Previously, one could posit that "only a barbaric nation kills its babies in the name of choice," but now we have another accusation that is related and just as foreboding: "Only a barbaric nation drafts its mothers and daughters into combat."
Such a policy inverts natural law and the rules that have grounded our civilization for thousands of years.
Men should protect women. They should not shelter behind mothers and daughters. Indeed, we see this reality every time there is a mass shooting. Boyfriends throw themselves over girlfriends, and even strangers and acquaintances often give themselves up to save the woman closest to them. Who can forget the story of 45-year-old Shannon Johnson wrapping his arms around 27-year-old Denise Peraza and declaring “I got you” before falling to the San Bernardino shooters’ bullets?
Ground combat is barbaric. Even today, men grapple with men, killing each other with anything they can find. Returning veterans describe countless incidents of hand-to-hand combat with jihadists ... That is war. It is not a video game. It is not a movie, where young Hollywood starlets karate-kick their way through masses of inept thugs and goons. When we order women into ground combat, we are ordering them into situations where men larger and stronger than they will show no mercy.
After nine months of scientifically monitored task force field tests, University of Pittsburgh researchers reported that all-male USMC task force units outperformed gender-mixed units in 69 percent (93 of 134) of ground combat tasks. Physical deficiencies evident in these field tests will undermine “survivability and lethality” in war ˗˗ the two paramount factors that the Marines identified in their report.
Secretary Carter’s unsupported claims that combat effectiveness will not degrade cannot withstand comparison with empirical data that the Marines produced in support of their now-overruled request for exceptions. His claim that there will be no quotas also stands in direct conflict with the administration’s stated priority: “gender diversity metrics” (quotas) of 25% women in the Navy and other services.
In order to meet these quotas, officials will have to implement the “Dempsey Rule,” named for the January 2013 admission of former Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey that standards too high for women would be questioned. Gender diversity quotas eventually will lower standards to levels that are equal but lower than before. This will happen without notice to Congress or accountability for the dangerous results.
Female-friendly training will leave men less prepared for harsh combat realities that will not change. It will also leave women more likely to suffer disproportionate injuries and resentment they don’t deserve.
And in case studies are too abstract, how about this assessment from the field:
I served 20 years on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps, and retired as Gunnery Sergeant. Along with multiple overseas deployments and combat-related exercises, I provided logistics and training support to combat arms and wing units. Believe me, I’ve been there. Which is why what I heard at the last GOP debate absolutely shocked me. At one point during the debate, I wondered if everyone had morphed into a liberal Democrat. Suddenly, three candidates proclaimed they supported women signing up for selective service, aka, the draft. I was extremely disappointed to hear Governor Christie say that women should not be discriminated against from selective service. Rubio felt selective service should be opened up for women and Bush agreed.
I was stunned – did any of these candidates understand the question and the reason behind it? The combat exclusion for women has been lifted. This means women can fight on the front lines now. Yes. That means they now can’t be discriminated from hand-to-hand combat with male ISIS fighters who are high on methamphetamines or brutal combat against Taliban. This means extended field operations outside of the wire, vulnerable to the most violent fighting in the world.
The three Republican candidates apparently bought into the left’s argument that this is an equal opportunity issue. No, this is a combat readiness issue. Period. Women in combat isn’t a feel good argument about “if she wants to do it” or “it’s her choice.” We’re talking about the difference between living or dying, and living means crushing an enemy whose only way to survive is by killing his opponent.
None of the candidates stated they researched the issue, or that they spoke to any of the military leaders who have requested exemption for infantry and commando units. So to me, many jumped on board the narrative to appeal to female voters. Before any candidate supports the draft, he or she needs to take a closer look to understand what it really means. It doesn’t mean women will be assigned to desk jobs to “Free a man to fight” like during WWII. It means women can and will be involuntarily assigned to combat and infantry units.
Be straight to the voters. Women in combat will cause women to die at a much higher rate then men in the next conflict.