That is the question everyone seems to be asking and it is the wrong question. The question we should be asking is can women perform effectively in combat?
According to the enlightened liberals at ABC News the vast majority of the country believes women can, and should, be allowed to serve alongside men on the front lines of combat. This is preposterous and I simply refuse to believe it.
This really isn't much of an issue. It shouldn't be at least. It wasn't an issue during World War II, but that was before the secular, progressive hippie and feminist movements of the 60's and 70's ravaged America. Back when common sense trumped emotion. Now we live in a day and age where it doesn't matter if a woman is 5 foot 3 and 110 pounds. By golly, she can do anything and everything a man can do.
So let's just throw all the political correctness aside. Women are weaker, period. They are weaker physically and weaker emotionally. Let's let the liberals and feminists have their way and throw whole squads of women combat troops into already male combat units. Let's just see what will happen.
When a soldier gets hit, say a 200 pound man, how many women soldiers will have to pull back from the fight to drag his body to cover? Two, three, four? That is another 1-3 weapons out of the fight. When the company is ordered on a twenty mile march in full battle rattle and a woman ordered to carry the M240B heavy machine gun, should they stop when she falls out? Picture this. The platoon sergeant has been hit and no one but the female rifleman next to him can save his life by clearing him from the kill zone. She has 8 seconds to drag him to cover nearby before a jihadist sniper can reacquire his target and fire again. Outcome? Because this female soldier, brave and honorable no doubt, is simply not strong enough to move her platoon sergeant's body the sniper easily catches both still in the kill zone for not one, but two easy kills. It is scenarios like these that I have described that will become all too common if women are allowed to serve on the front lines. It all comes back to protecting women and the rest of the troops for that matter.
Think of the emotional factor. We don't even need to go there. You see that every day in civilian life. Imagine it in a combat zone. It is bad enough with females in an overseas deployed environment period, combat or non combat, and I would prefer not to elaborate. When bodies are exploding, bullets flying, injured screaming a strong man is who should be there, not a woman. Our women should not be put in that type of environment. Again, it all comes back to protecting our women.
Next, has anyone even thought of the issue of sexual assault? It is already a problem in the military, primarily deployed units where males are the majority and females the minority. Has it crossed anyone's mind what might happen, on an even larger scale, if all of a sudden, women are transplanted into all male combat units? Do I even need to say what I have been saying?
Warfare has always been, since the beginning of time, conducted by men. In fact, in many cases, war was fought by the men (of the village, city, or state) to PROTECT their women. That was called chivalry. Now we live in a day and age here in America where there are actually people who WANT women in harms way. These same people spend their lives professing to defend and fight for women. Women's rights. Freedom of choice. Equality. In the same breath they throw our women to the wolves by directly putting them in harms way for the sake of progressivism and equality.
This exchange between Eomer and Eowyn in the third Lord of the Rings film is very relevant to the issue. Eomer responds to his sister after she asks why a Hobbit (and also herself) cannot go to war. Eomer says, "You know as little of war as that Hobbit. When the fear takes him, and the blood and the screams and the horror of battle take hold, do you think he would stand and fight? He would flee, and he would be right to do so. War is the province of men, Éowyn."
"War is the province of men." Men have been conditioned to war for centuries. Men are more physically, mentally, and emotionally hardwired for war. Now all of the sudden, people begin to think differently. Well there is one thing to consider. You don't simply turn back 4000 years of human history in the blink of an eye. And progressives who think putting women into heavy combat is a good idea should think long and hard about whether you are helping women, or hurting them. There are plenty of places within the military for women to serve, but the front lines is not, and will never be, one of them.
According to the enlightened liberals at ABC News the vast majority of the country believes women can, and should, be allowed to serve alongside men on the front lines of combat. This is preposterous and I simply refuse to believe it.
So let's just throw all the political correctness aside. Women are weaker, period. They are weaker physically and weaker emotionally. Let's let the liberals and feminists have their way and throw whole squads of women combat troops into already male combat units. Let's just see what will happen.
When a soldier gets hit, say a 200 pound man, how many women soldiers will have to pull back from the fight to drag his body to cover? Two, three, four? That is another 1-3 weapons out of the fight. When the company is ordered on a twenty mile march in full battle rattle and a woman ordered to carry the M240B heavy machine gun, should they stop when she falls out? Picture this. The platoon sergeant has been hit and no one but the female rifleman next to him can save his life by clearing him from the kill zone. She has 8 seconds to drag him to cover nearby before a jihadist sniper can reacquire his target and fire again. Outcome? Because this female soldier, brave and honorable no doubt, is simply not strong enough to move her platoon sergeant's body the sniper easily catches both still in the kill zone for not one, but two easy kills. It is scenarios like these that I have described that will become all too common if women are allowed to serve on the front lines. It all comes back to protecting women and the rest of the troops for that matter.
Think of the emotional factor. We don't even need to go there. You see that every day in civilian life. Imagine it in a combat zone. It is bad enough with females in an overseas deployed environment period, combat or non combat, and I would prefer not to elaborate. When bodies are exploding, bullets flying, injured screaming a strong man is who should be there, not a woman. Our women should not be put in that type of environment. Again, it all comes back to protecting our women.
Next, has anyone even thought of the issue of sexual assault? It is already a problem in the military, primarily deployed units where males are the majority and females the minority. Has it crossed anyone's mind what might happen, on an even larger scale, if all of a sudden, women are transplanted into all male combat units? Do I even need to say what I have been saying?
Warfare has always been, since the beginning of time, conducted by men. In fact, in many cases, war was fought by the men (of the village, city, or state) to PROTECT their women. That was called chivalry. Now we live in a day and age here in America where there are actually people who WANT women in harms way. These same people spend their lives professing to defend and fight for women. Women's rights. Freedom of choice. Equality. In the same breath they throw our women to the wolves by directly putting them in harms way for the sake of progressivism and equality.
This exchange between Eomer and Eowyn in the third Lord of the Rings film is very relevant to the issue. Eomer responds to his sister after she asks why a Hobbit (and also herself) cannot go to war. Eomer says, "You know as little of war as that Hobbit. When the fear takes him, and the blood and the screams and the horror of battle take hold, do you think he would stand and fight? He would flee, and he would be right to do so. War is the province of men, Éowyn.""War is the province of men." Men have been conditioned to war for centuries. Men are more physically, mentally, and emotionally hardwired for war. Now all of the sudden, people begin to think differently. Well there is one thing to consider. You don't simply turn back 4000 years of human history in the blink of an eye. And progressives who think putting women into heavy combat is a good idea should think long and hard about whether you are helping women, or hurting them. There are plenty of places within the military for women to serve, but the front lines is not, and will never be, one of them.
4 comments:
Back about five years ago, when I first went online, I read a post by a former female soldier (soldierette) who said that women DO NOT BELONG on the front. She said thaat their lack of upper-body strength throws too much work onto their male "peers" in combat situations, thus endangering everyone involved. She was speaking from firsthand experience.
You share the views of most of us in the conservative blogosphere.
Having been an army squad leader back when liberals first started integrating women into rear echelon units, I can also attest first hand to the folly of using women in combat.
Women couldn't even pull their own weight in combat support roles. Not even close, and I can't count the number of times I would have a subordinate complain to me of some woman soldier falling down on the job, and men having to pick up the slack. And of course, I would simply have to tell them, 'buck up, it's just the way things are now, try and make the best of it.' 'Soldier on, soldier.'
This was 25 years ago, and nothing has changed. Integrating women into direct combat will get more of our people killed, (more so than ordinary casualties through enemy contact) there's no doubt in my mind.
Women in close combat is utterly foolish and those who champion such a thing are fools or know nothing of war. You are totally correct.
Post a Comment