Interesting... All the female vets who called in to the radio talk shows on XM yesterday agreed with Colonel West, even those who saw some combat. Progs like to point out that the Israelis have women in the military but they found that females were a distraction on the front lines- i.e, if one got wounded the men would lose focus on the mission. They found that the best policy was to use them in noncombat roles to free more men for fighting. This is nothing more than social Darwinism and a breakdown of the traditional values of our society. I had to laugh when Mike Church called the feminazis "Gal Qaeda," though.
"All the female vets who called in to the radio talk shows on XM yesterday agreed with Colonel West".
As does my Viet Nam era, Woman's Army Corps. Vet wife. This is liberal, social engineering, nothing more, nothing less.
My Mrs. was a '71 Bravo' (clerk/typist), or as she likes to say, 'A Pilot'. "I pile it over here and I pile it over there" ;-) ;-)
Among all the cultural changes we are experiencing, making the military an alternate lifestyle for the masses is on the list.
I’ll be in the minority here, but I do not see this as a political issue. I served in Panama, the Persian Gulf, briefly in Herzegovina as part of that mission, the 2nd Iraq conflict, and in Afghanistan, and am currently a state highway patrolman. Women have been on the front lines for years in a variety of capacities. While technically not combat positions, they had all the danger as others in the same zones and a few women saved the bacon of many men. I'm including me when our Sergeant “interpreter” picked off 2 snipers who entered our flank from some dig. Of the 3 men in the position to pop the snipers, 1 hit, 1 dropped, and the third froze. She was hit, but did not freeze and stayed on target.
All women will not be forced into front line combat, but those who are capable will have that option. Some argue that the physical requirements are different which is true to enter the military, but I have not heard any suggestion those on the front lines will have separate standards. Likewise, the draft argument is mere speculation, and front line combat duty for women is merely an option.
Lt. Col. West is correct that close combat is a completely different scenario. The same is true of police duty or just handling a weapon in practice versus live fire. I’m a training officer, and new patrol personnel whether men or women differ in capability. Of the last 10 newbies assigned to me, 6 men and 4 women, I recommended 4 men and 3 women for active patrol, releasing 1 man, and putting the other man and 1 woman behind desks. Those 2 will be good officers, but their skills are more honed for investigations. Of the patrols, if my family were in danger from armed hostiles and held hostage, I would pray that one woman was the officer on scene. Simply, she was the best of those 7 I recommended. With all respect, this military change is one of the best person for the necessary duties. I’d rather see that versus continued selective discrimination.
I know many good men, men in top physical condition, but they are men who I would not want serve in combat with. They cannot return fire while under fire and in hand-to-hand might be able to handle 1 or 2 but not 3 or 4. On the other hand, I know some women who are better marksmen under fire than on the range and very effective in hand-to-hand. Not all women are capable of combat but neither are all men. Regardless of size and strength potential, there are too many intangibles. I could be off the street in some formal administrative desk position, but I’m definitely more effective on patrol. My 6’3’’ 235 lbs body will get behind a desk if or when I become a liability to my brothers and sisters on patrol. If I can do the job physically and psychologically, why shouldn’t I have the choice? Why shouldn’t women serving our great country have the same choice as well? What’s wrong with best person for the position? (For those not familiar with service, you can advance more quickly with commendations in official combat capacities than one might who is technically serving in that zone).
Obama is attempting his own version of population growth limitations. Stalin did it with how many millions he killed in the Ukraine, so there would be food for the rest of the USSR? "To limit the herds, you don't kill the 'boar', you kill the 'sow'!"
Hey guys, wait a min. here. If our front lines have been allowed to be defended by the not so straight guy...what makes you think a straight girl would be any worse? If a gay guy can defend his country and a straight girl wants to...by all means...let her!
How can anyone believe this is a good idea ( women on the ground in combat )...wtf. Ya have to ask yourself what is going on in this country...
Can you say "atrocities"
Unfortunately, Col.West, I believe destroying our military is Odumbo's biggest goal! It is surely the goal of progressives, who have the unmittigated gall to accuse the right of waging a "war on women"! Odumbo's only goal is to "fundamentally change" the US into nonexistence.
The same administration who says they are so concerned about the safety of our children (except for the unborn ones) now wants to put their mommies on the firing line.
I usually don't give politicians credit for being diabolical, I attribute most of this kind of stuff to stupid idea fairies (and angry feminist dykes that never figured out that women were different than men). The problem is that the Army and USMC will have to dumb down the standards for basic training and day to day physical fitness training to fill (what will be mandatory) quotas. They're not going to be able to dumb down combat ops though, it'll still be huming 70+ lbs of gear, weapons and bullets, which is going to grind up the women.
How many honorable men will fall concentrating on the women who reminds them of their sister or aunt or mother, rather then the enemy???
Obama is also NOT thinking about how our enemies (especially Islamists) would love nothing better than to capture an American female soldier on the battlefield. Could you imagine what the Taliban would do to a person like that? She would undoubtedly be forced to endure rape, torture, and unspeakable degradation and would certainly be used for propaganda purposes before being executed in a very disgusting manner (such as beheading). The Taliban and creatures of their ilk would probably even put a bounty on the heads of these female soldiers simply for their use as hostages. This will not end well and nobody seems to be thinking of the unintended consequences of this decision.
Obama knows the kind of enemy we face. It is him and of course this is truly a war on women.
Bad move forced on the American people by the feminazis and their war on women. This will force women into maybe not deciding to join the armed forces.
"we are fighting against a brutal enemy and now is not the time to play a social experiment with our ground combat forces."
This weakens our combat forces does it not? Then that's the whole point.
Obama comes from the school of thought (non-thinking branch) that America represents too much power in the world. With the idea of wealth redistribution as a guide -- that the have nots need more -- this also applies to the military as well not just the economy.
America is too big. Too powerful. Too arrogant. And it needs to be cut down to size.
This alone is what drives Obama. Making America weaker so that other nations can become stronger. This is the lens we have to use to evaluate these decisions. Once you do, it's understandable why gays need to come out of the closet; women need to serve as 11 bravos; why there are no solutions ever offered for our economic woes; why guns need to be taken and religion needs to be silenced. This is all leading somewhere, namely to hell.
Well, heck, why not just get rid of those discriminatory gender divisions in other areas - like sports. At the Olympics, there should be no more male and female categories. Let's have women compete against men in every sport and see how many medals the women can pick up. (I'll give them the edge in synchronized swimming...) In the NFL, let's end the bias and have all-male football teams compete against all-female football teams. It'll be a fair battle because, after all, men and women are equal in all regards.
Great. Then we'll see men in the "floor exercise" of gymnastics, wiggling their butts and twirling those stupid scarf-on-a-stick thingies.
Which reminds me. Did Panetta announce a new BDU: pink, with fairy wings and a sparkly wand? That way we can have gays and GBLT's poncing their way across the battlefield, leading our soldiers into combat, like Highland Pipers do for the Brits.
And let's also consider the additional costs of segrating our male and female combatants in the field... double the cost for everything: billets, showers, latrines...
This is madness. Panetta is a fool... and doing this while he slides out the back door also makes him a coward.
Oh silly Sober_Thinking - who worries about the cost? I mean, it was totally cost effective to outfit those subs to accomodate women - just cuz they were both thrown off the vessels for conduct unbecoming doesn't make it a waste or anything. Just because those two females who tried to make it through USMC's OCS school in Quantico washed out post haste, doesn't make it silly to continue forward! Your just stuck thinking like a conservative. Forward! Or something...
Side Note: During Desert Storm, there was an attractive woman from the Tennessee Air National Guard who was caught and convicted of prostitution. We were in a warzone (technically) and she absolutely disrupted things in a different sort of way.
I blame the men who were unfaithful to those at home too.
Other issues I know of (some were in my specific squadron): Rape by a male senior officer of a female airman - and he got away with it. Women sleeping with certain people to rise through the ranks. Favoritism. Bloody battles fought in the dorms over a girl. Emotional trauma with a woman who was distraught while we were serving in the desert... she was eventually sent home because it was getting really bad. Incidents where a higher-ranking woman was brutalizing some of the men under her command. Etc.
I'm 100% against it. I've personally seen too many instances where it sparks trouble - and 90+% of those situations occurred during deployment or out in the field.
Having women in a combat unit will disrupt everything. All you need to do is look at our love boats in the Navy for proof. My cousin was still in the Navy when women were integrated in and he has some really interesting stories about the availability of women & the revenue and/or favors they were able to generate on their tours. It's just bad news all around. I'm okay with people calling me old fashioned - a fighting force should only concentrate on those things that make it a fierce and deadly fighting force. Period. War isn't fair.
While I wouldn't want to be on the front line, there are women who want to go there. I watched several speak this morning on my local news and they explained they have to apply and are not forced. It probably isn't a great idea. Are more women are raped, beaten and tortured right here in the US than in the military? Just asking - I don't know.
I wonder if they have considered that now it might be their choice but how will they feel when a draft is re-established?
I was an Army Recruiter for many years and occasionally a young lady would come in with a desire to join the Army as an Infantry Soldier. Most had misconceptions about what the duties of the infantry were and once they viewed the training films their minds were changed. But again if women want to be in combat arms the standards must be the same as men. There is a reason why firefighter training standards are the same for both male and female.
You can all call me a man pig if you want.
But before you do think about the feasibility of these scenarios.
Can she carry "her life on her back?
Can she carry the dead or wounded back to the rear?
Could you be the one that calls her parents to tell them she was KIA?
Could you call and tell them she is a POW?
Could you call and tell them what the enemy has done to her?
Could you stand to watch her beheaded on Al Jazeera?
Could you jeopardize others lives because the male instinct is to help a lady first?
Could you load her broken body into a bag so she can be used as a photo op when her casket arrives in the states?
This isn't GI Jane.
This is the reality of war.
Not to mention the enemy will only be sending men to fight our women, not women to fight our women. Why exactly are we going to give them an advantage? As a woman, I don't think you're wrong or a man pig at all.
We BOTH know you could list a gazillion others man pig, and #6 and #7 would be high on my list !!! Peace be with you MeanGreen...fellow man pig....
This sounds really bad, but they need to make it a volunteer position for women on the frontlines, and then use them as bullet-catchers until the position goes away completely. Because only once women start dieing will the FemiNazis complain about the "privelege"...
I realize Israel has had women in combat for a long time, but they are used strategically, and more as support troops, and not front line. Israel has a front line the minute the borders are crossed by invaders.
The U.S. doesn't have a frontline because all terrorists are scattered ans mingle with non combatants.
Any woman taken prisoner by those perverts would experience a living hell. They don't belong with the men; they need to be only in a support role, if at all. However, I would never recommend them to Muslimlands.
They would be very useful as National Security Forces guarding the southern border of the U.S.
Will head scarfs be mandatory issue...wouldn't want to dare insult Islam. Hey pinhead Panetta, forget something on your way out...
Actually, there already a unit in country that 'interacts' with the female population and they don the obiligatory head scarf in order to not offend. However, their male counterparts that ride with them stay in full battle rattle. Makes sense, right? I mean, why wear a life saving piece of equipment if it offends...
Check out and search "obama youth brigades". Hitler youth for the 21st century. Think I`m kiddin`...come back and tell me you couldn`t find any info....
So when are we going to allow the disabled to join? They have brains and parts of their bodies work. Damn it, fair is fair. The queers serve, and women soon will, it is only right that the disabled serve too, they can pull a trigger too ya know...and this includes the blind!
The left still has not learned its lesson from Jessica Lynch, who was shot, captured, raped, then left to die. What will become of our next women POWs, when they are captured and tortured by extremists whose religion degrade women? But, just because a few 'qualified' women can handle the job, doesn't mean all can. Now, the Army may need to lower their combat tactics and standards to accommodate those who may not be qualified? Sad.