The prob­lem with women in com­bat

The Washington Times Daily - - Editorial -

Elaine Don­nelly is on point re­gard­ing the politi­cians run­ning the Pen­tagon, in­clud­ing the po­lit­i­cally cor­rect gen­er­als such politi­cians have bred (“Why would Obama send Amer­i­can girls into com­bat?” Com­men­tary, Nov. 21). Such in­di­vid­u­als will have to erode phys­i­cal stan­dards to put women into the in­fantry.

Any ra­tional hu­man would de­mand that our troops be fit enough to face our most likely foes face-to-face and win. Al­low­ing, or even worse, forc­ing women into roles such as in­fantry will lead to the deaths of many of our troops, both men and women, when com­bat hap­pens. The pri­mary mis­sion of the mil­i­tary dur­ing war is to elim­i­nate the threat, which gen­er­ally means killing the enemy. The mil­i­tary that does this best wins the war. There is no sub­sti­tute for vic­tory.

Con­sid­er­ing per­mit­ting women in com­bat is the most sex­ist thing the mil­i­tary can do. In so many words, it is like say­ing that women are in­fe­rior, and that in or­der to com­pete with men, they will be graded on a lower scale in the name of equal rights. That is all well and good so long as there is no com­bat. But when there is com­bat, women will be dis­crim­i­nated against in an even harsher way, and they will die at a higher rate and in greater num­bers than the men.

If this must come to pass, we ought to have the women serve in all-fe­male bat­tal­ions. This will cut down on all the sex­ual as­sault claims, and the men will not have to risk their lives pro­tect­ing the women from the enemy.



Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.