Tuesday, February 5, 2013

More on Women in Combat

Over the past few weeks I’ve offered a few of my own admittedly amateurish thoughts about women-in-combat.

Now, the Center for Military Readiness has put out a far more comprehensive report on the issue. My thanks to the reader who passed it along to me.

Here’s a brief sample:

Combat effectiveness in war cannot be taken for granted.  Nor can it withstand relentless pressures to lower standards in order to meet "diversity metrics."  It is not right to impose on elite combat units the weight of social complications that will result in more casualties, more deaths, and even failed missions due to higher injury rates, and issues of non-deployability and  sexual misconduct that have gotten worse in all other military communities.

Most military women do not want this, and they are not to blame for the folly of policy makers such as Secretary Panetta and the Army's top leaders.  All are following orders from our irresponsible Commander in Chief, who is trying to cut Congress and the American people out of the decision-making process. 

It’s a long and detailed report, well worth a read.


n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

We rarely fight wars to win.

The distinguishing feature between men and women is considered a manufactured distraction. Our objective differences are considered prejudiced. When we dispense with principles of evolution, and specifically fitness, then there is no longer a reason for a society to offer enhanced respect for the dignity and lives of its women.

Women have made great progress in becoming their stereotype of men. Perhaps women, and men, have become satiated in their decadent lifestyles. They "win" and everyone loses.

JP said...

I actually don't mind it when women in the military get preggers during combat.

It takes someone out of a combat situation who doesn't want to be in the combat situation any more, which seems to be positive for unit cohesion.

Lastango said...

Supporters of the Obama administration's politically-motivated pander better do their cheering now, while it's cheap and easy.

The fiction that this will work can be floated because, for a very long time, we have only fought small-scale actions in which we have overwhelming superiority. Our troops operate from fixed bases, and our casualty rates are tiny compared to a "real" war like WWII or Korea.

In one misleading example of enlisted women's support for this action, "Carey Lohrenz, a former Navy Lieutenant and one of the first women to fly F-14s on air craft carriers, called the news 'fantastic.'”

Of course Lohrenz thinks that. She's a fighter pilot, not a grunt. During the entire Iraq war, up through 2010, we lost NO FIGHTER PLANES AT ALL to hostile fire, and only one A-10. Does anyone think that will be what happens if the Chinese come after Taiwan or the Japanese islands?

Charles A Pennison said...

The more interesting and perhaps more relevent topic is the increased reliance on robotic drones to fight our battles. The Air Force now trains more remote drone pilots than they do bomber and fighter pilots - see "Future of War: Private Robot Armies Fight It Out."

An enticing feature of drones is the reduced cost. Drones don't need air craft carriers or large transport planes to deliver them to a combat zone. Drone submarines can stay underwater for years and maybe decades. Without the human element, you can do away with all the support services that humans need. Electronics on drones don't need air, water, food, medical services or sleeping quarters. If a drone gets destroyed, you just make another one.

And drones can be programmed not to mistreat noncombatants. The following is an excerpt from "Controlling the Beast Within - The Key to Success on 21st-Century Battlefields."

"Indicative of the depth of the problem, a Department of Defense mental health survey of soldiers and Marines in Iraq in the fall of 2006 released the following findings:

Only 47 percent of soldiers and 38 percent of Marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect. More than one-third of all soldiers and Marines reported that torture should be allowed to save the life of a fellow soldier or Marine, and less than half of the soldiers or Marines said they would report a team member for unethical behavior. Also, 10 percent of the soldiers and Marines reported mistreating noncombatants or damaging property when it was not necessary."

Dennis said...

When the first woman gets into a mixed martial arts ring with men who have trained and are the epitome in this area of expertise, where no holds are barred and NO referee, and wins I will begin to believe women are capable to handle the rigors of combat. It should be obvious why I selected mixed martial arts.
Is there a war where not having "boots on the ground" where hand to hand combat is part of the mix of offensive weapons, has been won? Also one does not train for one kind of warfare if one is to be prepared to provide the defense and offense required to win, though n.n may have a point in that our political betters seem not to want to win.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...


This lack of interest also extends to domestic affairs. Whether it is indigence, education, civil rights, or human rights, they spend trillions of dollars with negative progress.

They prefer to treat symptoms, which is profitable in perpetuity.

They manufacture or exaggerate problems to which they then offer "solutions", at a price. Typically in the form of exchanging liberty for submission with benefits.

They not only condone, but support human sacrifice, among other dysfunctional behaviors, which women, and men, demand to preserve their material, physical, ang egoistic comfort.

There may be competition among these interests, but the consensus philosophy is quite obvious. They offer indulgences in order to advance their political, economic, and social standing.

Dennis said...

When one justifies killing at one end of life it becomes easier to justify killing at the other end of life. It also follows that it becomes easier to kill anyone for whatever justification will surface as plausible.
Take drones for instance. Now we have the Obama administration actively seeking to kill Americans without all the niceties of their Constitutional and legal rights. I cannot wait until we have robots to do our killing for us. NOTE: If one can abrogate the 2nd Amendment sans the amendment process then it follows that No amendment is safe from the same process.
One does not seem to observe the fact that there is a bit of collateral damage involved, but an individual who can justify partial birth abortion or the killing of those who survive botched abortions should not be surprised at the easy move to killing others without a care for that damage.
One begins to wonder when it becomes easy to target Americans in this country without the concept of one is innocent before being proven guilty.
At what point do the citizens, fast becoming subjects, become inured to target killings for any reason as long as it isn't them? If the government states that they deserve killing then it must be so.
Freedom is lost a little at a time as one accepts more free goodies from government without considering the hidden costs to one's freedom. An aside here. It does seem that feminists are at the fore front of wanting the government to provide for them, lower standards, et al. The obsession for power blinds them enough so that they never really notice they are being used. When one seeks to deceive they only person they deceive is themselves. The quicker the move to decadence the faster to move to annihilation as a society.