The Thinking 

Women Will Serve in Combat

January 23, 2013


DEFENSE Secretary Leon Panetta will announce later this week that thousands of combat positions will be opened to women, starting this year, according to senior officials at the Pentagon who informed the Associated Press of the news. The AP reports: “This decision could open more than 230,000 jobs, many in Army and Marine infantry units, to women.”

This is the Obama second term, hitting its stride. The Pentagon has been preparing for placing women more prominently on the front lines for years, at the urging of a small minority of military women, but the process will now be speeded up. For all their rhetoric about the interests of women and the war against women, liberals are happy to see women at war. Mothers who leave their children to go off to war, something all civilized societies have rejected, receive their approval. They have no instinctive revulsion at the sight of a woman in uniform wielding a gun. In fact, the idea of a woman with a gun — and a fantastic military career — is exciting. One can only assume, given this new freedom for women, that they will never be excluded from the draft again. There is absolutely no working principle left for excluding them from mandatory service.

This is the American woman. The effect on the national psyche is immense. Even women who will never serve in the Army will be affected. We are a nation of women warriors.

Scott Olson, Getty Images


—- Comments —-

Daniel S. writes:

I thought that the feminists assured us that women were infinitely more peaceful and opposed to violence then man. So why have they been so insistent that women receive the same opportunities to shoot Iraqis and Afghans as their male counterparts? Another feminist lie has been exposed. We see that these women have the same lust for violence and murder as any male they would deride and revile.

Perfesser Plum writes:

I respectfully disagree with Daniel S., who writes, “We see that these women have the same lust for violence and murder as any male they would deride and revile.”

I think those woman have a lust for showing off. I  see neither patriotism nor passion.  Merely posturing.  “Look at me. I have a gun. Sisterhood is powerful.”

What do they think? Combat is like Annie Get Your Gun?  “I can do anything you can do, better.”

You can see that half of the women in the photo don’t know how to hold the weapon. You could slap it out of their hands.

If they pulled the trigger, the rifle would fly backwards or they would fall over. They aren’t aggressive and they didn’t learn much from training.

I feel sorry for these 120 pound women warriors. I doubt they’ve ever seen what a high powered round will do when it hits you in the jaw. No more face. Or what an improvised explosive device will do when it blows up under you—nothing from the groin down. Bone sticking out of bloody pant leg 10 yards away.

God help those who come home without arms, legs, and faces. “Jenny got her gun,” indeed.

They’re going to be slaughtered on the altar of leftist vanity.

I don’t have words for this.

What will the smug hard core feminists say when the lambs come home in coffins, or show their melted faces on Oprah. Will they be proud? “I did that.” Or will they—appropriately–reach for the razor blade?

Sage McLaughlin writes:

It just hit me like a punch in the face–they’re going to try to draft my daughters. Anybody foolish enough to think, “But they would never go that far,” is in a coma.

We’re a nation run by barbarians.

Jill Farris writes:

I look at all the girls in that picture and think, Oh poor unloved girls whose fathers didn’t care enough to protect them.

I would like to know what percentage of those young women are from divorced homes. Yes, our divorce laws have been warped to favor women and infringe on a father’s rights but I will bet that the majority of the fathers of those enlisted girls have no contact with their daughters.

Yes, angry women are behind many of these horrible changes in our society but weak, abdicating men have allowed them.

Bruce B. writes:

I don’t believe that women will be drafted anytime in the near future. I wouldn’t bet against it but I think it’s unlikely. I think “choice” will rule in this matter. Contemporary liberalism sees “choice” (particularly when exercised by anyone but white Christian males) as a great thing. Women will probably be allowed to choose to serve in combat roles or to choose not to serve in combat roles.

Laura writes:

I agree that women will probably not be drafted, but only through an “unprincipled exception.” There is no longer any working principle for excluding them from mandatory service. They will probably be excluded from any wartime draft and yet exempting them will be patently unfair, given that so many military positions will be open to them in peacetime.

Kevin M. writes:

New combat roles = body bags. Mom is the new paraplegic. My sister has PTSD.

All of the horrific inflictions men endure via warfare are now invited upon the “gentler” sex.

This civilization is tunneling at rocket speed to the core of Planet Stupid.

Kevin adds:

Perfesser Plum writes:

“They’re going to be slaughtered on the altar of leftist vanity.

I don’t have words for this.”

I’d say those words are absolutely perfect. I’ll wager they will be chiseled onto the base of a large statue in Washington, D.C., sometime soon.

P.S. You recall those horrific beheading videos the Muslims are so good at making? Now imagine your daughter starring in one. Just who do you think our future wars will be against? The French?

Wheeler MacPherson writes:

What’s blackly hilarious is that on the same day this “victory” for feminism was announced, the U.S. Air Force was expressing how “appalled” it is at the extent of sexual wrongdoing in its ranks. One must ask again the question: What do the chairborne rangers in the corridors of power think is going to happen in combat environments, when normal social mores and restraint are violently removed?
Oh, they’re going to be appalled, all right. But this will be nothing in comparison to how mothers and fathers and husbands and brothers – who could have said something to the fledgling warriorettes but didn’t – are going to feel.

Paul writes:

I am astonished.  Even when I was only 162 pounds, I could have torn through multiple women at once.  Now they are thinking that maybe only women who can meet the same standards as men will be allowed into combat.  Since that is the case, why uproot rational tradition to satisfy a tiny number of freaks and a significant number of people ignorant of what traditionalism is all about?

This allowance of women is much less harmless when it is applied to activities such as auto racing.  Danika is a freak and should be relegated to competing against women only, as almost all other female athletes (if auto racing is athletics) are required to do.  But of course few are interested in the relatively awful performance of female basketball and baseball players.  The greedy sport Media wants a star to increase ratings and to reinforces its own obvious liberal hackism.  That Media, along with the grotesque Nancy Grace, savaged the innocent Duke Lacrosse players.  (All of her prosecutions should be suspect.)

There is a better example of liberal sports hackism.  At the beginning of the 2012 college football season, ESPN (which dominates the sports Media) was insisting that no one-loss SEC (Southeastern Conference) team should be allowed into the National Championship game while there were two other undefeated Division I teams.  The unstated reason was the SEC has won eight of the last ten National Championships, and the liberals insist we must have parity, equality.  They almost got their wish until the great and wonderful Kansas State and Oregon lost.

So then the hacks were left with undefeated Notre Dame, which Alabama (a one-loss SEC team) predictably (by all of Vegas) demolished.  (To brag, it would have been my LSU—another SEC team—had a freshman LSU cornerback, in the last seconds against Alabama, simply stayed where he was told to stay.)  Notre Dame and members of other conferences simply do not have to run the SEC gauntlet year in and year out.  Unlike other conferences, SEC teams are devoted to their conference.  We pulled for Alabama even though the great majority of the nation wanted the SEC defeated. And that is the lesson.  Armies must be able to run whatever gauntlet it takes to win, and it can’t be done with division.  Putting women in combat divides us in a visceral way.  Moreover, the men and women are screwing one another’s brains out.  What kind of father would support their daughter joining that culture?  Liberals are not going to jail women who get pregnant to avoid a bloody conflict.  So why should men join?

People don’t realize many women join the military, stay just long enough to qualify for veterans’ benefits, get pregnant, and get discharged.  We should not like to think about what is happening to the unborn children.

Pete writes:

When I was just the age of twelve or thirteen I met and “dated” a girl at summer camp named Sarah Schechter for about a week. A relationship time span which at that age is something actually quite normal. I hadn’t thought of her (understandably) in years. That was until I opened a newspaper (The New York Times I believe) one day and saw her photo looking back at me! It seems that not only was Sarah a full blown rabbi, but she was a rabbi with the United States Air Force. The first female rabbi EVER in that branch of the Armed Forces. As you could guess, she was now a poster child for the Air Force. Interviews with her were coming fast and furious. Sarah is a native New Yorker and her father is a rabbi as well. It seems that almost immediately after 9/11 she picked up the phone to enlist with any branch that would have her. When the Air Force found out she was a rabbi they snapped her up. Within a blindingly short period of time she was an officer and tending to the spiritual needs of the Air Force. From what I can remember she was also pregnant during this time as well. I don’t know where I am going with this but I thought it was an interesting story and one that shows just how politically motivated and liberal the United States Armed Forces have become. If you want to see the propaganda job, take a look at this page from the U.S. Air force. It lists some of the “Chaplains” (and kicks off with a Muslim Imam) and has a short video interview with Sarah. Pay special attention to the part of the video where she describes going out on deployment and looking up to the window to wave goodbye to her husband who was holding her still nursing daughter. The whole thing is just backwards and bizarre.

Pete adds:

On a side note, I should add that years later when I was around twenty-one I briefly dated another girl who ALSO was the daughter of a rabbi. This one of the Hasidic variety in Williamsburg, Brooklyn. Looking at and talking to her you would never guess that she came from a Hasidic family. After we split up I later came to find that she moved to Israel and had attained the rank of an officer with the IDF. It makes me wonder if there is something about rebellious daughters of rabbis that attracts them to the military. It also makes me wonder what this gentile was giving off to attract the daughters of rabbis? :- )

Fred Owens writes:

I’m working on slogans for Leon Panetta’s New World Army. Here’s one:

“To my American sisters: You’re Bad-Ass Killers now. Equal in Victory, Equal in Death.”

How does that sound?

Share:Email this to someoneShare on Facebook0Tweet about this on TwitterPin on Pinterest0Share on Google+0