Let’s be clear about one thing: Radical feminists’ groups on the left hate the military. They would like to eliminate it, but since they can’t, they are hellbent on controlling it.
A major milestone toward that end was reached Monday when a military advisory commission recommended our military end the policy that prevents women from serving in ground combat units.
Placing women in combat makes about as much sense as putting them in a shark feeding tank, but radical feminists have been browbeating Congress and the Pentagon for the last several decades to make this a reality. Why? It’s quite simple. Few officers make it through the ranks without combat experience. Of those that do reach the rarified air of general or admiral without this experience, a surprising number are women. However, the chance of one of these female officers being appointed to lead an entire branch of the military is nil. That’s what this current push is all about.
What is the name of this “important” commission that issued the report? It’s the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, and the name says it all. It was created by an act of Congress in 2009 – when Democrats controlled everything – and signed into law by President Obama. The commission included some retired military offices. However, it was lean on those with infantry and Special Operations experience and top-heavy with those with an “equal opportunity” background.
Elections have consequences! Now that this predictable report has been issued, the skids have been greased to make this long-sought feminist’s goal a reality.
Phyllis Schlafly, the original “anti-feminist,” teams up with her niece in a tour-de-force defense of traditional womanhood — don’t miss “The Flipside of Feminism: What Conservative Women Know — and Men Can’t Say”
For the last several decades, the military has been bogged down with equal-opportunity and diversity issues. However, the military was never intended – nor can it function effectively – as an equal-opportunity employer. That’s why we don’t have tanks with wheelchair ramps. It would be a needless expense.
Nevertheless, we have wasted billions of taxpayer dollars putting power steering on military motor pool vehicles so women can drive them and retrofitting combat aircraft so that women can fly them. More recently, we spent an additional $4,000 per bunk to allow women to serve on aircraft carriers and an additional $300,000 per bunk to allow women to serve on submarines.
But what about the costs in women’s lives? It may be unfair that the average man is six inches taller and posses 42 percent more upper-body strength than the average woman, but it is a reality. The dirty little secret is that double standards have been employed and laws have been ignored to help feminists achieve their goal. As a result, many women have died needlessly.
In 1994, Secretary of Defense Les Aspin eliminated the “risk rule,” which blurred the lines between combat and combat support and placed many more women in harm’s way. Still, there is a huge difference between combat and combat support. Serving in a military supply, escort or police unit is vastly different from serving in a unit whose mission is to seek out and engage the enemy, kill or be killed. In that environment, clearly women do not have an equal chance to survive nor do their male comrades who must depend on fellow soldiers to survive.
Do the vast majority of enlisted women in the military want the honor of serving as cannon fodder so a few women officers can work their way up the Pentagon ladder? The polls of these women have consistently shown that, “thank you very much,” they do not!
Over the years, women in the military have served this country with honor and distinction. As a result, 134 have died in Iraq or Afghanistan, and many more were seriously injured. Many of these women were mothers with one or more children under the age of 18. In contrast, we lost only 16 women in Vietnam and six in the first (short) Persian Gulf War.
Many women in those combat support units have found themselves in fire fights, and they have displayed great courage. Feminists hail this as a victory, and they are willing to step over the bodies of their fallen comrades to achieve their goal of running the military. President Obama and many of our elected representatives in Congress are willing to sacrifice enlisted women to advance this feminist goal. We must not allow that to happen!
The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. Let us not forget that. It is not about achieving diversity on the battlefield and equality in the Pentagon.