24
January 2013 –
I
was going to take the day off from writing on my blog. I am tired.
It was hot and muggy today—not usual for the dry season here on the
equator in the Congo—and I walked all around a military training facility
assessing how much effort it is going to take to bring it up to snuff so that
we can train soldiers here again. I
drank three quarts of water when I finished my two hours in the sun. I really wanted to shower and fall into
bed. But, then I realized that I did
have something to say about Secretary Panetta’s leaked announcement that many
more combat roles, including serving in small, front-line combat units, will
be open to women in the near future.
1)
If
the decision had been made based on careful study of how women in combat roles
would increase the military’s capability to face challenges in the modern
battlespace, I would be less saddened by it.
But, that is not the case. Women
serving in combat units is the result of a push in the last generation to knock
down what the desiccated witches of the left considered a male bastion of
chauvinism and opportunity. I do not
deny that there may be unique military advantages to having women serve in
combat. But, the risk to our society of unstudied
and unintended consequences is obviously not of concern to those who have
pushed the hardest for this to happen. This
decision is probably the wrong thing to do, and we are doing it definitely for
the wrong reason. Social engineering, it
seems, reigns supreme.
2)
The
few modern, historical examples of women soldiers in combat do not support DoD’s
decision. The most prominent example is Israel. From its inception in 1947 through the 1967
war, Israel had women in combat units in its Defense Forces (IDF). After the ‘67 war, a study of the effects of women
in combat on combat effectiveness showed that it detracted from combat
effectiveness to a point where it was considered essential that the IDF pull
them from combat arms roles. The
evidence showed that even the young men and women who were raised in the kibbutzim
of the Zionists’ secular and sexually liberated society, not unlike feminists’ goal
for our society, could not work together effectively enough in the stress of
combat to ensure victory. Israel made
the decision to pull women out of direct combat roles because it was dangerous to
continue its current practice. Why did
Israel make such a decision? Because, Israel
must use its military to survive in a very rough neighborhood. Survival
trumps social engineering. Our decision
makers haven’t had such a life-or-death situation in a shooting war since the
Civil War. They have, however, consistently
bled our military over the decades in pursuit of poorly conceived foreign
policy objectives, adding women’s names to the casualty roles in increasing numbers. Leaders from both sides of the aisle have
followed the Progressive crusade to remake the world according to their vision
of what is right and “safe for democracy.”
If women in combat doesn’t work
in a survival setting, why should it work when troops are fighting for far less
obvious things? It won’t, and the
results will be dead soldiers.
3)
Women
in combat roles now will make it far easier to draft young women in the future.
Our Progressive leaders will eventually decide that we must, for social
engineering reasons, for reasons of “fairness” in an impending crisis, or to
take advantage of a doubling of the eligible pool of draftees, conscript into
the military young women in equal numbers as young men. Our society says it values families and the
unique, cohesive tasks that women have in maintaining them and in raising
children. But, women in conscripted combat
roles will give us even less force to maintain that embattled position. Another nail in the coffin of the traditional
family. The left is winning a battle in
its war on our society with this decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment