Tuesday, June 18, 2013

Military Standards Changing to Allow Females


They fought for Civil Unions until they got them, then they argued that Civil Unions were unfair. The demand was now marriage.

They cried about military application questions about homosexual behavior, then fought the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy that was supposed to be a compromise. The demand was now to destroy the right of the military to make decisions about who can serve in the ranks.

As Rush Limbaugh recently noted, they are assuring us that the fines and ineligibility for Obamacare benefits for illegals being put on the "Path to Citizenship" will only stand until the bill becomes Law, when they will promptly begin the fight to eliminate such unfair penalties and restrictions.

When the Clintonian changes to allow females to serve as fighter and helicopter pilots and some other military specialties that did not entail direct and sustained contact with enemy forces was put into place, we were given all sorts of assurances that this would put the question to rest.....

Then we get the following:

"Military leaders are ready to begin tearing down the remaining walls that have prevented women from holding thousands of combat and special operations jobs near the front lines.

Under details of the plans obtained by The Associated Press, women could start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year later.

The military services have mapped out a schedule that also will include reviewing and possibly changing the physical and mental standards that men and women will have to meet in order to quality for certain infantry, armor, commando and other front-line positions across the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines. Under the plans to be introduced Tuesday, there would be one common standard for men and women for each job.

You read that correctly - the standards will be relaxed to enable females to pass the training courses and grueling unit training schedules. Not long ago  we were told in no uncertain terms that the standards would not be changed. Catch the Newspeak? "that men and women" means that it will be easier for the males too. "One common standard" that guarantees, not mediocrity, but a train wreck of a military - a weakened, effeminate military. If standards were kept the same, perhaps one female infantry volunteer out of a hundred would pass the training course. One or two females in an infantry battalion (Out of 500 to 1,200 Marines for example) would be unfair or just prove that the elite was wrong. The remedy the unfair situation, or more likely to avoid having to admit that they were wrong, we will simply make the standards easier to meet.

Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel reviewed the plans and has ordered the services to move ahead."

What did you expect from Chuck Hagel? The man couldn't admit the truth about Israel's plight if he himself lived within range of rocket attacks from Hezbollah or Hamas:

"The move follows revelations of a startling number of sexual assaults in the armed forces. Earlier this year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the sexual assaults might be linked to the longstanding ban on women serving in combat because the disparity between the roles of men and women creates separate classes of personnel -- male "warriors" versus the rest of the force........."

General Demspey blames the warrior culture of the military - a place that has a far lesser problem with rape than our peacenik colleges, for creating an environment in which women are not safe. Dempsey also plays the Orwellian game here; he ignores the enormous problem of moral decay across the US (Fostered by the Left), and he also leaves out the fact that a civilian population would most certainly rather see US troops approaching their town than those from almost any other country. Has anyone read accounts of wholesale rape (Incudning of children) by UN Peacekeeping forces?

Every step they take is just a foot in the door for the next pogrom on our society.

Our military is being gutted right before our eyes. Budget cuts and force reductions are a different issue; what we are witnessing is the destruction of the effectiveness of our front-line units.

When was the last time that you hear someone say "The problem is that no one wants to work with the other side any more."? That was a talking point straight out of the Leftist playbook - demand one destructive change after another and then pretend that the actual problem is a lack of cooperation. It's kind of like a guy that beats the hell out of his wife and chalks it up to "a marital spat".

I have rhetorically asked on several occasions what the point would be when enough is enough for the average American; the point when people stop being quiet and begin to act.

We are no longer in a position to run around with fire extinguishers, putting out fires. The people have no option other than to admit to themselves that our system is broken; run by a cabal of pseudo-intellectual Leftists hell-bent on eliminating all differences, especially those of gender. Working with them are the traitorous Generals, anxious to sell their credibility for post-retirement political appointments and CNN/MSNBC speaking contracts. 

Bathed with testosterone while still in eutero, boys, unless they are psychologically and emotionally ruined by the restrictions imposed on them by prideful and shameless parents, will begin play-acting violent acts from the time that they can pick up a stick. They imagine themselves fighting and defending their family, country, or town from bad guys. They are drawn to such role-play like flies to honey. They are hard wired to not only fight, but to fight with the intent to eliminate the the opponent. Boys play-act firefighting for the very same reason; the fire is an enemy and it must be destroyed. I will never forget the impression that I received as a young boy watching the scene of the final assault on the Alamo in  Disney's Davey Crockett. It did not matter to me that my side lost - I wanted to be on that wall doing what I could. To this very day, I am drawn to accounts of  last-ditch acts of defense from history, Thermopylae, Acre, Constantinople, Fort St. Elmo on Malta - my sympathies are with those who refused to yield despite the odds.

This readies the male mind, not to endure in a violent environment, but often to thrive in one.

Females, unless subjected to massive and ongoing psychological trauma, will display maybe a passing interest in such play. 

Our enemies are howling with laughter and rubbing their hands in anticipation of female prisoners. Why invade Christian countries for sex-slaves when the enemy will bring prospective ones to us?

If we cannot throw these people out, then the US must be separated. Left the Left have their half of the country with the only freedoms being that of any and all types of sex and to pay a doctor to kill you. Let them have a softened military - one that cannot be deployed unless our technological  superiority over that of the enemy is so great that the troops will not have to engage opposing forces.  Use the search bar in the top right of this page and type "secession" for further arguments germane to that subject.

The following is an excerpt from the first of several links below, all of which concern the reality of Combat Arms units in the military:

A fighting force needs people capable not only of being able to shoulder and fire a weapon, but also those who can carry, extra ammunition, body armor, communications gear, sufficient quantities of water, tripods for machine guns and base plates for mortars, etc., and still be able to relentlessly deliver aimed fire at their opponents for sustained periods of time.

Another factor not taken into account by the "girls are as good as boys" mentality is that nothing guarantees that any fighting force will always be able to operate in the manner in which they expected the operation to proceed. Sure, we have tanks, armored personnel; carriers, etc, but what happens of an enemy force of substantial size is able to approach one's position and attack at close quarters? When something like this occurs, being able to shoot a weapon like it is done at a rifle range or other training conditions is only a small part of what is now needed. The enemy must me repelled by vicious and terribly violent actions that are both physically and mentally exhausting. Not only must one be able to shoot, move and communicate while carrying his rifle, he may also have to pick up a machine gun, move it to another position, set it up, and have it delivering fire in a matter of seconds. We cannot ignore the possibility that the battle will turn into a matter of who can kill whom when ammunition is not longer available. At that point, swinging rifles and the utilization bayonets, knives, entrenching tools, axes/tomahawks, and fists are what will make the difference. 

Men are also much less likely to falter on a psychological level in combat. No one claims that men never suffer form Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. The difference is that a man's mind is programmed to override the otherwise overwhelming fear during a high-stress situation. It is far more likely that a man, when faced with the powerful fear of being killed, will immediately be able to turn the switch and convert that fear into either a resolve to kill as many of the enemy as possible or to descend into an outright rage. A related factor is that that men are much more likely to so fear the loss of respect from their peers that would result from allowing fear to impair the ability to "keep up" in a fight that one, who would otherwise run away, will stand and fight with a fury to avoid having to be ashamed when faced with his teammates after a battle.
Even the normally mundane task of staffing a guard post at a checkpoint can turn into a maelstrom of hectic and savage violence in a second. That checkpoint is in place for a reason; it is needed both to prevent the entrance of an enemy and to serve as an observation post from with communications can be made so that reaction forces can be deployed in the event of an attack. If we allow women in combat roles, then we must allow that there will come a time when a checkpoint with be staffed entirely or almost entirely by females. In an event such as this, we are not looking at an infantry company in which one or two female soldiers are not going to make an appreciable difference in the fighting strength if the unit. At this point, those who staff the checkpoint are the fighting unit, and there is little between them and the inner perimeter of a military unit. That position must be defended with a ferocity, the nature of which is almost unimaginable. Are to assume that a force comprised of, say, experienced Taliban fighters, will be held off by females for a sufficient amount of time to deploy a reaction force to the threatened area?

No comments:

Post a Comment