The Case Against - Part II
"I Don't Mind A Parasite. I Object To A Cut-Rate One."
Last comment by sebekm 1 year, 7 months ago.

Take Me To Post Comment Form

....and speaking of women in combat - here's a "testimonial" from a former active duty female U.S. Marine that states the case against "women in combat" better than I ever could. The author has decided to use the pseudonym "Sentry" - probably because she may serve on active duty again in the future and wants to avoid any "problems." Her story is published in an article titled "No Better Critics" at weeklystandard.com:

"I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/ mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?

Everyone wants to point to the IDF as a model for gender integration in the military. No, the IDF does not put women on the front lines. They ran into the same wall the US is about to smack into: very few women can meet the standards required to serve there. The few integrated units in the IDF suffered three times the casualties of the all-male units because the Israeli men, just like almost every other group of men on the planet, try to protect the women even at the expense of the mission. Political correctness doesn’t trump thousands of years of evolution and societal norms. Do we really WANT to deprogram that instinct from men?

Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.

Without pharmaceutical help, women just do not carry the muscle mass men do. That muscle mass is also a shock absorber. Whether it’s the concussion of a grenade going off, an IED, or just a punch in the face, a woman is more likely to go down because she can’t absorb the concussion as well as a man can. And I don’t care how the PC forces try to slice it, in hand-to-hand combat the average man is going to destroy the average woman because the average woman is smaller, period. Muscle equals force in any kind of strike you care to perform. That’s why we don’t let female boxers face male boxers.

Lastly, this country and our military are NOT prepared to see what the enemy will do to female POWs. The Taliban, AQ, insurgents, jihadis, whatever you want to call them, they don’t abide by the Geneva Conventions and treat women worse than livestock. Google Thomas Tucker and Kristian Menchaca if you want to see what they do to our men (and don’t google it unless you have a strong stomach) and then imagine a woman in their hands. How is our 24/7 news cycle going to cover a captured, raped, mutilated woman? After the first one, how are the men in the military going to treat their female comrades? ONE Thomasina Tucker is going to mean the men in the military will move heaven and earth to protect women, never mind what it does to the mission. I present you with Exhibit A: Jessica Lynch. Male lives will be lost trying to protect their female comrades. And the people of the US are NOT, based on the Jessica Lynch episode, prepared to treat a female POW the same way they do a man.

I say again, I would have loved to be in the infantry. I think I could have done it physically, I could’ve met almost all the male standards (jumping aside), and I think I’m mentally tough enough to handle whatever came. But I would never do that to the men. I would never sacrifice the mission for my own desires. And I wouldn’t be able to live with myself if someone died because of me.

- Sentry"

See: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/no-better-critics_698023.html



Latest Activity: Jan 27, 2013 at 11:16 PM


Bookmark and Share
Forward This Blog
Print Blog
More Blogs by sebekm
Send sebekm a Message
Report Abuse


Blog has been viewed (454) times.

timeontarget commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 07:39 AM

As you know I have no military experience and therefore I am limited in my ability to access the wisdom of women in combat roles.

"Sentry" has certainly painted a picture that even I can understand and I don't think it is wise to have women in combat.

That was my initial thought but because of my lack of personal experience I felt I probably should not voice an opinion on this subject.

Sentry said everything that should ever need to be said on this subject.

Thanks for posting it.

HMJC commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 10:47 AM

All,

I would like to point out that tjhis is one persons perspective. Furthermore, male Soldiers die trying to save male Soldiers as well. I continue to point out that this is a first line supervisor issue. This can work if we let it. The only barriors are us. I say again, I fought with a female Soldier at my side in Somolia. She was able to shoot move and communicate just as well if not better than the male Soldiers. This is about letting go of age old perceptions and not letting reality a cahnce...

JimmyMack commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 11:58 AM

It's a New World, Charlie Brown. I been tryin to tell everybody that for several years now.

Not that it makes a hoot, but the Commies have been incorporating women in combat roles since WWII.

sebekm commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:16 PM

"I would like to point out that tjhis is one persons perspective."

Good point, but HMJC, let me ask just one question:

Which parts of "Sentry's" chronicle of inefficiency and chaos is UNTRUE?

Her entire "testimonial" has the absolute ring of truth for me. Plus - in my military experience - it has ALWAYS been the case that when females were introduced into a previously all-male "domain," the standards were "watered-down." 100% of the time.

So my point is: We have a military which is recognized as the best in the world. (Even if it isn't, it's said often enough that almost the entire United States population probably believes it.) Everyone assumes that when we make changes to anything - especially our military - it ought to be for the BETTER. When you introduce inefficiency and chaos into any system, you are NOT making it better.

Sure, HMJC - it might "work" - but at what price - in military efficiency and in United States combat dead?

That's my point. This social experiment - IMHO - represents a "New World" that only someone interested in degrading our military would want. The Russians probably think it is a good idea. So do the Chinese. Al Qaeda probably LOVES it.

This "one person's perspective" is repeated over and over and over again in the "testimonials" I see from women who have BEEN THERE (or as close to "there" as is possible under our current system). I value their opinions far more than any "special interest group" or consituency that wants to chalk up another "gain" in their battle against the enemy - i.e., anyone who doesn't agree with them.

And Jimmy, I'm not sure the "communist way" is one we ought to be emulating. I don't see them making any significant gains since WWII. The lost in Afghanistan; they lost in Chechnya. Shoot, they probably would have been on the losing side in WWII if the United States hadn't been pounding Hitler from the West with our all-male combat forces.

No - IMHO - Sentry speaks TRUTH. Progress is defined by Webster as a "betterment" of something. This social experiment will NOT make our military any better; it will digress. And that - as a society and as a country - is something we shouldn't want.

sebekm commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:18 PM

...They lost in Afghanistan, that is...

sebekm commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:39 PM

...one final thought:

For military purposes - no matter how many of them might wish otherwise:

Women ARE NOT men.

..which is exactly "Sentry's" point.

sebekm commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM

(...oops....insert the word "combat" before the word "purposes" in the above...)

HMJC commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 16:00 PM

I do want to stress that I am in no way in favor of diluting our fighting forces. I would think you would have to concede that there is quite a bit of disparity and not meeting the standard with male Soldiers. I lived it and had to spend a lot of time make Soldier issues. This comes down to the standards not being lowered and leaders just that.

Funkentelecky commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 18:14 PM

I agree with Chief MVB and Sentry 99.9%. Before we send our women to combat with men, how about desegregating sports first ie track and field baseball, basketball before you even think about sending them out for the ultimate sacrifice of combat missions. It's not disrespectful or denegrating, it's just common sense.

sebekm commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 19:17 PM

...and Funky has hit the nail on the head. But that "common sense" is only common sense to somebody who - when it relates to the military service - has the experience to understand what IS "common sense." Here's another way to look at it:

With a big enough hammer, I can pound a square peg into a round hole. But - once I do that - so what? What does that achieve? And is my result actually one which is necessary or desirable?

The argument that nobody is making in favor of women in traditionally male combat positions is that the combat effectiveness (read: "battlefield power") of the United States military will be better with females displacing males in combat units. Why isn't this argument being made? Because it's NOT TRUE!!! As I said above and highlighted by "Sentry's" testimonial: concessions and compromises have been and will be made whenever you introduce females into the profession of death. There ARE physical differences, and there ARE psychological differences that demand this. It is undeniable, but it is being ignored. Why7

Because "social equality" is all that is important. But as I said, I believe that this, too, will pass. It may take 10 years or an armed conflict to bring the problems to a head, but it will eventually happen.

But then we won't be saying "Bush lied and people died." We'll be saying the "Progressive left cried and people died."

Or at least I will.

Funkentelecky commented on Monday, Jan 28, 2013 at 22:15 PM

I'm with you Chief, 10-4!

JimmyMack commented on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2013 at 09:12 AM

The truth be told, I ain't a hankerin for this to happen; women in combat roles nor endorsing the Commie way. It could in fact erode combat efficiency via sexual liasons in squads. i.e. you gonna cover your buddy's back or your lover's?

I'm a Lefty. But I say let the men do the killing.

froggy commented on Tuesday, Jan 29, 2013 at 11:46 AM

I have never been in combat as some of you to know what their duties would even be like but it seems that most think it would be too much physically for a female.

I dealt with the prison systems for many years. There are many female officers. I will admit I never felt as safe with a female officer as I did with a male one. I just didn't.

And one particular story always stands out in my mind. Brian Nichols. The guy who shot the judge and 2 more in Atlanta. He had one female officer escorting him to court.

Who made that crazy decision? He had to be left uncuffed to enter the courthouse. Nichols is a big guy. Of course he could have overtaken her. That whole tragedy really could have been avoided.

I don't understand why she even thought it was ok for her to be with him alone. Why did it not make her feel unsafe? Especially after they found 2 shanks on him the day before the shootings.

The Sheriff's Dept defended it saying she was qualified to escort him. Yeah, she may have had the proper training and certificates on the wall. But that did not change the fact that this inmate was way way stronger than her and could and did overcome her.

Anyway that story always comes to mind when it comes to men being stronger than women. But again, I don't know much about combat to know myself if a woman could endure it. Physically and emotionally.

I agree with Jimmy, I was in the Navy and know when that ship leaves its home port people are hooking up left and right married or not. So yeah being lovers could be a problem.

sebekm commented on Wednesday, Jan 30, 2013 at 12:30 PM

Good points from all. It looks like the armed services will be considering all the issues (especially the Marines).

http://www.freep.com/article/20130129...

We'll have to see how it turns out in about 10 years or so.


Log In to post comments.

Previous blog entries by sebekm
 
Political Potpourri
August 13, 2014
As they say on Bret Baier’s “Special Report” program, “here are a few pickings from the political grapevine”: *It appears that the media is finally beginning to turn and get tough on President Obama. Last week the Washington Post – liberal bastion and investigator of all things Republican – chose ...
Read More »
 
ObamaCare Update
August 13, 2014
In case you missed them – here are a few headlines regarding ObamaCare from earlier this month: *”Barney Frank: They “Just Lied to People” About ObamaCare That’s right – Barney Frank, Democrat and former long-term congressman FINALLY made this admission in a recent interview with the Huffington Post: “The rollout ...
Read More »
 
Want To Have The (Absolute) Last Word……
August 06, 2014
…and have some fun with it? Write your own obituary and make it humorous and self-deprecating. That’s what Kevin McGroarty did. He wrote it when he knew the end was near, and all the newspaper had to do was fill in the date. Here it is: “Obituary Kevin J. McGroarty ...
Read More »
 
One Reason Our “Do Nothing Congress” Does Nothing
August 06, 2014
Much has been said about GOP “obstructionism” – particularly as it relates to President Obama’s liberal agenda. It’s clear that as far as Republicans are concerned, President Obama NEEDS to be obstructed. But little has been said or written about Democrat “obstructionism.” Yes – that definitely exists as well, and ...
Read More »
 
Obama’s “Legislative” Strategy
July 30, 2014
According to our Constitution, the Congress is supposed to MAKE the laws; the President is supposed to “faithfully EXECUTE” the laws, and the Judiciary is supposed to INTERPRET the laws (in a constitutional and legislative context). But now comes our President who believes his oath of office is not to ...
Read More »
 
[View More Blogs...]





 
Powered by
Morris Technology