***UPDATE: VIDEO ADDED*** Women in Combat: Colonel Martha McSally versus Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin


A good debate on Fox News Sunday occurred between Colonel Martha McSally and Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin on women being allowed in the front line combat situations. I think they both make good points, but I tend to think Boykin has a stronger argument when it comes to the privacy issue on extended ground combat situations where one has to do their personal hygiene in front of their teammates.

WALLACE: And hello, again, from Fox News in Washington.

American women in the military have served on the front lines for years. And 152 have been killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. But when Defense Secretary Panetta lifted the ban on women in combat, his decision, this week, drew strong praise and sharp criticism.

We have brought together two distinguished veterans to discuss the issue.

Colonel Martha McSally was our nation’s first female combat pilot, logging 325 hours in the skies over Iraq and Afghanistan and she joins us from Tucson.

Lieutenant General Jerry Boykin was one of the original members of the Army’s Delta Force and former head of the U.S. Special Forces Command.

Colonel, General, welcome to “Fox News Sunday.” I have to say, I have been looking forward to this discussion.


RET. COLONEL MARTHA MCSALLY: So have I. Thanks for having us on.

WALLACE: Right. Here’s how Defense Secretary Panetta explained his decision this week. Take a look.


LEON PANETTA, DEFENSE SECRETARY: Not everyone is going to be able to be a combat soldier. But, everyone is entitled to a chance.


WALLACE: General Boykin, you dismissed this as another case of the Pentagon using the military for a social experiment. I’d like you to tell Colonel McSally directly, knowing her background, look into the camera and tell her why she is unfit to serve in combat.

BOYKIN: Well, Chris, you need to frame it correctly. It’s not an issue of women in combat. Women are in combat already and have been since 9/11, in fact, prior to that. And Colonel McSally is a great example of how women can be used effectively in combat.

My issue here is, mixing the genders in infantry units, armored units and Special Forces units is not a positive. There are many distracters there which put a burden on small unit combat leaders and actually creates an environment because of their living conditions that is not conducive to readiness.

WALLACE: Colonel McSally, those are the two basic arguments. You are a combat pilot but you are not — formally, not in combat on the front lines. You are attached to combat units and the two arguments are: one, physical limitations, particularly to serving in the infantry, and also this question of a distraction during operations, when you are in close quarters. There’s no privacy and rugged living conditions.

And look in your camera and tell General Boykin why he’s wrong.

MCSALLY: Let me just say I realize flying combat aircraft and being on the ground in combat are two very different missions. However, the same flawed arguments were used against allowing women to fly in combat and now allowing them to be on ground combat, like what General Boykin has said.

These are flawed arguments the battle line is we need to treat people like individuals. What are the capabilities they bring to the fight? Which includes physical strength, plus courage, plus aptitude, plus leadership and, all the other things we need to have the most effective fighting force.

So, we are a country that sets standards and then allows people to compete as individuals and if they bring the better soldier to the fight, then women should be able to compete on equal ground. I’m not talking about changing standards; I’m talking about allowing people to be considered for what they bring to the fight.

WALLACE: Well, let me just —


WALLACE: Colonel, if I can, follow up on that.


WALLACE: Because the Marine Infantry Officer Corps offered last September a course, training and two women took part and both dropped out and they said carrying those 70-pound backpacks in infantry on this ground is too tough for women.

Are you confident that women can meet the same physical standards for ground combat that men do in?

MCSALLY: Look, we know the bell curve of men is stronger than the bell curve of women but they overlap. And so, the current policy, basically says that no women can meet the standard and therefore, all men can. So that’s like saying, General Boykin, Pee Wee Herman is OK to be in combat but Serena and Venus Williams are not going to meet the standard.

The bottom line is treat people like individuals. Physical strength is one element of ground combat, but all those other qualities I’ve mentioned like aptitude and courage, and discipline and leadership are also what women bring to the fight.

The Pentagon estimated a few years ago, that 75 percent of 17 to 24-year-olds are not even qualified to be in the military. So we are recruiting from 25 percent of the population, 15 percent of them go on to college. So we need to recruit from 100 percent of the population in order to make sure we have the most effective fighting force.

WALLACE: Let me bring General Boykin in here. I’m about to say I like the analogy of the Williams sisters versus Pee Wee Herman and I would also point out, Colonel McSally competed in the Ironman triathlon, military division, men and women in Hawaii, she won.

So what does that say? I mean, clearly some women can meet the standard.

BOYKIN: Well, first of all, some women can and there will be few but some can. But that’s not the issue I raised initially. What I have raised is the issue of mixing the genders in those combat units where there is no privacy, where they are out on extended operations, and there’s no opportunity for people to have any privacy whatsoever.

Now, as a man who has been there, and a man who has some experience in these kinds of units, I certainly don’t want to be in that environment with a female because it’s degrading and humiliating enough to do your personal hygiene and other normal functions among your teammates.

WALLACE: Let me ask Colonel McSally to respond to that.

MCSALLY: Sure. Again, right now, we’re in a 360 battlefield and women and men are serving together out there in combat.

Privacy is a red herring. You can figure out the privacy issues, as long as you have the most capable, qualified force. That should be no reason for exclusionary policies.

Some of our closest allies have figured it out for many years. Canada is the best example. They’ve had women fully integrated into the combat forces. They have taken serious casualties in Afghanistan and women are out there on the front lines, leading men in combat, and doing a fantastic job of it.

So, this privacy issue, our men and women next to each other, it’s the same issue we have seen, which is a myth, really, and it’s not a show-stopper to make sure we have the most capable, qualified, fighting force.

WALLACE: Let’s — this sort of edges into the next area I wanted to get into, which is the issue of sexual assault.

The Department of Veterans Affairs did a study and they found that 22.8 percent, almost a quarter of military women deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan reported they were sexually assaulted.

But, General Boykin, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Dempsey, said he thought the ban on women in the military contributed to those assaults. Take a look at what he said.


GEN. MARTIN DEMPSEY, CHAIRMAN, JOINT CHIEFS OF STAFF: When you have one part of the population that is designated as warriors and another part designated as something else, I think that disparity begins to establish a psychology that in some cases led to that environment.


WALLACE: Is General Dempsey wrong?

BOYKIN: Well, I don’t — I don’t agree with General Dempsey on this issue. And first of all, we need to recognize, that is bad people doing bad things but it happens all over. I’d also like to go back to Colonel McSally’s last comment.

There is a big difference in flying a combat mission and going back to a hangar where there are facilities and being on a 30-day operation where you are in very close quarters with your teammates. And so, this is not a specious argument. And I can tell you, having been there is something that has to be considered.

But also consider, Chris, where does it go? Do we draft women? Do we release them from the service for pregnancy? Where does it go? Where does it ultimately go?   They are in combat and they should be in combat and we should find opportunities, just like with Colonel McSally for them to serve in combat. I’m talking about infantry, armored, Special Forces, those units where I object.

WALLACE: We’re going to get to the issue of the draft in a minute, because it’s a very legitimate issue a lot of people have raised.

But, Colonel McSally, does this kind of second-class status — I don’t mean to call you second class — but the idea that women are not allowed into some combat roles, that as General Dempsey said, men are warriors and women are something else — do you think it has contributed to the environment in which sexual assault happens?

MCSALLY: Absolutely. I mean, when you have an environment where women are treated as sort of second class warriors — they can, you know, do almost anything but not quite the elite jobs, not out there doing what really brings about promotions and leadership positions and really what matters in the military the most — you create this subconscious feeling that, you know, women are not quite equal with the men. And, so, that adds to our problem of sexual harassment and sexual assault.

Sexual assault is a very complex issue. But the way to address it obviously is finding those who are the criminals and make sure we rat them out of the military. You don’t avoid the issue by keeping women out of those units, because those men are assaulters, they’re going to assault civilians and others they come into contact to.

So, this change — I agree with General Dempsey — is absolutely necessary and the restrictions in the past have actually added to the problem.

WALLACE: Colonel McSally, General Boykin brought up the idea of the draft. And a lot of people said the — and in fact the Supreme Court said, the reason women should not be subjected to the draft is because they are not combat-ready.

If you are going to lift the ban — and it has now been lifted, and, if we should have to go back to the draft in a military emergency — should women take their place with men in the draft?

MCSALLY: Well, I know really smart people who would argue that maybe we shouldn’t be having a selective service system in the first place but given the fact we do and we have tied citizenship with the obligation to be ready to defend the country, in whatever capacity needed in an emergency, equal equals equal. So, I do believe that men and women at age 18 should be registering, because if the country needs you, they will need you for all the capabilities in the military — combat, noncombat and all the specialties.

And so, I have no problem with, if we are tying citizen obligation to the readiness to defend, that goes across the board.

WALLACE: So, General Boykin, is that OK with you? If we’re going to have this — and now it is a matter of fact, that the ban on women in combat, ground combat has been lifted, women in the draft?

BOYKIN: Well, I think you have no option. I think you’ll have to have women register with selective service and, obviously, be eligible for the draft. I don’t think you can do it any other way.

WALLACE: And do you have a problem with that?

BOYKIN: Well, I certainly don’t want my daughters registering for the draft. And I’d like for them to have more of a choice, than a man would have, in a national crisis.

WALLACE: I just want to end this with one final statistic and, Colonel McSally kind of brought this up, talking about the fact that the women are not in combat roles, has hurt their representation, their ability to rise through the ranks — 74,000 women in the Army, 19 generals. That is .026 percent.

I mean, doesn’t the practical effect of not allowing women to serve on the ground in combat hurt their ability to rise through the ranks, General, to become a general like yourself?

BOYKIN: Well, that’s right. But, I think — I think it does, Chris. I think it clearly does.

But, keep in mind the mission of the military is to fight and win wars. Every decision made today should be made in the interest of military readiness. And, while I, again, I say women are in combat and women need to be given opportunities to serve in other combat roles, I am no longer against that. There was a time when I was.

But, I also think that we have to consider the second and third order effects and look at this holistically.

WALLACE: And, 30 seconds — Colonel McSally, what do you want to say?

MCSALLY: Sure. This really isn’t about rising to leadership. This is about military effectiveness.

The 230,000 positions that were previously closed, only a fraction of them are Special Forces and infantry. And the rest are a whole variety of other jobs that have been closed to women.

If we want the most effective fighting force, we need to pick the most qualified capable man for the job, even if it’s a woman. This is about military effectiveness and allowing to us recruit the most capable and qualified force.

WALLACE: Colonel McSally, General Boykin, I want to thank you both — thank you so much for coming in today and, thank you, both of you, for your service to our nation.

BOYKIN: Thank you.

Comment Policy: Please read our new comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.
  • John3_3

    It’s a cowardly country that places it’s women on the front lines of battle to fight our wars for us. Spineless, sissy, cowardly men! We used to be a nation of real men.

    • We don’t “place” women on the front lines. Women chose to serve. And you are blaming the fact that women chose to serve on men? Men can only chose whether they want to serve, not whether an individual women does or doesn’t. If she doesn’t want to serve, she won’t. If they weren’t allowed to serve, there would actually be no choice, and you would somehow think you were protecting them, even though they don’t have to if they don’t want to.

      • stage9

        UM genius, the “pentegram” is saying that they are putting women on “the front lines”. What the heck do you think combat arms is???

      • 1endtimes2020

        Oh, puhleeze—enough of that regressive talk. Women can choose many, many things. This country needs women at home to be there for their children. Their children need a mother at home. It’s what God wants.
        Ladies, do the right thing. Just Do It.

      • crosshr

        dumdest quote for the day, bar none !

        prove me wrong someone ! choices in life are limitless, although not all choices are safe, uplifting, edifying,healthy, not all choice can give us future to build upon,or be proud of, or profitable, or hopeful for a brighter tomorrow.

        I mentioned before and we all witness this in many a time how women can outsmart, out patience, can be more productive than many men in various industries.Still all that take place at home( not front line and combat ground) are no where close compared to being targeted to be killed and or conquered, captured in front line.

  • tshtsh

    Hygiene was my first concern. The other sadly is my eye/hand coordination. Unfortunately, the side of the barn is safer than the people next to me (the only reason I do not have a gun).

    • Orangeone

      Proper training and practice with an expert will solve that. You would be surprised at how well you will shoot with good training and practice.

      • tshtsh

        I will try. Here in Fairfax County we have two places for lessons NRA Women’s Programs and a local Regional Park. Thank you Orangeone.

        • Orangeone

          I highly recommend the NRA Women’s program.  I did my basic training that way, then did private training with a retired law enforcement officer.

  • Rshill7

    It’s interesting and kinda’ funny that the person in favor of women on the front lines is named McSally and the man on the other side of the issue is named Boykin.

    • Orangeone

      Good one!

  • a wounded man, say, 250-300 lbs will NOT be carried to the safety by 120 lbs woman…
    We all know that….so, Political “Correctness”
    (a perverted euphemism for: “conservatives, shut up!”)
    rather see the “women in combat” than a male soldier alive?
    The answer is: “of course, yes!”
    And after being raped by tens of enemies, then dismembered……….? Still OK?
    Sick, red imbeciles…

    • stage9

      NO, she won’t carry him, because they’ll both be dead.

  • Rshill7

    Before putting a woman in battle she should first be scorned.

    • gajaw999

      Very good– gave me a good chuckle.

    • stage9

      I would just settle for not leaving it to a civilian who hasn’t got the slightest clue.

  • colliemum

    Via Twitter, watch this testimony, from 1991, by Gen Barrow, 27th commandant of the Marine Corps:

    He makes some very important points.

    • gajaw999

      Y’all have to watch this. Listening to the voice of experience– it is evident we have lost our ever loving minds, at least the feminists have.

    • notsofastthere

      Gen Barrow pleaded but I don’t think Congress listened to a word he said. Our culture, movies, cartoons are teaching women to be more aggressive and men to be more effeminte.
      I can definitely see Hillary Clinton on the front line, with a machine gun – tell her she looks fat in that pants suite and she’ll shoot everyone, guilty or innocent.

    • nosilasunny

      Thank you very much for sharing this. You can tell he felt very deeply about this. Not out of feelings of superiority but out of actual respect for women, love of country, and vast personal experience. Just because one might be capable of something, doesn’t make it the right thing to do.

      • crosshr

        Amen !

  • rgolich

    Total nonsensical debate carred out by a faux “conservative leaning jounalist”, Chris Wallace on a faux “conservative” news network, Fox.

    Th real issue, like most issues, is philosophy. The very notion of “universality” is the issue. Must everything “be open” to everyone? Some “discrimination” is actually a good thing and something everyone practices every day. There are very, very few women who could physically qualify for ground combat without lowering standards. Police and fire departments lowered physical standards years ago to allow women in their professions. The same will be done with ground combat units of the Armed Forces now.

    Liberalism insists on it. The main reason for this is feminist/lesbian pressure groups want women to be able to be promoted to full general which they basically can’t without actual combat experience. Also, left-liberals have always looked for every opportunity to “de-white man-ize” the Armed Forces, consequently, bring in more minorities, the foreign born (legal and even illegal immigrants), women, homosexuals, cross-dressers, etc.

    Now the Armed Forces will no longer be a reliable right-leaning, GOP-leaning voting bloc.

    • if they can carry a 60 to 70 lb ruck sack,their rifle and a 190lb man on their back in live fire, they are ready for the front lines. As a wife of someone who was in the military almost 30 years……….I’m not seeing it.

      • gajaw999

        Even if they can meet the physical requirements, still no go because of the close combat conditions Boykin spoke about. And to McSally’s promoting Canada’s allowing women to fight in infantry, since when do we follow the lead of Canada for heaven’s sake!

        • notsofastthere

          “since when do we follow the lead of Canada for heaven’s sake!” Well, how about Universal Health Care, Socialist government policies, political correctness, hate crimes, and maybe soon to come here, a Value Added Tax.
          You can disagree with Canada, but no need to demean or ridicule them. They are pretty good people.

          • I moved away to get away from all of that…. seems like it’s all eventually followed me. 🙁

            • notsofastthere

              I lived in Buffalo for about 8 years, finally escaped the taxes of NY. I lived in a few states and realize – I can run but can’t hide. No place else to run to, so it’s time to take a stand. Local and Federal government need to know we’re tired of abuse, and ain’t gonna take it anymore!
              So now you tell me I’ve blamed the wrong entities and YOU are to blame for this evil following you!!!:) SHUCKS, AND DARL GARNIT 🙂

              • LOL. The truth comes out at last. It’s all my darned fault! hangs head in shame.

                I agree. There’s no where to run. We need to tell those who forget they are hired what’s what and we’re sick of it!!

      • stage9

        Oh c’mon Randi, don’t bring real life experiences into the debate. These are LIBERALS! Being one step up from pond scum they believe they know what they’re talking about because Soledad O’Brien told them so, and we know how intelligent that twit is!

        • Orangeone

          McSally is not a liberal. She came within vote counting of winning a US House seat in AZ. She is a staunch Conservative.

          Liberal women, on the other hand, are the ones that sued. The MN female National Guard were on TV excited to go into combat. I say if they qualify, and they want to go, have them sign legal docs saying they won’t sue over not having the feminine machine in the field bathroom, send them to the frontlines with their lesbian friends. The men can take positions behind them.

          • stage9

            I was referring to a few of the trolls that have stopped by.

            • Orangeone

              Oh sorry for my misunderstanding 🙁

    • stage9

      As opposed to being carried out by the galatically stupid who frequent CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSpiNBC?

    • Orangeone

      Well to toss this in MN is requiring that all sports teams include those with disabilities. Please tell me how someone in a wheelchair is going to play football. If they cannot play on a regular team, separate teams must be created. I get it, people should have opportunities but there is a point.

  • To me this is another indication… along with the abolition of don’t ask don’t tell… that we’re soon headed to a world war.
    It’s going to be all hands on deck and the deferments will be few, if at all.

    • Kelly60

      Yes, Gary…Obama and his puppetmasters are tinkering with issues and doing the dirty deals that will not fair well…

    • That is quite possible.

    • Patriot077

      You could be right, Gary, though hope not. I also recall reading that the reason for Panetta going to DOD was specifically to gut the military. Between him and the state department our military is getting hit with brickbats at every turn.

    • I think you are right about the war, Gary. But I wonder if the coming war will be World or Civil.

  • Kelly60

    The privacy issue is just ewwwwww. As a woman I can honestly say that will be one heckuva smell in a bunker with your male “counterparts” (no pun intended). As a matter of fact, it will draw the more predatory animals to your group as well…disgusting. Sorry folks…

    • Conniption Fitz

      Roger – one male can put out a lot of stink – gaseous and otherwise – just imagine a platoon in a trench.

      Men delight in the amount of smells they can put out and the amount of stinky language too…the grosser the better. My daughter says men are like dogs, they’ll eat anything. And, they wear dog tags, don’t they? That proves it.

      Reminds me of the scene in Watership Down when the rabbits made the fake leather dog nose and rubbed it into lots of stinky stuff to fool the watchdog.

      No women in the foxholes with the men. God made woman to civilize man, comfort and nurture him and their babies, to make a place of peace and beauty for him to come home to and especially to help him find stuff. NOT to try to be like a man, but to complement and help him.

      • crosshr

        Acqua Di- Armani, not this male. My smelling sense still strongly resist body stinks. can’t stand strong manly body odor, ughhh ! Most days, yeah, I look like a pig from working, still drop in shower twice every day!( don’t wanna sleep outside, lol )

        But true, I believe that you said, what business a women have in a fox hole with bunch of men

    • Patriot077

      I wonder how many women are going to worry about the jungle rot and such. That could mess up a gal’s pedicures for life.

  • Godisright

    I can’t envision a woman carrying a 210 pound wounded soldier on her shoulder off to safety.
    Most men have no scruples when it comes to draining the tank. I think it would be awkward running a Porta-Potty truck at the rear of every division.
    I don’t know how successful this movement will be, but I hope the end-result does not obstruct the safety and comfort of our troops.

  • I like Martha McSally but flying a helicopter is far different than serving in ground forces, humping ammo, and all of the other heavy lifting including your fellow infantrymen.

    She isn’t speaking from experience in that arena because she didn’t serve in that arena. Not all military jobs are even remotely glamorous such as flying jets and copters. They are called grunts for a reason.

    No one is addressing the high pregnancy issues of the military and women have not served in forward front line positions. We already have generals saying they will lower the standards so that women can pass. How is that equality?

    And all of you women out there that want this you get all that goes with it…REGISTER FOR THE DRAFT LIKE THE MEN DO.

    This isn’t about brains. Women have the stamina and brains as well aptitude but they do not have the strength men have.

    • gajaw999

      I agree. See video link
      in comment above. This about the brutality, uncivilized cruelty of war, savagery at times just to survive. No place for women.

      • Conniption Fitz

        Agreed -women do not need to be in the trenches on the front lines – ESPECIALLY – when Islamists are concerned – THEY DO NOT RESPECT WOMEN.

        There is a huge reward (price) $50,000. for captured American/NATO women in Islamist countries. Only $10K for male soldiers.

        Imagine what these beasts would do to a woman soldier…considering what they did to female journalists.

        There is NO reason for our troops to be anywhere near these countries. NONE. Even Pakistan has betrayed our friendship and aid. They hide criminals, let Taliban out of prisons, frame us for an unproven alleged loss of their alleged soldiers (no one ever saw the bodies, just boxes). They stop the US from using their air space to get supplies into Afghanistan, then charge us tax to ferry it through Pakistan by truck.
        Karzai says he’ll side with muslims over Americans any day of the week.

        SO – why are our men and women dying over there? To facilitate heroin growers, woman tormentors and enslavers and Pashtun boy rapists?

        Get our men and women home and have them guard our borders.

        Send the Iranians, Afghanis, Pakistanis, Sudanese, Iraquis, etc. back to their Sharia homelands.


        • crosshr


      • Take note that no mention of Jessica Lynch was made who was raped upon capture.

        That aside I do think there is room for women in the military and I’m not sure women are being utilized for the assets they have that men don’t.

        The trouble here is women want equality of opportunity, equality of outcome but not the equality of obligation. I am not specifically saying that of McSally but of feminists.

        • Orangeone

          I totally agree! I also think our military needs to look at why they disqualify certain people. I was disqualified to enlist because I have had a medical condition. My brainpower would have been quite useful even so today but alas still have that medical history and am now much too old.

        • 1endtimes2020

          Just be a good wife and mother, Laurel, with a good husband, some children and a dog or two. Make some apple pie once in a while. Light a fireplace. Have company over on the back deck. Be happyu.

    • Watchman74

      Good points. Men actually are capable of higher stamina due to larger lung capacities. If women want to enter combat they should be put through the exact same rigors as men, because the battlefield doesn’t discriminate either. I suspect only a very small percentage of women could keep up with a man physically. And of course you pointed out accidental pregnancies will happen, combat tends to bond people together. Then there’s hygiene issues and the probability of being raped if captured. It’s a mess and I think it will lead to a weaker military.

    • Orangeone

      There are plenty of lesbians that can though, likely the overdose of testosterone in their systems….

    • 1endtimes2020

      Please, Laurel; This country needs women to be home for their children.. It is what children’s inner desire is, and is part of the ir DNA. Just because society evolve, in the wrong direction, it doesn’t mean we all have to follow dysfunctional habits.
      People eat the wrong foods, devoid of vitanins and minerals, get cancer, and have no energy or clear thinking. A mother can fix that with home made meals that are healthy. Everyone will be happier. Get a dog or cat for the kids, Make apple pie as a treat once in a while, and commercial-free home-made bread. Mothers can be fulfilled that way too. Most women in the workplace would want to be home with their newborns for years.
      Stay out of foreign wars. If you become a prisoner, it won’t be pretty. As a matter of fact, all American military men need to come home where they belong. America is not wanted, are hated, and has done enough for all those countries. America’s policy should be America First. America is bankrupt. If the Federal Reserve is going to print fake money, spend it on infrastruture, and business loans, and the poor mothers trying to raise their children after being abandoned by liars and cheats.

      • You are babbling and it makes no sense.

        • 1endtimes2020

          I know many women who live the way I describe. You disappoint me.

          • You seem to think I care whether I disappoint you or not. How arrogant can you be?

            You also seem to think you know how I live and I assure you that you don’t.

            And I don’t care how many women you know. It has absolutely no bearing on me or my life.

            • 1endtimes2020

              Ok Ok I don’t see why you have to be so mean spirited about it.
              Just forget it.
              I do apologize for offending you in any way.

  • The number one indisputable fact is”We were not all created equal.”

    • 1endtimes2020

      But we were all created with the same opportunities.

    • hachie1

      Imho, I believe we are all created equal in most every way, to include intelligence, respect, opportunity, etc. But I genuinely thank God as well that we weren’t created the same. You bet I do!

  • Jesus Lives

    In reply to ‘学中文的美国男人’:

    ‘Choose’ and ‘chose’ is NOT the point.
    The point is REALITY.

    Human anatomy, and God-created differences, ARE the point!

  • TerryinFL

    In one of my past lives, 52 years ago as an E-5 (buck Sgt) airborne heavy weapons infantryman, there would have been no (expletive omitted) way I would have shared a fox hole and/or shelter half with an openly gay male or a female of either sexual orientation for that matter. As far as I’m concerned, there’s the opposing value system with first situation and the aforementioned privacy issue and animal attraction (not mentioned) in the other. In either case, the distractions would have been absolutely intolerable! And another thing, Wallace trying to get meaningful opinions from representatives of two completely different branches of our military was down right ludicrous. Sounded to me like the Colonel had an ulterior motive.

    • stage9


    • 1endtimes2020

      It’s enough to get rid of cable TV.

  • I’m a little torn on this one, I don’t like the idea of our women being killed in combat, but if a woman has the strength and capability of serving on the front lines just like her male counterparts, and I do believe there are some women out there that could do it, it’s hard to be against women in combat because they did volunteer for a reason just as the males did, it’s not like we are forcing them, where that would be a problem with me, but if this is what they want to do, and they can do it, and her superiors knows she can do it, it’s hard to be against that.

  • d00mie

    I really have no problem with this. Maybe it’s b/c I read a lot of military sci-fi, so I’m use to the idea. The possibility of being raped really concerns me, and it’s terrible that 22% women serving in combat are sexually-assaulted. That’s appalling. Why isn’t anybody raising hell about that? You can’t tell me that it’s just a few “bad apples,” that’s a bad barrel.

    • stage9

      Let me clue you in on something, there are A LOT of sexual harassment complaints that are just pure BULL! The air is so politically correct that you dare not say ANYTHING, including correcting a subordinate female or you’ll be accused of harassment. And trust me there are few females in the Army that any man in their right mind would even WANT to harass!

      • Orangeone

        True and it’s not just in the military. Unfortunately the ones that file false rape and sexual harassment claims take away from the ones truly harmed.

        • All we have to do is look at the contrast between slick willie’s victims and the way they were treated, compared to say…. Herman Cain and Clarence Thomas… who’s “victims” never had any proof, just emotion and an agenda.

          • Orangeone

            10,000 likes for that post!

            • but you didn’t give me even one? 😉 lol. Kidding. thanks girlie.

              • Orangeone

                My reply likes aren’t working, again…. 🙁 I gave you 10,000 likes in the post silly

      • d00mie

        Harassment is different than assault. Assault means hands (or worse) were touching something that hands (or worse) are not to touch.
        I don’t care if 9 outta 10 claims are b.s. One service member sexually assaulted, not “harassed” but assaulted, is too damn many. This is what our daughters really need, they volunteer to serve our nation, are deployed in a medieval hell of a world, and not only do they have to worry about some jack ass blowing them and their unit up or not, but if the creepy SSgt. who’s been staring at them all deployment is going to try to cop a feel or worse. Then to top it all off, some jack ass back home accuses them of making shit up. You’re a real class act fella.

  • stage9

    This woman is full of CRAP!

    She’s a PILOT, IN THE AIR FORCE of all things! Are you REALLY trying to tell me that an Air Force pilot knows jack squat about combat arms???

    I’ll tell you what she knows: NOTHING! She is an “equal opportunity moron” and it’s idiots like her that get other people killed! If this woman wants to fight in a front line combat unit, then stick her arrogant mouthy self out there in front and let the Taliban take a couple of shots at her! And if they capture her, good firggin luck!

    This ain’t hollywood! This ain’t GI JANE! This is real freaking life and the problem with this country is that the extent of people’s knowledge on life in the military comes from watching action films and documentaries on NAT freaking GEO!

    Do you really want to know what will happen? They will put this moron on the front line of combat and the moment she takes a round she will be paraded in front of the country as an example of bravery and valor. And the real story, the story that gets buried by the news, will be that she acted carelessly.

    I site Jessica Lynch.

  • Army_Pilot1967

    Oh, I can see a lot of problems integrating men and women in combat. There were some problems in noncombat units…it just happens between some men and some women. Women sometimes complained, perhaps rightfully so, that they were being harrassed by men, and men complaining that women were “skating” on some details that required some heavy work. Glad I don’t have to make a decision on this question.

  • keats5

    I’m more concerned about the draft issue. How would that work? Would pregnancy/ motherhood be an exception? If so, how do we justify exempting mothers if we do not exempt fathers in this politically correct worldview? Would young unmarried women strive to get pregnant to avoid the draft?

    There will always be some exceptionally qualified women who will be able to compete against men. There are also smaller men, who do indeed serve. My son is a Marine, and he seems to tower over some of his USMC brothers. Indeed, I wonder how they would be able to pull him to safety if need be.

    Nonetheless, women serve a special role in our culture that only they can serve, and that has to do with being the glue that holds the family together through thick or thin. That is why men find it necessary to go to war to protect their women and children.

    • stage9

      Of course it is! A pregnant woman is not fit for combat, and there’s A LOT of that happening too — it happened in Iraq after 9/11.

    • Patriot077

      The pregnancy issue would be a nightmare in the event of a draft. I doubt there would be exemptions for pregnancy. In fact I feel there would be punishments. Would they make it a criminal act in the military code? How about charges against the father instead of paternity leave? Would some schmuck get accused whether guilty or otherwise. Would the female be forced to get an abortion?

      The government probably wouldn’t be too concerned about a generation of orphaned children as they want to control our childrens’ development from an early age.

  • 80s_kid_wants_rainbow_back

    This certainly is paving the way to for a female draft. DingleBarry will certainly be happy to have unlimited drafting powers. The more control over the citizenry the better.

  • StrangernFiction

    Did she threaten to kick him in the jimmy?

  • 1endtimes2020

    Please ladies, stay home, raise good citizens and make some good ‘ol fashioned American apple pie. You will be loved, loved, loved more than you can handle. Oh yes, and get a dog or two. And a cat if you like.

  • MadAsHellJack

    You have to look no farther than to see who did this and then look at who is CinC. This will not end well. The left and the feminist movement are bound and determined to destroy WOMANHOOD! Women are women Thank God and there is no changing that. So you dipshits on the left quit this shit of trying to change what God made pretty near perfect.

  • MadAsHellJack

    A career Marines take on women in combat

    Many people, mostly Marines, have endured my ranting on this overall issue for a number of years now, so this won’t be a ten paragraph piece about the issue, maybe just one or two. Allow me to say, however, and I’ve said it many times before, this is merely where the PC BS crowd now gets more than just their nose under the GP Medium Tent, continuing with their quest of assigning women to Infantry elements to a point where they want women to have 0311 (USMC)/11B (Army) MOSs . . . and then what, Special Forces, MARSOC, or SEALs, maybe?
    SHOULD that happen, it will be Game Over for our Military with regard to cohesiveness and effectiveness in combat. That is guaranteed.

    I have “seen the Tiger” and looked directly into its eyes during my three tours in the Nam, and with my 37+ months experience in combat to back me up, I say this: Women have absolutely no place in the Infantry or in SpecOps! Only those who have seen ground combat up close and personal can possibly understand how cruel and stupid it would be to deliberately send women to attack a well trained enemy.

    Mark my words well, though, “they”, i.e.: the left-wing Liberal Party idiots that thought this ridiculous idea up . . . are doing everything they can possibly do to blur the distinction between combat, combat support and combat service support. There is one hell of a big difference. It’s one thing to become involved in combat while supporting combat elements (as with CS/CSS in support of Infantry), but it’s not the same as humping the load and enduring the daily life and death struggle of the Grunt or of the Field Artilleryman. It is NOT the same. There are Grunts and there are support personnel. They are what they are.

    And too, with regard to my last tour in RVN, I can’t begin to imagine even the strongest of females being able to satisfactorily perform some of the missions that me and my Marines did while patrolling Quang Nam Province (Danang TAOR) in 1970-71 for several days on end. No way!

    So many fine female service members are doing such a great job, and now they’ll be painted with the same brush in this emotional issue. That is BS, they deserve better!

    Read on: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/pruden012513.php3#.UQV74_KA6Cg

    • stage9

      THANK YOU!

    • CorpstoCore

      Sir, with all do respect and someone who first served in Panama, later Herzegovina, the Persian Gulf, 2nd Iraq, and Afghanistan, I appreciate but respectfully disagree with your position. That disagreement said, I will admit that your experience in Nam differs from my combat experience. Regardless of what some may argue, each location is a totally unique experience. I learned that from my career, and in speaking with the Dad, Uncles, and Grandfathers ranging in service from WWII, Korea, and Nam. Just the differences in WWII from Europe to the Pacific makes it difficult to think of those being in the same time frame.

      Personally, I do not see this as a political issue. The nature of front-line combat changes from conflict to conflict. There is a strong possibility that my large physical size would have worked against me in Nam while that same size was of benefit in my tours and even more in law enforcement.

      All I can really say is that front-line combat is not for everyone and that includes many men and some will argue all women while I’ll contend most women. Still, I would not trade my experiences for anything, but I would not wish those experiences on anyone else. What you read and hear from others does even come close to describing the reality. I’ll wager that was true for you and your troops in Nam, me with mine, and those in any military conflict throughout history.

      While we may disagree on whether women can or should have the opportunity to serve in combat, I believe that we both base our opinions on personal experience. God Bless you and yours Sir.

    • russva

      As a former 0311 grunt having served in Vietnam I agree. Why is it that everyone until now were wrong about letting women serve in frontline infantry units, and now Leon Panetta and Barack Obama are right. Obama didn’t even know the correct pronunciation of Corps, he pronounced it cor ps’, and Mr. Panetta might ought to reference his combat experience before he makes such a decision.

      I think you’ve covered everything pretty well.

  • 57thunderbird

    Why must these leftists always use our military for their stupid social experiments?Enough already!

  • CorpstoCore

    Again, I’ll be in the minority here, but I do not see this as a political issue. I see it as the best individual for the task regardless of their gender. I’ve served in 5 different combat zones from Panama to Afghanistan, and we already have women on the front lines. They may not be categorized as combat, but they are in the same danger as those within that category. I and several men were saved by a female Sergeant interpreter who even after being wounded managed to take out snipers that men in the rear guard could not. If a woman is capable, why should our government deny them the same opportunities?

    Yes, size and strength potential differs between men and women. Still many women are far superior athletes than many men. I posted before that there are many good men who I would feel uncomfortable with in a combat situation. Nothing against them, but it is a different experience which cannot be explained.

    Another observation is that I currently work as a highway patrolman, and am a training officer. If my family were in danger, there are many women in our troop I pray would be the officer on the scene compared to some men. There are too many intangibles. It’s one thing to fire a weapon on a range; it’s another to fire while under fire. Hard to explain, but it is also different being under fire in Herzegovina versus Iraq or Afghanistan and I don’t think age played a factor in why each unit was different. Also, it is apples to oranges to compare returning fire while in the military versus a traffic stop turned wrong or a hostage situation here in the states.

    Not all women are capable of front line combat, but neither are all men. I might stand 6’3’’ and 235, but when I broke my leg going over a ledge to save an injured hiker, I managed to strap that young man into a stretcher to be lifted out by a chopper. A fellow officer who stood 5 feet something and maybe weighed 150 lbs pulled me up about 20 feet from that ledge by being dedicated and knowing about this strange thing called leverage to arrange the ropes. I can still bench 5 easily, but my kid brother my height and maybe 190 and benches about 3 can kick my butt hand-to-hand because he has far better technique.

    There are just too many intangibles about what it takes to survive or be successful in combat. In law enforcement many people who argue that they could stop a perp if they had a weapon, would most likely kill more innocent bystanders than the perp if they did in fact open fire instead of freezing or running away. Man or woman it just goes beyond physical strength and size, and involves more than most realize. Standards for combat should not differ with gender and both men and women should be utilized in the position where they can be most effective. Having served in combat and being in law enforcement, I’ll honestly say that I feel more confident of a successful operation with some women that I do with some men.

    I actually find it sad that many favor stripping the individual rights of someone sacrificing for this great country to have the option of combat if they are the most capable for that position. Male ego aside, I find that discrimination in allowing a lesser qualified individual an opportunity solely because the government or someone else feels that is proper. It’s not about politics or liberal or conservative, but who has worked the hardest and who the individual with the most qualifications is. Those are just my thoughts after having exchanged fire with both men and women standing on my side. Gender meant nothing as the only concern was accomplishing the mission. God Bless to all in our armed forces and to those serving as fire fighters, law enforcement, and other emergency personnel sacrificing blood, sweat, and tears for their neighbors.

  • stage9

    How Much Weight Do Soldiers Have To Carry in Afghanistan?!

  • Fireplug52

    IMHO it comes down to one thing. Can they meet the standards that are currently established?

    As has been proven on numerous occasions they have degraded the standards to satisfy their political ideology. Once you lessen the standards then we can expect to see our men and women as the casualties of political necessity and not because of qualifications.

  • chatterbox365

    I don’t support allowing women to serve in restricted areas of the military for many of the reasons already stated here. However, I say let them do it….send them to the front lines, but they should be required to meet the same standards as the men, including registering for the Selective Service. Equality means the same…period! Lowering standards for a specific group is not equal.

    I am sick and tired of these Vagi-Nazis throwing tantrums about equality just to achieve a political agenda. They give the female gender a bad rap.

  • stevenbiot

    I have no problem with women doing exactly what men do. I would never be able to tell another individual that they cannot do something they want to do.

  • stevenbiot

    “Treat people like individuals.” Exactly! I agree with you fully, Mrs. McSally!

  • 911Infidel

    I’ll take this debate from the point of view of a former Infantryman/Artilleryman. Women are not equipped physically for those jobs. When I was a young kid in Basic here were my PT scores. No sh_t:

    situps: 250
    pushups: 250
    2 mile run 9:38
    run-dodge and jump 17.5 sec
    pullups: 30 (7 was required)
    Parallel bars: 120 (I think 85 was passing)

    I was sent to an artillery unit in my first MOS (I eventually held 3). The artillery shell weighed 200lbs. Full powder cannister” 40lbs. Modern 155 artillery weighs 100 lbs.

    The obstacle course was just what you saw if you watched the movie Full Metal Jacket.
    Hell, a lot of men couldn’t handle it.

    I never met a female who could hang with me on her best day, let alone pass the male PT test.. All of the females that I met wouldn’t walk in tall grass or pull guard duty at an isolated post, without holding their hand because they were afraid of snakes or the dark. Needless to say, I was not impressed.

    There are plenty of males who couldn’t cut it too. However, I would have loved to have competed with Martha McSally in Basic training and enjoyed smoking her a$$ like a good cigar.

    I agree with LongTabSigO at Blackfive. So I’m posting his points.

    “(1) If we’re going to do this, lets start with all-female infantry units. Lets get the PT/HT/WT discussion off the table and focus on Army FM 7-8 (or whatever they use these days).
    (2) I would prefer that a group of qualified women be screened, vetted, assessed, trained and employed by SOF then a general cohort foisted on any number of commanders who, frankly, don’t need this hassle right now.
    (3) How many men would like to serve in combat arms but never get the chance because of the Needs of the Service. If this policy is absolutely necessary (under any version of “fairness”) then logic dictates that every able-bodied man who is qualified to do so should have first refusal on slots to the Combat Arms.
    (4) Similarly, there are a lot of men in non-combat arms, content to be there, who would still liked to have a chance to go to Ranger School. Yes, in theory it IS open to all men, but anyone who’s ever tried to go to Ranger School from most non-combat branches knows that the theory and practice vary greatly.(Again, if this is about “fairness” then lets be fair!)
    (5) I don’t recall seeing any significant writing from females with all this “combat experience” on the operations they conducted, their assessment of tactics, techniques, and procedures, or the like. I was sure hoping we’d have a slew of new material from them, based on their collective experience. So how exactly are we improving our combat power?”

    In an asymetrical battlespace, everyone is on the front lines. But not everyone can qualify by current PT standards to be an 11B, 11C or a 13B or 13F or a Ranger or a SF, or Seal. It ain’t happening ladies, no matter what your feminazi/carpet-munching buds tell you. And flying aircraft is not the same as carrying a heavy load on your back for 20 or 30 miles on a nasty hot-a$$ day.

    I’m not interested in sacrificing women in combat because there are too many men that refuse to serve, out of fear or because they’re metros or just plain old ordinary wimps or for the lame excuse that one needs a combat MOS to get ahead in the military. Uh, no you don’t.

    The Israeli model and the Soviet model is a better plan. And I’m not talking about fighting a war for survival like the Soviets did in WWII. If that were the case then all bets are off.

    • stage9

      250 pushups?? Man, dude, you were a stud! LOL! My PT tests weren’t anywhere NEAR this. LOL!

      I was average I guess. My best run time was 13:32!

      You’re in a class of your own my friend.

      • 911Infidel

        Almost everyone back in those days was already in great shape before Basic. We all played sports and took the Kiwi Express to school every day as kids. All Basic did was refine what you already had. I would have loved to have had to carry a female 25 meters instead of a large male during the casualty evac drills.

    • chatterbox365

      But all this seemed possible in GI Jane…LMBO! If Hollywood could make a woman a SEAL, then it must be a reality. (eyes rolling)

      • 911Infidel

        Exactly. Hollywood is all fun and games. But reality is a hard task master.

  • Erick Amthor

    The purpose of the armed forces is not “equal opportunity.” The purpose is to kill the enemy. Let the military commanders have the last say as to what configuration serves the military best. Not politician/ Generals,P.C. politicians like Panneta , social engineers or amazon type women.

  • kong1967

    I like Chris Wallace’s interviews. He asks relevant questions, doesn’t play softball, and doesn’t kiss a**. It’s not a circus. Both of these guests were fantastic in etiquette and made real arguments. I get so sick of interviews where it’s nothing but freaking rhetoric….which are MOST of them.

    Both of them had very good arguments, and I was glad to see McSally say that if you do this you have to institute the draft for women as well. Not that I like the idea, but she’s being consistent.

    I don’t want to see young women drafted. Plain and simple. I don’t know about anyone else, but my psyche couldn’t take it.

    There’s another thing, too. In a major war, many many women would be killed on the front lines especially with a draft. Do we really want to sacrifice the future of our birth rates in this country? I mean, we could potentially remove a mass number of younger women. Is that really a good idea?