We already shared with y’all my assessment on Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter’s unilateral declaration about opening up all combat duty positions to females. This is not, as I stated, about women serving in combat. If you are deployed on this modern battlefield, you are in combat. There is no longer the concept of linear warfare, it is asymmetrical, and even here in America, we are on that battlefield. The Islamic terror attacks in San Bernardino, Chattanooga, and Ft. Hood are examples.No, the issue is regarding women now serving in direct combat units, which is much different from flying fighter aircraft or attack helicopters. Now, are there women out there who are hard as woodpecker lips and tough as nails? Sure – but is that the norm? Are the exceptions to the rule basis enough on which to make an ideologically-driven, social egalitarianism-grounded decision?
Well, there are some current U.S. Special Operations forces members who do not think so. As reported by the Military Times, “The men in the U.S. military’s most dangerous jobs care little about political correctness or gender equality. And they have a message for their political leadership. When they are fighting in the shadows or bleeding on the battlefield, women have no place on their teams.In blunt and, at times, profanity-laced answers to a voluntary survey conducted by the Rand Corp., more than 7,600 of America’s special operations forces spoke with nearly one voice. Allowing women to serve in Navy SEAL, Army Delta or other commando units could hurt their effectiveness and lower the standards, and it may drive men away from the dangerous posts. An overwhelming majority of those who agreed to respond to the RAND survey said they believe women don’t have the physical strength or mental toughness to do the grueling jobs.”
This is not a movie featuring Demi Moore folks, you don’t get several “takes.” And you have to ask yourself, does this mean every young female in America must now sign up for the Selective Service just like every 18-year-old male? Does this mean a military recruiter can now, in order to fill his “quota,” assign a young female recruit to a combat duty position?
It amazes me when I hear folks make inane statements such as “career advancement in the military to higher levels is based on combat experience.” So is this all about equality of outcomes by way of mandated promotions? I don’t think retired Army General Ann Dunwoody succeeded in becoming a four-star general because she needed to serve in a combat duty position. I don’t think she became an Army Jumpmaster and Master Parachutist because some social engineers stepped in to accommodate her success. Nope. General Dunwoody excelled in her assigned duties in her military specialty branch and became the commanding general of the Army Materiel Command. But for progressive socialists, well, that just ain’t fair.The problem with the left is that they have embraced this insidious and perverted concept of social justice. In essence it has come to mean the liberal progressive left must engineer the outcomes, not create the conditions for opportunity.
I was proud to be a combat arms officer, an artilleryman. I sought an opportunity to attend Ranger School but assignments did not enable that chance. Did I need someone to come up with a mandated rule that there will be “x number” of minority combat officers who will attend Ranger School? Nope. I found the opportunity to succeed in whatever position assigned and whatever school I attended.
The imbecilic philosophy of the “participation trophy” does not have a place when it comes to combat — little league maybe, but not when bullets are flying.Here is one operator’s statement from the survey: “I weigh 225 pounds, and 280 pounds in full kit, as did most of the members of my ODA (a 12-man Army Green Beret unit). I expect every person on my team to be able to drag any member of my team out of a firefight. A 13- pound female could not do it, I don’t care how much time she spends in the gym. Do we expect wounded men to bleed out because a female soldier could not drag him to cover?”
Another said politicians don’t win the covert wars. “Gender equality is not an option when the bullets are flying,” he said. “Most males in the area of the world I work in would rather back hand a female than listen to her speak. There is a reason we send men to do these jobs.”
Here are the pertinent statistics from the Rand survey: “Some 85 percent of the respondents said they oppose opening the special operations jobs to women, and 70 percent oppose having women in their individual units. More than 80 percent said women aren’t strong enough and can’t handle the demands of the job. And 64 percent said they aren’t mentally tough enough.”Now, with that being said, the simple question to be asked is, who is Ashton Carter to disregard the lives of the men we send into harm’s way? Who is Barack Obama to say to these men, I couldn’t care less what you think or the detriment that could befall you in combat.
After all, this is really only about an exhibit in Obama’s library. So what if a mother, father, wife, and children have to bid their loved one farewell. The liberal progressive leftists get to pound their chests — ok, that would probably hurt — so pat themselves on the back, and claim a victory for social justice.
Some may accept this as an eventuality, but think of the initial U.S. Army Special Forces team that went into Afghanistan in 2001 and worked with the Northern Alliance. Remember the Battle of Mogadishu and the exploits of the Army Delta Force and the Army Rangers. Think about the four-man SEAL team hunted deep behind enemy lines during Operation Redwings in Afghanistan. Those men underwent the most demanding and rigorous training and needless to say, there are quite able-bodied men who can’t hack it.
Sure, three females graduated U.S. Army Ranger School, but as we shared, why were their records shredded?
The survey further evidenced that, “Ninety-eight percent agreed that their unit is united in trying to accomplish its missions. But when asked whether men and women in a unit would be united to accomplish a mission only 48 percent said yes. Nearly 33 percent said no, and almost 20 percent were undecided. And nearly 60 percent said they expected that women assigned to their unit would be “treated unfairly” at least some of the time.”
Of course these men will just be castigated as misogynists. And liberal progressives will try to make some parallel to blacks not being integrated into units in the military. Shall I remind you that a black man was one of those shot in the Boston Massacre? Black men distinguished themselves and proved highly capable to fly, fight, and wing — and standards were never adjusted. I believe Henry O. Flipper displayed impeccable mental discipline when he was the first black man to attend West Point. So spare me the inappropriate comparative analysis of gender to black men — one of my mentors, retired Army Green Beret Brigadier General Remo Butler, could possibly still kick many a fella’s backside.
The bottom line to all of this is a simple realization: President Barack Obama and SecDef Ashton Carter, along with the dubious service secretaries couldn’t care less about the lives of the warriors — they care far more about their ideological agenda. I’ve got an idea. Since today is the Army-Navy game, then let’s open up football at the Service Academies to females. After all, if it’s good enough for the rigors of sustained ground combat, it’s certainly ok for a game of football, right?