joe Joe
    February 7th, 2016 @ 4:49 pm

    “Women in combat is simply one of the consequences of our society having
    decided to make women disposable; see: “sexual revolution; hooking-up”.
    And a society that expects its women to be disposable is a society that
    doesn’t want to want to continue to exist.”

    THE single smartest thing I have ever read on this topic.

    +1000

  11. NeoWayland
    February 7th, 2016 @ 5:06 pm

    Speaking only for myself, I want the U.S. armed forces to be the toughest, most capable sons of a gun on the planet. Especially the elite units. I want them to make other national leaders nervous, even if they are half way across the globe. I want there to be whispers in the darkest shadows of just what happens when someone dares threaten freedom if an American serviceman can do something about it.

    Any female who can fill the physical and mental requirements without any allowances for their sex has my respect. All the more so if they show the warrior virtues. But by all the warrior gods they’d better damn well hold their own and more.

    I say that as a man who hasn’t served but loves Lady Freedom and all she implies.

  12. NeoWayland
    February 7th, 2016 @ 5:59 pm

    Very good piece. Thanks for sharing the link.

  13. Valerie Stewart
    February 7th, 2016 @ 6:59 pm

    That’s what guns and other technology that can put the distance between a soldier and an opponent are for.

    Because of technology, we can fight wars with greater distances, and it allows women to occupy niche and useful combat roles.

  14. NeoWayland
    February 7th, 2016 @ 7:37 pm

    I admit I never served in the military, but there is still the matter of physical strength. For example, that article that John Rose linked to below briefly mentions how heavy artillery and tank rounds are.

    I also remember a bit from Heinlein’s Starship Troopers where he talks about the need for infantry to go in and clean places out. My third cousin, a retired Army Master Sergeant, always said that was the truest bit of the book.

    It seems to me that at some point, combat is going to be close up and very rough. That’s why you want soldiers and not just nuclear missiles.

    Niche roles maybe. Supporting roles definitely. But front-line troops in close combat? You only want people there who can hold their own. Otherwise they die. Otherwise they are hurt. Otherwise they are raped.

    And it’s the fault of the officers and politicos who put them there.

  15. Valerie Stewart
    February 7th, 2016 @ 8:21 pm

    I agree with you that if there is a certain standard for frontline combat that everyone must pass, then they must pass it. If there are females who can pass it, then they should be allowed in frontline combat. It is and should be based on merit; gender, race, and the like is irrelevant.

    It’s extremely stupid to lower necessary frontline combat standards just to be more politically correct, which is exactly what the proglibs are do that.

  16. Quartermaster
    February 7th, 2016 @ 8:29 pm

    Alas, standards were dropped before women were even admitted to Ranger School, and they were dropped after they got in. The Cadre have stated that they were told that women were graduating whether the met the standards or not.

  17. Quartermaster
    February 7th, 2016 @ 8:32 pm

    No, they are not. While a couple women had standards dropped to the point they were graduated, none have been admitted to the Ranger Battalions. There is a big difference between being a Ranger School grad, and being a Ranger.

    In every case, where women graduated from military schools, standards were dropped. There has not been one place where that has not been the case, and that includes the service academies. SJWism and and PC politics are the only reason women have graduated.

    As for the Academies, it’s past time to close them. They long ago ceased to be cost effective.

  18. NeoWayland
    February 7th, 2016 @ 8:38 pm

    There we agree.

  19. NeoWayland
    February 7th, 2016 @ 8:46 pm

    That I did not know.

    I went looking for something on the flexed arm hang replacing the pull up and didn’t find it. I did find this article about women failing the Ranger School.

    Of the 20 admitted in the first class, all failed and 8 were invited back. Of those 8 all failed and 3 were invited back.

    On a related subject, I vaguely remember something about six or seven years back about a female court bailiff being overpowered by a prisoner who outweighed her by seventy or eighty pounds.

    These sorts of things do not inspire confidence.

  20. NeoWayland
    February 7th, 2016 @ 8:50 pm

    Oops, I put my post in the wrong spot.

    Good to know though.

  21. Quartermaster
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:05 pm

    What they did was invite the strongest of the failures back so they would drop standards as little as possible. They started by dropping the standard pack weight from 45 to 35 pounds (doesn’t sound like much, but haul a 35 pound rucksack for 8 hours over uneven ground while carrying a weapon, basic ammo load, and body armor, while also having to pitch in with those things that the entire unit has to carry a share of. Marius Mules, frankly, had it better.

    In every case the women “grads” had a part of their load taken by men as they weakened during the mission assignments. A friend who was actually a Ranger (Company ‘O’, Arctic Rangers at Fort Richardson before the Ranger Battalions were disbanded in the early 70s) went out of the plane with a load of 120 pounds. He was also the FDC NCO for the mortar section and carried the plotting board and associated equipment required for that function, in addition to his normal gear. Like me, the man has stretch marks on his upper thighs because of the muscular development in his legs caused by the loads he had to carry. They are every bit as bad as those my wife has from pregnancy.

    People telling me that standards were not dropped to allow them graduate make me laugh. The credulity boggles the mind.

  22. Quartermaster
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:10 pm

    In the case of the Soviet Union, they were in a war of national survival and the Germans had captured or destroyed a very significant fraction of the Soviet Army in the opening months of Barbarossa.

    Israel was in the same boat, and they learned their lesson quickly and got women out of direct combat as soon as they could. When you have women screaming for daddy because they have been seriously wounded, men are hardwired to go to their rescue. Such units melted,

    They do have female units, but they are relegated to border patrol work, mostly border crossing security and have significant male back up in quick reaction teams to call on when things get out of hand. they are also sent to mostly quiet places.

  23. Quartermaster
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:11 pm

    There were several women captured during Desert Storm I. All were repeatedly raped, including the Army major who flew CH-47s.

  24. Quartermaster
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:15 pm

    I doubt the Federal Union will beyond 5 years. The forces that will tear it apart were set lose before any of us here were born (I’m 61) and the weight of them is piling up rapidly. When the collapse comes, it will be like that of the Soviet Union, expected by the informed, but fast and work out unexpectedly rapidly in its far reaching effects.

    The ostriches are doing all they can to ignore it, but it will destroy them all when it happens.

  25. smitty
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:19 pm

    As a “Spoiled and pampered pet of Uncle Sam” I think that service academies and their commitment to tradition are worth the inefficiencies due to their status as a link to our heritage.

    Restated, shuttering them sounds kinda Progressive, like women in combat.

  26. Quartermaster
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:26 pm

    Those traditions would be maintained in other channels. At this point that is about the only reason to maintain them, outside of the political patronage the appointments give to Congresscritters. Those two things are insufficient reason to maintain them.

    Frankly, the USAFA doesn’t even have the tradition thing going for it. In every service, the slack can be easily taken up by ROTC. MacArthur didn’t like that last, but he was dead wrong about it, and I think highly of the man.

    The USCGA can also be replaced effectively by ROTC units. Most could be colocated with NROTC units to allow for the overlap of function, and teach specialty courses just for CG cadets.

  27. Ilion
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:28 pm

    It won’t be even as long as a century. I don’t expect it to be as quickly (5 years) as QM suggests — yet, I’d not be shocked if that were right. Myself, I’d say 20 years max.

  28. Ilion
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:32 pm

    The ostriches are *helping* to destroy the nation. Intentionally — they *know* that what they are demanding is suicidal, but they want it, so they tell themselves that it won’t hurt anything.

  29. Ilion
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:35 pm

    Our great-grandfathers pussied out when the original crazy cat ladies were being used as cats-paws by the early Progressives. And we and our children and grandchildren are paying the price.

  30. Ilion
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:42 pm

    Why can’t you see that your oh-so-reasonable standard isn’t really reasonable and that it *is* political correctness.

    Until our society totally rejects the very idea of using women as though they were men, there will always be an ever growing lowering of standards so as to get more women into the combat roles.

  31. NeoWayland
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:48 pm

    *nods* I remember reading some articles at the time. I don’t remember the details.

  32. NeoWayland
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:50 pm

    I suspected as much. But i didn’t have the means or a reason to check.

  33. Ilion
    February 7th, 2016 @ 9:55 pm

    Israel was in the same boat [i.e. national survival being at stake], and they learned their lesson quickly and got women out of direct combat as soon as they could. When you have women screaming for daddy because they have been seriously wounded, men are hardwired to go to their rescue. Such units melted …

    Exactly. When the very survival of the nation — which is not the same thing as the state — is at stake, then and only then does a society that wants to continue to exist call upon its women to be fighters.

    When you’re defending the women and children and old folks, men are expendable — which is not the same thing as disposable.

    When you’re in such dire straits that you’re down to defending the children, then the women and the old folks are expendable.

    However, leftism/feminism has managed to become the default world-view of even those who think themselves conservative, our women are always treated as disposable — and, for the most part, they insist upon being so treated … it’s when the inescapable consequences of that arrive that they start demanding the place/status/protection their great-grandmothers had.

  34. Valerie Stewart
    February 7th, 2016 @ 10:03 pm

    Society needs to value merit *and* realize that one’s physical characteristics can be unrelated to merit. In other words, if you can do/qualify/are fitting for the job, who cares if you’re a certain race, sex, or other characteristic?

    It makes no sense to keep any woman out of a combat role if she has passed the non-politically correct rigorous tests.

  35. GUEST
    February 7th, 2016 @ 10:08 pm

    I will not register my daughter for the draft. They can go to hell.

  36. Valerie Stewart
    February 7th, 2016 @ 10:22 pm

    Wait a second: so everyone who is in the military — those that defend this country and our freedoms — are super important, yet expendable or disposable. Doesn’t it seem those concepts are contradictory?

    Arguing who shouldn’t be in the military based on special/precious genetics is a giant slippery slope. Because based on that logic, one shouldn’t let those with high IQs, natural resistance and immunities to HIV, and the ability to smell cyanide in the military. All those characteristics are rarer than women who can give birth.

  37. Finrod Felagund
    February 8th, 2016 @ 12:36 am

    While I generally don’t take a position one way or the other regarding women in the military, I do like the idea of female sniper units when dealing with Islamic radicals that think that being killed by a woman somehow dishonors them.

  38. Kaiser Derden
    February 8th, 2016 @ 12:57 am

    riiiight … so can women hump their own share of the gear 20 clicks to the location to make that 500 yard kill shot ,,,
    You act like combat is sitting behind walls waiting for the enemy stroll into range …
    women are already drone pilots … that is a great niche for them in a “combat” role …

  39. RS
    February 8th, 2016 @ 12:57 am

    Late to this party, but I’ll comment anyway.

    I think we get distracted when we talk about physical abilities, morale and so forth, though those things are worthy of discussion. The important thing to remember is that the Leftist/Progressive agenda is about destroying Marriage and the Family. What better way to do that than to convince the 50% of the populace who can bear children that it should charge a machine gun nest?

  40. Kaiser Derden
    February 8th, 2016 @ 1:00 am

    the thing is … under the old standards no woman was ever able to pass them …

  41. Valerie Stewart
    February 8th, 2016 @ 1:09 am

    If those old standards apply/are required in these times, then the old standards should be reinstated. I’m not sure, as newer technology might have changed that. But still, if reaching standard X is *required* for a certain job, and someone–whether male or female have passed–then they should be allowed.

  42. Daniel Freeman
    February 8th, 2016 @ 2:46 am

    I don’t know. I think there are two different categories of leftists: those who are doubling down on their “secular” cult because disbelieving in sameness would cause feelbadz, and those who are using said cultists as useful idiots.

  43. Daniel Freeman
    February 8th, 2016 @ 2:50 am

    Oh sure, I just set an outside limit. I don’t actually expect it to take that long, but complex systems can be unpredictable in the details.

  44. DeadMessenger
    February 8th, 2016 @ 2:59 am

    Sadly, I’m forced to agree. But I think it’ll happen because the number of those who meet the criteria of Isaiah 5:20 reaches critical mass.

  45. DeadMessenger
    February 8th, 2016 @ 3:00 am

    Last sentence is a really succinct and accurate summation.

  46. DeadMessenger
    February 8th, 2016 @ 3:04 am

    It’s not only the fault of our great-grandfathers; it’s our fault, too. The beginning of the end was when television became commonplace. The day when suddenly nothing mattered but your show.

    That’s why I hate TV with a passion and refuse to watch it.

  47. DeadMessenger
    February 8th, 2016 @ 3:16 am

    They do have female units, but they are relegated to border patrol work, mostly border crossing security and have significant male back up in quick reaction teams to call on when things get out of hand. they are also sent to mostly quiet places.

    Then why bother? The military also needs programmers, engineers, administrators, mathematicians, medical personnel, and all sorts of other things stateside or on bases in allied territory. If, for some insane reason, we’re married to the idea of female “soldiers”, let them be assigned those sorts of positions.

    I suppose this is why “military intelligence” is an oxymoron. : )

  48. DeadMessenger
    February 8th, 2016 @ 3:32 am

    If they happen to be female, again, who cares?

    As a woman and a mom, I kinda do.

    For one thing, lives are compromised when women have to be rescued from enemy troops that are inevitably in a rapey kinda mood.

    I also think the slippery slope is the downhill slide toward the draft, and a military full of woman combat soldiers would devastate it.

    Because progressives are doing their level best to get Christians out of the military, and because the “old” military had a very high percentage of Christians, we will, at some point, be forced by Marxist special interest groups to institute a draft to repopulate it with the politically correct diversity mix du jour. Then our fighting-slash-mincing forces will consist of the same ginks who currently work at McDonald’s, and can’t even center a burger on a bun.

  49. DeadMessenger
    February 8th, 2016 @ 3:45 am

    I’ll give you another reason not to have women in the military. This is based upon 35+ years managing teams of people.

    Men can take orders. They have no problem with the concept of a coach, captain or commander who is in a position of authority. My male employees, I tell them to do a thing and they do it. They respect my authority.

    But women want to “discuss” things, and reach a “consensus”, and they have no problem questioning my decisions and my authority, plus they react passive-aggressively in lots of situations, which causes problems.

    I’m an outlier on the normal distribution curve, and have a more “man-like” than “woman-like” attitude toward authority. And hands down, I’d rather have men reporting to me than women.

    Military service is not about “fairness” and “consensus”.

  50. DeadMessenger
    February 8th, 2016 @ 3:53 am

    I agree, that is kind of a cool idea.

    Also, when my eyes quickly scanned your comment, seeing it was one of yours, I initially read “female stripper units”, rather than sniper, and I thought, “Yeah, he would say that.” Hahahaha!

    Those units would probably improve morale at least.