Thursday, December 24, 2015

Few Nations Open Combat Roles To Women

by JASmius

Can you?  Scattered, isolated individual gals out there, who can meet the unadjusted physical requirements?  Perhaps.  But the vast majority, which is what Barack Obama is intending?  Not a chance.  Which is why physical standards will be lowered, performance quality will correspondingly suffer, and our military combat capabilities will collapse, if they haven't already.  Which is, of course, The One's core objective.  And that doesn't even, er, "touch on" the homosexuals, "transgenderists", Muslims (which is a whole other topic), and whatever other hodgepodge detritus he's vacuuming into the ranks of the U.S. disarmed forces in order to destroy its heretofore laser-focused uniculture and peerless, fearsome martial capabilities in classic "social justice warrior" fashion.

And you know what?  According to a Marine Corps study on the very topic of women in combat that the Regime ordered them to conduct, doubtless positive that the militaries of the entire rest of the world were "enlightened" and "progressive" and had completely co-ed forces at every level and function in complete Starship Troopers fashion.... turns out, they really don't:

A two-year Marine Corps study completed amid the push by the Obama administration to move women into military combat roles found that few nations around the world allowed for such duties for women in their defense operations.

The study was among twenty-one reports by the Marines that the [Obam]agon released after Defense [Commissar] Ashton Carter said on December 3rd that all U.S. combat positions would be open to women, the Washington Times reports....

Something that I will admit I passed on covering of late because I don't have a major problem with this sort of thing - as long as physical standards for combat roles are not downgraded to accommodate mass sexual integration of the tank corps, infantry units, special forces, etc. ranks for the sake of appearances while sacrificing our combat capability.  That, of course, is precisely what the White House is trying to accomplish with this "push," but I knew that sooner or later another proverbial "other shoe" would drop, and this is it.

The Marine Corps study examined military roles for women in Australia, Canada, Israel, and the United Kingdom, the Times reports.

Here are some of the findings:

Despite lifting a ban in 1989, the number of women in combat arms in Canada remains low despite there being no specific physical requirements for jobs within the Canadian land forces.

Because since it's our job to defend them, Canadians don't really need a functioning military, so they can play these SJW games with impunity.

Israel requires military service of all citizens — and women in the Israel Defense Forces may only serve in two light-infantry border units when it comes to combat on direct land.

Because nobody is going to defend the Jews except the Jews themselves, and therefore their military has to be the best it can possibly be.

Are you noticing a pattern here?

Australia is still experiencing fallout from recently permitting women to join the combat ranks of the Australian Defense Force. Civilian leaders, who actually do the recruiting, continue to resist the tough physical and mental standards for women.

See Canada, only seventy five hundred miles away and a lot closer to Red China.  So the Aussies still have the tough physical and mental standards, but they're under the same withering SJW assault as they are here.

And the Euros?  Leave it to them to be ironically paternalistic:

British and European labor laws bar governments from assigning women to jobs that they know will cause injuries.

"Evidence that female soldiers in the combat arms incurred a disproportionately high instance of serious injuries could invoke this provision, based on differences in the likelihood and severity of injuries," the Marines' study concluded. "In such a case, allowing women to participate in ground close combat would be an act of negligence.

"Such a finding would force the British Government to exclude female soldiers from the combat arms," the Times reports. [emphasis added]

It would be an act of negligence alright - not just for needlessly and pointlessly exposing large numbers of unqualified women to serious injury and death, but doing the same to their male counterparts and sabotaging the combat capabilities of their units on which the entire military, ultimately, may rely, depending upon the operation in question.

And that brings us back around full circle to what this subject is really all about: The Obama Doctrine.  America as the focus of evil in the modern world.  American military power being the source of all the world's problems.  Under that rubric, the "solution" is precisely what Barack Obama has been doing for the past seven years: abandoning allies, allying with enemies, dismantling U.S. military capabilities, particularly to project power anywhere on the globe (hence the shrinkage of the U.S. Navy to pre-World War I levels, ongoing unilateral nuclear disarmament and refusal to modernize whatever remains, drawing down the U.S. Army to pre-World War II numbers, etc.).  And now, as the coup de gras, neutralizing the fighting capabilities of the tiny, irrelevant "forces" that remain.

It's like an end zone celebration after running up the score, which is exactly what SecDef Carter's order is coming after the Marine Corps already amply demonstrated the folly of it three months earlier,  Indeed, you could even call this Barack Obama's War On Women, because it will be women who pay the ultimate price for this leftwingnut lunacy - right along with the rest of us.

Exit question: the Obama girls are going to be old enough to enlist soon - Malia next year, as a matter of fact.  Do you think The One and The Arms are going to be rushing them right down to the nearest recruitment center when they each come of age?  Me, either.

No comments: