Published: Tuesday, Feb. 5 2013 12:00 a.m. MST
Exactly. Unfortunately, desire is not the only thing that gets the job done on
the front lines. Its ability. And yes, much of that ability is physical
ability.Troops depend on the ability(mostly physical) of their
fellow troops for protection.The liberals would like us to be
believe that every person alive truly is equal.What if the NBA Miami
Heat kicked off half their team and brought in 5 women from the WNBA. Lebron
James should have no problem with that right? Because after all, the liberals
tell us we are all equal.If that were the case, we'd see many
women dominating in the NFL and the NBA.But we dont. Because they
arent.Don't force a WNBA player on the Miami Heat and make
Lebron James suffer the consequences.Its a simple analogy, but the
actual scenario is much more serious.It's a matter of life and
death, and if we've decided that a certain level is required to protect
troops, why would we lower that bar suddenly just to make the liberals happy,
when we've already said this is the level required?
Take into account the affect of women returning from war and suffering from
PTSD, impacting their productive return and integration to their personal lives,
family and society. The consequence is an increase in children suffering from
lack of an effective mother. Any mother or mother-to-be who is suffering from
such trauma will have a negative effect on family and society. This should not
ChrsB"What if the NBA Miami Heat kicked off half their team and
brought in 5 women from the WNBA. Lebron James should have no problem with that
right? Because after all, the liberals tell us we are all equal."=========== You can't even stay on topic.Just
like with women in combat - Those "women" would still have to try
out to make the team first.No one is forced, No one is given
exceptions to the rules.I'd wager, that if a woman from the
WNBA was scoring 44 points, 16 assists, selling out every game, and was taking
her team to the NBA play-offs -- the owners and the fans could careless about
gender, age, race, or religion.The point is, women should be at
least allowed the "chance" to try out.Besides - I served in
the militray, in combat, with women.If they could do everything we could
do, why not let them?
I am so grateful to see Kathleen Parker's opinion on this subject. It is
so ridiculous to consider putting women in combat.
Re: ". . . 'women' would still have to try out to make the team
first. No one is forced[.] No one is given exceptions to the rules.That's the point you apparently missed.Women's tryouts
are not the same as men's. As GEN Dempsey noted, it would become a
political issue, with standards that have served us well for generations being
suddenly suspect, and the final decision on relaxing them placed in the hands of
political appointees, not tactical leaders.This brave new
women-in-combat world will be short-lived. It won't be successful and will
get people killed. It will be quickly abandoned the next time the shooting
starts.Soldiers -- male and female -- are not as stupid as
politician hope. Upon deployment to Bosnia, as a result of a Hillary Clinton
initiative, we were placed in GP-Medium tents without regard to sex. This
integration lasted about 30 seconds, as women demanded our shelter halves and
poncho liners to construct a wall between their end and ours.
This letter cites indoctrination...and then cites zero sources!Opinion, is opinion, is more empty and faceless opinion.You
can't claim other people do it, and then give zero facts yourself and claim
you are 'different.'Any argument made about the harms of
women in combat could be used with men. PTSD, injury, disability, etc.But we still sent over 4,000 brave American men and women into Iraq.As such, any arguments against women in combat due to injury, PTSD or death,
is really about sending ANYONE in to combat. When more people serve
our countries military, maybe others will not be so eager to send others out, to
I appreciate this author for saying some things that need said. That being
said, I do not have a problem with a women, off site, running a drone in
Afghanistan, or any where else in the world. Some of these jobs are perfectly
okay with me if a woman does them.But, putting on that vest, the 45
pound pack, and joining her "brothers" who run, literally run, up a hill
for 2 or 3 of miles without crapping out and slowing down the rest of the unit?
I don't think so!Should we actually expect the physical build
of a woman on the front lines to limit the team? No, we should not. If we
allow this to happen, the end result will be an overall weakening of our armed
forces in general.I can hear it now: 'The physical ability of
our soldiers should be modified (read toned down) from what they are now - so
that women can pass them.'EVERY enemy in the world that we
have, would be welcoming such a naive (and inevitable) change in the ability of
our soldiers. Every one!
Women in combat is fine with me... which means they must also register for the
draft, just like guys now have to do. Anything less is grossly unfair.
What amuses me is that years ago when the LDS Church opposed the ERA, two of the
arguments against the amendment by their sycophants was that if passed women
would end up in combat and their would be unisex toilets. We have had unisex
toilets for quite a while now, and now we have women eligible for combat
assignments. Go figure!
If we have a problem putting women in combat roles maybe we should think a bit
more before putting anyone in a combat role. The gender gap doesn't make
anything less stupid.
This article is nothing more than an opinion piece supported by zero
quantitative and questionable qualitative data. The military has done more
research about the inclusions of women on the front lines, which many currently
do see active combat, and has decided that there will no or only a marginal
impact by allowing women to serve, otherwise they would not have made the rule
change. Let's all stop being armchair quarterbacks and let the
professionals do their work.
How about this?Don't like women serving our country?Fine.Get off your seat and do it yourself.
- “Who has courage to point out problems with women in combat?’
–Only those who don’t mind being politically
incorrect.My one question about having female combat personnel is:
would it enhance or hamper the objective of the armed forces? If there will be
no adverse impacts of any kind, on individual units, field operations, morale,
or any other aspect of the military’s mission, then let’s go ahead
and put women in combat if they meet the overall qualifications.But
let’s keep in mind what that mission is. The Army, Navy, Marine Corps, and
Air Force do not exist to provide career opportunities for anyone, either male
or female. They exist to win wars and protect the United States.
First of all Ms. Parker is showing a vast ignorance of war today. Cooks, are
exposed to combat. In todays wars you don't go looking for the enemy most
of the time, the enemy comes to you..in your tent, on the road, on humanitarin
missions. Every soldier is in combat now. Secondly, where's the talk of
our beloved friend Israel. They not only have women in combat but much of what
Ms. Parker complains about, some common standards, some different standards, are
in fact a part of the Israeli military and it works great. There's much for us to figure out..but women in the military..women in
combat..done, and done well.
Good grief Mark B. You do realize modern warfare has moved beyond John Wayne
charging the hill in many ways. Yes, there are ground battles.. Just ask the
Iraqi's how well trench warfare worked out for them last time. There are
many aspects of combat. Some are very local, and very high intensity. Some
are controlled from a control center in the middle of Nevada.Just
like to get into the Seals - not everyone can get in. Not every man can get in.
Who ever applies for that service, needs to pass the requirements. But this
is far different than flying a chopper into combat zones. This is way
different than commanding a patriot missile battery. This is far different than
firing a howitzer. Not all these require your to be a WWF look alike.So lets get off the extremes. A woman can operate a surface to air battery.
A women can operate armor. Put your mail ego away and realize that technology
has entered the battlefield, and it doesn't need hulk hogan or a john wayne
wannabe to operate it.
PaganSalt Lake City, UTHow about this?Don't like
women serving our country?Fine.Get off your seat and do
it yourself.10:14 p.m. Feb. 5, 2013==========Agreed!As one veteran to another -- Why is it, the
loudest against any minority group (blacks, gays, women, muslims, etc) - have
NEVER served in the Military?It think it's more an issue of
ignant bigotry, than an actual issue of combat rediness.
Here's the bottom line. If you can't perform 300 on the Marine Corps
PFT, or pretty close to it, you have NO BUSINESS in a Marine Corps infantry
Kilpack - you do realize though there is a lot more to a combat corps than
infantry, right? We are way past the old John Wayne coming over the hill with
guns ablaze. Let’s choose who fills what roles based on skills and
capability, and not Y or X chromosomes.We may end up with the same
results, but at least it is based on something real, and less on something that
restricts opportuntiy based on something arbitrary.
UtahBlueDevilkillpack is absolutely correct. And the push for women
to be in combat arms also includes a push for them to be in the infantry. Most
other combat arms positions also require a lot of upperbody strength such as
loading artillery or loading the main gun of an Abrams tank. Check out first
hand accounts of Marine infantry in Afghanistan that took FET teams with them
and you will find that most found the FET teams slowed them down and hampered
the mission. If you don't know what a FET team is, then you have no
qualification to make an educated decision on this topic.The
opinions of those who serve and have served in combat arms were never taken into
consideration when making this decision to allow women in combat arms. POG
colonels and generals go along to get along and obtain the next star.
Re: "We are way past the old John Wayne coming over the hill with guns
ablaze."Sorry, but we're not.And, anyone who
fails to understand that, has no real business commenting.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments