Women Should Not Be In Combat
I’ve heard it said many times, especially during the last seven years that nearly everything in America is backwards or upside-down. Like now it’s more acceptable to be gay or transvestite than it is to be straight. It’s courageous to openly admit to being gay. It’s racist to say anything negative against Muslims even though “Muslim” isn’t a race of people. Black gang-bangers and thugs are heralded as heroes and honorable. Law enforcement officers are bad guys always on the prowl, looking for an unarmed black teen ager to shoot. It’s perfectly acceptable to kill a perfectly intact, live baby who just survived an abortion procedure. And on and on we go.
In just about every speech Barack Obama will eventually say ” … it’s the right thing to do” especially when the thing he’s talking about isn’t. Mr. Obama wouldn’t know the “right thing” if it slapped him in his anorexic face. Now that Obama and company has fired and or caused to resign hundreds of commanding military officers we have the top brass speaking and acting exactly like him, to the detriment of America.
A couple of weeks ago I noticed the results of an experiment conducted by the U.S. Marine Corps. (Obama, that’s Corps NOT corpse.)
Washington — A 33-page Marine Corps memo obtained by The Christian Science Monitor suggests that, behind the scenes, the Marines are already talking about how they can integrate women into combat units.
The memo gives a fuller and more nuanced assessment of a Marine gender integration study than a shorter summary released earlier this month. According to the four-page summary made public on Sept. 10, the study found that women were worse shooters than men, got injured more often, and would be a detriment to unit cohesiveness. It prompted a strong backlash from women’s groups, who said it was biased and poorly conducted.
The longer memo still concludes that many coed units performed worse than all-male units, and it raises fresh doubts about female Marines’ abilities.
Noting the “timeless, brutal, physical and absolutely unforgiving nature of close combat,” the memo argues that those facts could adversely affect women in the force. The service “risks losing a number of highly talented female Marines prematurely due largely to the often extreme physical demands” of the infantry, Brigadier General Smith writes.
Despite the above findings the Navy will be opening enrollment into the Navy SEAL program to women with the opportunity to partake in combat along with male counterparts.
The head of the Navy’s special warfare units, Rear Adm. Brian Losey recommends that the SEALs and combat crew jobs should be open to women, because it is “ultimately the right thing to do and is clearly consistent with the struggle over centuries to fully represent our nation’s values of fairness and equal opportunity.”
He says that stuff while outright admitting this would absolutely weaken the SEAL team’s combat readiness and abilities. He says explicitly that women among the commando ranks will not increase the units’ ability in combat. The gender integration of the unit will go as far as diverting “focus and energy away from core combat readiness and effectiveness efforts.”
So this is what political correctness has brought us under the guise of “fairness and equal opportunity?” I’m just wondering how “fair” it is to the men during actual combat who are depending on women who can’t shoot as well, aren’t nearly strong enough to perform at the same level as the men?
I guess you can call me old-fashioned or “square” in my beliefs. I’ve always held on to the idea that an honorable nation protects its women from possible atrocities which are invariably committed on them during periods of armed conflict. The protection of a nation’s women at all costs is a character only a strong and courageous military can obtain, or should I say “should obtain.”
In 2008, the United Nations Security Council argued that “women and girls are particularly targeted by the use of sexual violence, including as a tactic of war to humiliate, dominate, instil fear in, disperse and/or forcibly relocate civilian members of a community or ethnic group.”
Amnesty International argues that in modern conflicts rape is used deliberately as a military strategy. Amnesty International describes war rape as a “weapon of war” or a “means of combat” used for the purpose of conquering territory by expelling the population therefrom, decimating remaining civilians by destroying their links of affiliations, by the spread of AIDS, and by eliminating cultural and religious traditions. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak characterizes “group rape perpetrated by the conquerors” as “a metonymic celebration of territorial acquisition”.
Yet here we are as a direct result of Obama and company’s policy of humiliating our military, we’re stuck with politically correct “admirals” and “generals” who are putting women in imminent danger of the worst crimes in humanity.
Gotta have that “equal opportunity.”