Despite what some of my less than tolerant liberal acquaintances may believe, my military experience does not date back to the era of hardtack and beans — soldiers in the field in my day supped on such culinary catastrophes as ham and chopped eggs delivered in an olive-drab tin can laboriously broached (especially when the icy January winds that regularly blast through the Fulda Gap have demobilized your every digit) by the ubiquitous P-38 (OPENER, CAN, HAND, FOLDING, TYPE I). The quality of these antique military victuals may be adduced by the fact that everyone’s favorite item in a case of C-rations was generally the finely grained sandpaper that passed for toilet tissue. Fortunately, the old C-rat has gone the way of the musket and the cavalry horse. Not all modern martial transformations are as equally beneficial:
Oblivious to important differences between men and women, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Department of Defense to lift all combat exemptions for women. Not putting women into combat deprives them of their constitutional rights, the ACLU is arguing on behalf of four servicewomen in a complaint filed Tuesday in a federal court in San Francisco.
[…] The military has kept women out of direct ground combat for a moral reason: Deliberately putting women in harm’s way is not right; and for practical reasons: Women are not as physically strong, and they have an impact on the men around them. In a civilized society, men are raised to protect women. Now some of America’s elite warrior units train men to be indifferent to women’s screams. That’s what passes for “progress” in a “progressive” military. (viaKNIGHT: Deceitful debate over women in combat – Washington Times)
The argument posed by the left-wing lawyers nesting inside the ACLU that the fair sex possess a Constitutional right to engage in battle is as pernicious as all the other “progressive” legal speculations which inculcate the rot that currently threatens our culture and our national security. Besides, any woman who really wants to experience combat doesn’t need to join an infantry outfit — all she need do is get married.
[…] The Marine Corps has opened Infantry Officers Course for a pilot program to study how well women could perform in combat roles. The first two females, and only two entered, both quickly flopped; one on the first day, the other within a week. No female marines have yet opted for the next session.
Women aren’t lining up for these positions; it’s mostly activist intellectuals trying to shoehorn pretenses into reality. The Marine Corps began this study at the behest of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). The Obama administration meddles to fix what isn’t broken …
… There was a study done of women marines during my service. It revealed alarming numbers of WMs who lacked the strength to pull the slide back on a service pistol, an inability to throw hand grenades far enough to refrain from blowing themselves up and little capacity to carry wounded comrades to safety. (Memo To The ACLU: Don’t Put Women Into Combat | Forbes)
Such a study should surprise no one, not even a poisonous leftist like our current president, a man who will routinely place the life and limb of anyone (except himself) at risk in the service of his ideological delusions. But take it from an ex-GI whose training experience includes having had one dropped at his feet one fine Southern afternoon by a fumble-fingered recruit from the Bronx (thank God for long fuses and alert drill instructors) — when it comes to hand delivered explosive devices, a strong and reliable arm is the only thing that’sever politically correct.
Original Post: Be Sure You’re Right, Then Go Ahead