15 August 2013 –
Is Throwing Baseballs
Like Throwing Hand Grenades? Yup.
Enshrined in baseball’s
Hall of Fame are twenty second basemen, all right-handed. Why? Because
it difficult to filed a grounder with the mitt on the right hand and then turn
smoothly to throw with authority with the left arm to first base to get the
runner out. It is even more time
consuming and difficult for a left-hander to take a relay throw from the
shortstop or third baseman, step on the base at second to force the runner coming
from first, and then pivot to make the throw to first base in time to complete
the double play. All this has to happen
within 3.5 seconds or the batter will already be at first. The physics and the geometry are immutable. The game demands right-handed ball players at
second base. It always has. Coaches, whose job it is to build winning
teams, have always steered left-handed ball players to one of the other eight
positions on the field. That is
baseball.
Some may say: Is that not unfair? Should baseball continue to claim its
preeminent role in society if it so baldly discriminates against a significant
minority of our people? Should not our
government leaders create a special commission—comprising at least 50%
lefthanded experts—to restructure the geometry and the rules of the game so
that lefthanders can finally exercise their full rights to play baseball? Should we not do this immediately? After all, a baseball Hall of Fame so harshly
tilted toward the right side of the spectrum will never be more than a shameful
relic of a narrow and bigoted past. The
sooner we implement these progressive improvements, the sooner the baseball Hall
of Fame will reflect all Americans, their talents, and their desires.
Enough.
I use this sarcastic example
to make a point about recent Department of Defense policy changes to allow women
to serve in small unit, special operations combat. Servicewomen now can volunteer for and, if
they pass the physical and skill requirements, become Rangers, SEALS, Air Force
Special Operators, and Marine combat squad members. How is this bad?
First: The rules and tools of tactical warfare—the
small unit combat in question—are measured by only one criterion: Do they win battles? Nothing else matters. I am sure that if left alone, the new policy
to open special ops units to servicewomen will pass into irrelevant obscurity. It is an immutable fact that few men and almost
no women can pass the physical requirements for prosecuting this special,
tactical warfare. Just as there is no policy
in baseball barring left-handed second basemen, the harsh rules of nature and
competition—winning and losing—have dictated the same in barring women from
such warfare, with or without a policy change.
Second: The motives and methods of those who have
pushed for women to serve in small unit combat closely resemble the motives and
methods of those fictitious meddlers who would change the geometry of baseball
to accommodate left -handed second basemen.
It is foolhardy. All of the advocates’
arguments avoid addressing the ultimate reason we go to war and then fight
tactical battles: to win. I fear that
the physical standards for entry into small unit combat teams will be lowered in
small combat units. These advocates would
contend that we cannot give the same number of medals for heroism to women as
we do to men unless women have the same combat opportunities. They would contend that we need to balance the
numbers in Valhalla by getting more women to serve in combat. It is apparent to me that winning means
different things to different people.
Sadly, in combat, the score is kept in body counts and surrenders. Less-than-capable small unit combatants die
faster and surrender more often.
No comments:
Post a Comment