Les Kinsolving hosts a daily talk show for WCBM in Baltimore. His radio commentaries are syndicated nationally. His show can be heard on the Internet 9-11 p.m. Eastern each weekday. Before going into broadcasting, Kinsolving was a newspaper reporter and columnist – twice nominated for the Pulitzer Prize for his commentary. Kinsolving's maverick reporting style is chronicled in a book written by his daughter, Kathleen Kinsolving, titled, "Gadfly."More ↓Less ↑
Reuters reports the following:
“The American Civil Liberties Union sued on Tuesday on behalf of four U.S. servicewomen to challenge a longstanding policy barring women from thousands of ground combat positions, citing the changing nature of warfare and fairness for career soldiers.
“The civil rights group argued in a legal complaint filed in federal court in Northern California that a military policy to bar women from combat roles on the basis of gender was unconstitutional.
“‘Nearly a century after women first earned the right of suffrage, the combat exclusion policy still denies women a core component of full citizenship – serving on equal footing in the military defense of our nation,’ reads the suit, on behalf of four women soldiers who have fought in Iraq or Afghanistan.”
From my friend, the Rev. Dick Kim of Michigan, a retired officer in U.S. Army Special Forces, I received an email that included the following:
“In my experience as a junior officer in Special Forces, there is no place for women in combat, or in combat units, whether that be infantry, armor, artillery, or the old Signal Corps. I can’t speak for the Navy, but the Love Boat incident and the current push to spend billions to make submarines [gender-integrated] speak for themselves. Failed at every level. Still failing, and we are told the problem is we don’t have enough of it.
“The idea of women in combat was the brainchild of former Colorado Rep. Patricia Schroeder, who was an anti-war activist prior to be elected to Congress. You might want to consider if her efforts were more pro-female or anti-military. If the former, she failed. Women debased to the level of men under stress are not an asset to anyone. A military sexually integrated to the lowest unit level, which is [gender-integrated] infantry squads, is a unit categorically unfit for combat. Between the male-female sexual tension, there are the fundamental roles of physical ability and psychological toughness.
“Unlike the late Rep. Schroeder, I have never met a woman who could do what we did in Special Forces for an extended period of time. I’ve never met a woman who could relieve herself lying down or go through her natural cycles in a hygienic manner in a primitive environment. I’ve never met a woman who could carry a ruck sack, one or two parachutes and a CWIE bag containing a 30-cal., a basic load of ammo and two or more hand grenades.
“Once the PC hawks get women in the infantry units and in submarines, they’ll push for a balanced number of women in each unit. Standards will have to slip to find these amazons, of course, and there will be quotas just as we have recruitment quotas for women now. With a much smaller military coming in the very near future, men who are vastly more qualified for these roles will be turned away.
“If I were an enemy of the U.S., I wouldn’t do a damn thing right now. I’d just sit back and wait until we have completed our march to total insanity.”
Columnist Robert Knight, on Dec. 3 in the Washington Times, wrote the following:
“In the ACLU’s parallel universe, women are just as aggressive, strong, fast and warlike as men. You know, like in the National Football League, where female linebackers strike terror in the hearts of Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers.”
And that begs the question: Why have these feminist extremists who want to completely co-ed our combat forces not sued to force all professional football teams to field at least five women on all plays?
And if that appears crazed, what about the feminists’ push for women in military combat, which, unlike pro football, is a matter of life and death?
Knight also writes:
“Much of the pressure for this march toward barbarism is coming from career feminist military personnel, who argue that lack of combat experience hurts their chances for advancement. In other words, because a few women want to climb the ladder of rank, all women in the military should be put at risk for combat duty, whether they want it or not.
“Hundreds of thousands of women have served and do serve honorably in the military and perform crucial jobs. They deserve every American’s gratitude and respect. Some have been killed or wounded while serving bravely in very difficult conditions.
“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. …
“In a summary of 30 years of research on women’s suitability for combat and heavy work duty, professor William J. Gregor of the School of Advanced Military Studies at Fort Leavenworth, Kan., concludes, ‘Few if any women possess the physical capacity to perform in combat or heavy military occupational specialties and none will outperform well-trained men. Training women with men to the same physical occupational standards dramatically increases the skeletal-muscular injury rate among women.’”
“Recently, the U.S. Marines opened its Infantry Officer Course to women.
“‘Only two of about 80 eligible female Marines have volunteered for the course – a grueling, three-month advanced regimen conducted at Quantico, Va., that was opened to women to research their performance,’ The Washington Times reported. ‘Of the two female volunteers, one washed out on the first day, along with 26 of the 107 men, and the other dropped out two weeks later for medical reasons, a Marine Corps spokesman said.’”
“Like it or not, women are far more likely to be injured than men, even in basic training. They are 100 percent more likely to become pregnant. …
“Even conservative lawmakers seem too terrified to ask such questions as:
“What happens to women who are captured? Should we care?
“If women achieve equal opportunity (and exposure) on the battlefield, do they have an equal ability to survive?
“Why is there an alarming increase in sexual assaults against women in the armed services?
“Do people realize that their daughters almost certainly will be subject to any future draft if combat exemptions are lifted?
“Is it really no more harmful for servicewomen who are mothers to be separated from their infants than when fathers are sent overseas? Should we care?
“The left wins by default when political correctness strangles honest inquiry.”