Sunday, January 27, 2013

Women in Combat a Disgusting Political Move for the sake of Political Power

By Douglas V. Gibbs

With a stroke of a pen, outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta changed the rules of the military, lifting the ban on women in combat.  Senator John McCain stated that the standards must not be altered for women. They must be able to pass the requirements afforded to men.

Before I address the issue, let's understand something.  Obama, and the hard left democrats, always have their own hidden motives.  They have shown us time and time again that their policies are not based on what's best, but on what they think will gain them more support from groups, in an effort to solidify their power, and keep themselves at the top in perpetuity.  The liberals separate Americans into rival groups, and then cater to those groups to gain their support, granting to the groups crumbs the liberal democrats claim are "rights," and would never be given to the poor, oppressed groups by the opposition.

The "Divide and Conquer" strategy is one that the democrats use against the differing parts of the Republican Party, persons of the different economic levels in this nation, the races, and the sexes.  It is a normal battle tactic for them.

Understanding typical liberal motives, the decision to allow females to fight on the front line in the United States Military is not a move they feel is best for the military, or for women, but a move the liberal left democrats believes will continue growing their popularity with the women vote - and any opposition will be labeled just another part of the so-called, and mythical, republican war on women.

The Democrats could care less about women, in reality.  This is all a part of political strategy, and class warfare - driving groups against each other - in this case, pitting the genders against each other in a divisive political move.

When it comes to combat, anymore, with the technology of modern warfare, there is often no front line.  Women are involved in nearly all aspects of combat, except ground operations. The argument has been over whether or not women are capable of the physical vigor of operating on the front line.  Men, we are being told, are stronger and have more stamina, and women may often fail in being able to keep up.  It's the ol' "stronger sex, weaker sex" argument - and nobody likes to be considered weaker, making this a powerful argument that can assist those pushing for full equality for women on the battlefield.  As one broadcaster said, "Are you saying that Pee Wee Herman would do a better job than Serena Williams?"

Reality dictates that though overall men tend to be stronger, and better able in combat situations on the front line, we are individuals, so making a general statement over strength and brute ability may not be accurate all of the time.  Some women are more than capable, but ability is not the real reason that it may not be a good idea to put women on the front line.

Women, because of the scope of their physical capacities and greater vulnerabilities upon capture, have a diminished opportunity for survival in battle.  The enemy does not play by the rules, and will exploit the vulnerabilities of the women, and of the men who have a natural instinct to protect members of the opposite sex.

I am not concerned about abilities and courage when it comes to this issue, because there is no question that women can be quite able, and quite courageous.  There are many cases of women ending up in a combat situation and performing in a heroic manner that goes above and beyond anything you can muster.  Women excel in many military jobs, such as sharpshooter, or pilot.  Biology, the willingness of the enemy to use vulnerabilities against women, and the instinct of the men that the enemy can also use against the unit, is the concern.

When it comes to biology, remember that these kids are more often than not right out of high school.  Youngsters. Kids.  The guys are pumped up on testosterone, which not only drives them sexually, but provides a natural sense of aggression necessary to participate in military maneuvers against an enemy that has the sole aim of killing them.  Military units depend on the members of the unit being the best they can be.  Women, lacking the hormonal makeup that drives men to be able to aggressively kill, aggressively defend their position, and perform other tasks that requires a large amount of aggression, will be vulnerable, and place the unit in danger.

The more alarming part of this argument, which should really convince those that support women on the front lines to rethink their position, is that we must remember that war is the act of aggressively engaging and attacking the enemy with deliberate offensive action using whatever necessary to gain an advantage, which will likely also end up in a face-to-face condition with the enemy.  Like us, the enemy is also engaging in an aggressive offensive action seeking ways to gain an advantage.  Whether the woman is weaker than the men in her unit, or not, from a physical standpoint, the enemy sees her as such, will single her out like a wolf hunting a herd of caribou, taking out the straggler, weak, or injured.

The enemy will also be willing to use other tactics to exploit a female's vulnerabilities.  Women face special torture, including rape.  And the men, because of our natural instincts, cannot be trained to ignore the screams of their female personnel - nor is that a condition we want to create in our society.

I am not suggesting that women are unable to endure the suffering that may accompany capture, or the rigors that may need to be endured during combat.  A woman's ability to withstand incredibly violent circumstances, I am sure, is incredible.  After all, women are biologically designed to withstand the difficulties of child labor.  But the hands of the enemy are something entirely different, and the enemy will use our vulnerabilities against us, to lure the men in, playing on the natural instinct by men to protect women, killing more military members in the long run.

The instincts of men will also create distraction, which allows an opportunity for hesitancy, which in the end will also kill more members of our military - not just the women, but the members of the unit around her.

In other words, this proposition of putting women in combat is dangerous, not necessarily just because of women, but because of the natural tendencies of men (be it our men, or the men of the enemy units), as well.

That is a lot of life to lose for the sake of a political power grab.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

THANK YOU for this article, if you don't mind I hope to use it for quotes..I just finished commenting myself to an article about a female Canadian sniper, I will include if I may.

What disgusts me are the White Knight hoi-polloi fools who comment against me, those who have been brainwashed into a siege mentality like Stalingrad, where every warm body should be mobilized, and therefor must also be subject to hands-off praise.

Worship of the police and military are central tenets of a fascist state. And it is most worrying.

With the advent of firearms, naturally the ability to kill at a distance made anyone and everyone a potential killer. Its the kind of thing that the samurai thought despicable in the 1600's when the Portuguese introduced muskets to their society, not only did it negate years of training, and discipline, but it turned their system upside down, since any low born Ashigaru (foot soldier/peasant) could kill a nobleman in battle.

We live in more egalitarian times to be sure, however the reasons we fight have never been more muddied. As Gwynne Dyer the military analyst quoted British general Sir John Hackett so poignantly, “You offer yourself to be slain: This is the essence of being a soldier. By becoming soldiers, men agree to die when we tell them to.”

So perhaps you could call me a dinosaur, but for the most part, this corrupt Western society as it stands today, is simply not worth dying for, and especially not from the ghastly, dismembering, butchering methods that are currently available. Men are not joining like they used to, because men have gotten "hip" to the foolishness of signing-up/sacrificing themselves en masse. So, politically, in order to maintain a modern military, other "manpower" must be found. In a truly desperate society, one that is under siege, children are mobilized. In a demented one like ours, where hard and fast biological truths are under threat, (ie as a man, it is my natural inclination to fight, and protect, particularity women and children), you get a "scraping of the bottom of the barrel" in terms of cannon fodder, which is clearly a disgusting political tool, while at the same time hypocritically coming across as "progressive", and "advancing" the status of women.

I hardly think getting their limbs torn away, being blinded, left with jagged scars...or pressing buttons which result in similar conclusions or deaths of others is anything like "progress".

The fact is, he military is not in the same kind of league as any other government program. We send people to die, and usually not in pleasant anti-septic, or clinical ways, but rather in horrifying torturous ways.

Women should be above that, or beyond that. Unfortunately, what better proof of the equality of the sexes that they are duped into thinking dying for the State Department is a good thing as well.

Dave R.