January 25, 2013

“Gen. Dempsey: If Women Can’t Meet Military Standard, Pentagon Will Ask ‘Does It Really Have to Be That High?’”

Of course.  Because you can’t have “equality” until you have homogeneity.  And to reach that you need social engineers and political masterminds to set up a system whereby that is encouraged and enforced — regardless of the ancillary effects, which in this case has to do with something so trivial as creating the best conditions for combat effectiveness and military victory.

CNS News:

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”

Dempsey’s comments came at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Sec. Leon Panetta Thursday, announcing the shift in Defense Department policy opening up all combat positions to women.

Said Dempsey:

“Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

As Mark Levin noted on Wednesday, why is it that such an important issue is being pushed through by a presidential appointee without any kind of public hearing or national dialogue?  What will be the legal ramifications of such a change to policy if, say, we re-introduce a draft; or if, say, agent provocateurs (think a fit Sandra Fluke) sign on to combat units and then use that time to detail “sexual harassment” issues in order to feed the feminist litigation monster — after all, soldiers with Playboy pinups and lots of sick male sexual talk, creating an unwelcoming environment to the female soldier?  Can we really have that? — a move that will further weaken an already weakened and increasingly demoralized military?

For my own part, I believe if a woman soldier can meet the high standards for physical preparedness to enter into infantry positions, and it is her desire to fight on the front lines, that she has a legitimate gripe should she be prevented from doing so. And that’s because we set those standards where they are now not to prevent women from entering combat, but to insure that those who do go into combat can handle lugging 120lb rucksacks and weapons on 7 mile hikes, or move heavy machinery, or have the muscular stamina to complete a long firefight.  So those standards need to be kept in place, and no, the military branches should not have to justify their training threshold to political ideologues looking to take credit for creating social change — because they’ve long kept research on that training and the ability of women soldiers to match it.  Those few who do?  Should have that acknowledged.

That having been said, the military should not be a cauldron for social experimentation, and there will inevitably be a change in dynamic, because men and women — though they can share the same level of ability — are still biologically different, and those differences play a role in the social dynamic they’re placed into.

Would the military be open to the idea of an all-female army?  An all-female infantry unit?  If not, why not?  And if so, then why would they wish to introduce potential distractions into a fighting force?

The point being, there are a vast number of considerations that need to be discussed, from the potential for pregnancy during long deployments to protocols for battlefield capture — rape and sexual brutalization of America’s daughters is perhaps not something we as a society are ready for — and this move circumvents all that discussion in order to lay claim to “groundbreaking” egalitarianism that may prove ill-advised, not least because it may gin up civilian protest against some future necessary military action, making politicians less likely to defend the country using military power.

Which, in the leftist long-game, may just be the point.

 

 

Posted by Jeff G. @ 11:44am
42 comments | Trackback

Comments (42)

  1. There’s nothing fair about combat.

    The point being, there are a vast number of considerations that need to be discussed, from the potential for pregnancy during long deployments to protocols for battlefield capture

    Then there’s hygiene. Who gets to/has to do the leech check on a female soldier after a river crossing? And how about Muslims? Does a Muslim soldier have to share a foxhole for days with a haram female soldier? Whose special interests trump?

  2. Pentagon cuts and a reduced standard of fitness.

    It’s almost like they want the secessionists to try it and succeed.

  3. i see this more as an experiment in how best to utilize scarce resources

    it’ll be interesting to see the results

  4. Can you imagine a woman doing weeks out in the field, having her period?

    I’m almost ok, if the women agree to being implanted with long-term birth control.

    What could be the objections?

  5. When he said this:

    “We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.”

    The assumption was that he would build up a civilian force. Now it appears the means to be used is to downgrade the military to be the equal of the TSA & DHS.

  6. Plenty of men can’t qualify for combat, so any talk of lowering standards to accommodate women is stupid. So, that’s why proggs are talking about it.

    Now, their base will demand the right for women to go into combat. The GOP will debate themselves over if stopping the women from warring will make them look like they are at war with women, then Hillary will give’em a smug little nod, the GOP will wet itself and declare republicans that think women aren’t the same as men aren’t allowed in their big tent anymore.

    After that, Boner will really be in a strong position for the debt ceiling talks coming up! Three dimensional chess my friends, maybe even four.

  7. “Does it really have to be that high?”

    I think this question needs to be answered by the male members of their combat units, since they’re likely the ones who would suffer if the standards are lowered. For example, if a male soldier is injured on the battlefield, do his female unit mates have the same physical abilities to move him out of harms way/assist him in evacuating? If the unit is involved in an urban assault (such as is described in the book “House to House”) do the female members of that unit have the ability to engage in hand-to-hand combat with an enemy, or will this put the male members of the unit in a position to provide assistance?

  8. Kipnis [11:55]: “It’s about the role of nature as having some kind of moral force, and the idea that there are natural gender roles. So I first of all think that all arguments that proceed from that notion of nature are suspect in one way or another, because we are entirely selective about the arguments that we make about nature: we like nature when it’s a nice day at the beach, we don’t like nature when it means being killed by a tsunami, we like flush toilets rather than defecating in the backyard, we want to have sex without– we want to have sex-lives without having to raise and support twenty-five children. So there are ways in which technology and modernity have over-ridden nature that I think most of us are in favor of. So all arguments that resort to nature always seem to me immediately dubious or incredibly selective and I think somewhat disingenuous. So the idea that there are natural gender roles between men and women and that proceed from, you know, some essential nature, this is going to be a disagreement between us.”

  9. “What could be the objections [no birth control implants]?

    Uh, decades of women demanding complete control over their reproductive health (“My body, my choice!!”) to the point that they expect others to fully fund it without question or judgement. There’s no way in hell feminists would consider allowing the military any say in that area.

  10. So the idea that there are natural gender roles between men and women and that proceed from, you know, some essential nature, this is going to be a disagreement between us.”

    This is more about biology than “gender roles”, else there would be no need to discuss lowering qualification standards.

    I’ve known plenty of women more suited psychologically to combat than I, my ex wife’s attorney for instance, but I assert there are damn few that could take me in a physical fight. And I’m just an average ordinary man.

  11. If the Pentagon lowers our standards will our enemies lower theirs?

  12. Notice what is interesting about the term ‘role’. Nature, it seems, can also be assigned or chosen to take on a role, like Clint Eastwood could do, one day playing the part of the tough police detective, another day playing a role singing “I Talk to the Trees“. So much for roles in Ms. Kipnis’ world? And a (non-existent) nature consigned thereto.

  13. rape and sexual brutalization of America’s daughters is perhaps not something we as a society are ready for

    What was her name… got captured in a convoy and raped during the opening days of the Iraq war. IIRC, this was used as an example of how terrible war is, and how evil GWB was to launch a non-UN-sanctified war against the peace-loving, kite-flying people of Iraq — not as a the start of a “national dialogue” on the question of having women soldiers in the first place.

    As some clever person said, you can judge a society by how it treats it’s women and children. Our culture still mostly (and correctly) places a higher value on women; men are mostly disposable by comparison. When a women is raped by Iraqi beasts, it’s horrifying and shocking. When a man is raped and killed by equally-useless Libyans, it’s scarcely even mentioned. And when a man is raped by his cell-mate Tyrone, well hell, that’s a laughing matter so accepted that it’s hack-y and trite, the sort of humor you’d expect from Carlos Mencia.

    See also Aurora, and the stories of guys getting killed while shielding their wimmen-folk from the red-headed maniac with the gun. That’s brave and honorable, and more-or-less expected behavior for men, at least as a standard to aspire to. Has there ever been a case of a woman taking a bullet for her man? “Do whatever you want to me, just don’t hurt him!” — has that ever been said, barring the “him” == “my son” case?

    Not that I’m complaining, mind you. I think this is the way things should be, and therefore the Left are busily trying to dismantle this aspect of our culture. Because they suck.

  14. We modern men have been taught simply not to care ‘how things should be’, but look first to ‘how things are‘. The new term of the day [circa 1513] is realism, the thingyness of things.

  15. How is “combat” being defined? Women are still not to be used in the Infantry, is my understanding. There are plenty of women who are pilots, artillery, and nurses and doctors, as well as aircraft mechanics and midshipman in the Navy.

    The idea of women being billeted with men is a bad one. Three men and a woman in a foxhole? It sounds like the plot of a bad porno movie. If men are going to treat women like one of the boys in combat, how is this going to further relationships between the sexes off the field of battle? If a woman is on watch and falls asleep, is her sargeant going to beat her ass and report her to his higher ups the same way he would a man?

    What about transport? Amphibious vehicles are built to hold 25 men and their gear, but are often pressed into hold nearly twice that many. No one is going to pull over when someone has to piss. It’s humiliating enough for a guy to pee into a bottle in the presence of his mates, let alone in front of women. Turn that around and imagine a woman trying to be dainty about not splashing her boots. What about when someone gets a lower GI infection and the diarrhea that comes with it whether or not one is in transport or marching? Not to mention menstrual periods and not getting to shower for a month or more.

    It’s hot in the desert. You’re stuck wearing the same clothes, socks, underwear and boots for weeks. Your skin gets blistered and irritated from chafing and sweating. Who wants to strip off and get hosed down with their whole company when they make it to base or to camp?

    The logistics are a nightmare and I haven’t even thought out the shooting part of it. Female gets her hed blown off. Does she get left behind as you evac the wounded and the dying? Don’t tell me we bring everyone back, because sometimes you can’t.

    Bad idea.

  16. John, that was Jessica Lynch.

  17. “. . . how is this going to further relationships between the sexes off the field of battle?”

    But surely this isn’t a relevant question, since both Sec. Panetta and Gen. Dempsey are foremost concerned with winning the battles and wars in which US servicemen and servicewomen will be engaged, and therefore necessarily with the improvement of this likelihood (winning!) through the introduction of women on the frontlines of battle. Why else would such a change in longstanding policy be made?

    Can’t think of a single reason.

  18. It’s almost as if they want the secessionists to try it and succeed.

    McGehee, I was going to point that out as a possible upside.

    How depressing it is that I find that to be an upside, I’m choosing not to think about.

  19. Other than, “Look! Shiny!” to get our eyes off the ball that is the economy, the sweep of Jihadi-ism across the globe, the economy, Benghazi (“What difference does it make?!”), Kerry and Hagel’s appointments, et al.

    I can’t think of a thing.

  20. Anybody have a chart showing enlistment rates over the years? I suspect part of the answer is there…

  21. “Would the military be open to the idea of an all-female army? ”

    Who knows. Ask your SF buddy his opinion. Horse’s mouth; straight to.

  22. Lee, I don’t believe enlistment is down. Our problem is that we are spread awfully thin (3-4 not-wars) and our aircraft, ships, and armored vehicles are aging and over-used.

  23. How is “combat” being defined?

    It means that all barriers are hereby dissolved: no distinctions allowed.

    how is this going to further relationships between the sexes off the field of battle?

    If gays can openly serve without there being a problem, then why not introduce women?

    </sarc>

    Look, the primary purpose of this maneuver is NOT to promote some idiotic ideal of gender equality-through-sameness, though that is definitely one factor.

    The primary purpose is to further wreck the military. They know damn good and well that women on the front lines won’t improve readiness: they want to disrupt good discipline and morale.

    Dennis Prager once explained that the purpose of those odd commandments against mixing linen and woolen threads in the same cloth were to exemplify that God places importance on differentiation: that all things have their place and should be sorted and dealt with accordingly.

    It’s the work of the devil to undifferentiate, to homogenize, to conflate. Like the guy in 1984 who was proud of himself for eliminating words from the dictionary—thereby effacing all nuance by cramming everything into one all-purpose word—the Left knows that it’s not in their best interest for society to have all those options.

    Public/private, secular/religious, male/female, sacred/profane, vulgar/refined, child/adult: they’ve been waging war against these vital distinctions since the beginning, using the terminology of “equality” and “egalitarianism” to defend all the barriers and walls and levees and dams and fortresses they’ve been tearing down.

    They have the exquisitely useful example of the awful dichotomy between black and white that we used to maintain: they can use the abolition of the apartheid mentality as a justification for every distinction they destroy.

    Remember when the Berlin Wall came down? Remember how people came out with sledgehammers and pounded it with all their pent-up rage?

    That was a wall what needed knocking down. Now imagine that, flush with their victory over that wall, they continue knocking down other walls: on houses, schools, hospitals.

    That’s the Left: All walls are the Berlin Wall, and nobody’s gonna say different.

  24. Now imagine that, flush with their victory over that wall, they continue knocking down other walls: on houses, schools, hospitals.

    That’s the Left: All walls are the Berlin Wall, and nobody’s gonna say different.

    Knocking down the Berlin Wall was a good thing. The fall of the Iron Curtain was a good thing.

    These other things are not like the others.

  25. Car in says January 25, 2013 at 12:05 pm

    Can you imagine a woman doing weeks out in the field, having her period?

    I’m almost ok, if the women agree to being implanted with long-term birth control.

    What could be the objections?

    Limbaugh had it all planned out today: have Amazon brigades bivouacked together so their cycles sync up and only turn them loose when they are all pms’ing together.

    Don’t have to worry about pregnancies and woe to any enemy in their path.

  26. I think that’s a part of the reluctance some have for a female president. Women, at certain times, are really quite insane.

    Can you imagine the president, PMSing something fierce, and the first gentleman left his underwear on the bathroom floor? With the nuclear football right there

  27. I don’t want a woman president. Ever. I don’t care who she is.

    Men are bad enough. Well, the men we’ve had to choose from of late.

  28. I don’t consider most of those guys to be men, leigh.

  29. Roger that, Spies.

  30. Women, at certain times, are really quite insane.

    That’s not always a bad thing. I’ve accomplished some great things when I’ve been certain that I’ve Been Wronged And It Must Be Set Aright Forthwith.

  31. There are plenty of women who are pilots, artillery, and nurses and doctors, as well as aircraft mechanics and midshipman in the Navy.

    Yeah, there are. And every aspect of their chosen field that requires upper body strength, from humping shells to battery, to lifting those aircraft engine parts, etc., requires them to at best have more personnel to handle the lifting, or they simply don’t do it while the guys do. No one dares say anything because they’ve all got DiFi, NOW, etc. on speed-dial. Women who get pregnant aren’t courtmartialed for adultery, their male partners are (and yes that is an offense under UCMJ).

  32. a woman president!

    truly it is an age of wonders

    clotty clotty tater head do you promise to defend the constitution and whatever?

    WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE????

  33. Never underestimate the power of Lysenkoism within a politically correct organization. And never overestimate the consequences that arise when the apathy of the universe towards such folly is at last revealed. Try as they might the state will never be able to imprison or hang nature for sabotaging the aims of the people’s revolution.

  34. my whole life I have never underestimated the power of Lysenkoism within a politically correct organization, and I don’t aim to start

  35. SDN, agreed on all counts, especially the courtmarshaling.

    Women can serve as doctors, nurses and clerks. We don’t need them squeeing about the horrors of war or causing disharmony in the unit by not doing their fair share or causing males to vie for their sexual attentions.

  36. …or causing males to vie for their sexual attentions.

    That is why it is so important to let gay men in, I suppose.

  37. the important thing is everybody does their best and gives 110%

    boo and also yah

  38. I figured gays were the decoys to toss to the Arabs. Now that jig is up since there are wimmins to rape instead.

    (I denounce myself for all the offenses I packed into those two sentences.)

  39. sdferr, that is great article. Thanks.

  40. From what that female Marine says it is a huge bone to the lawyers. Can you imagine the settlements from all the “unexpected” afflictions?

    I was also struck by the irony while reading that of this coming from the folks who wig the fuck out about Paul Broun sitting on the science committee.

  41. So the idea that there are natural gender roles between men and women and that proceed from, you know, some essential nature, this is going to be a disagreement between us.

    I was reading an article on the attempt to minimize gender differences in Swedish society the other evening and saw a lot of this type of argument in the comments. Most impressive was the one from a person going, “well if we COULD do the studies involving completely isolating children from culture we’d probably find that gender differences are totally engineered by society but we can’t because that’s immoral.”

    I had to think for a while about why this was so infuriating and finally realized I was overthinking it. These people don’t need to do studies anymore, they KNOW that differences between the sexes on a social/societal level are ENTIRELY FICTITIOUS and made up and maintained for reasons of POWAH!!!. So regardless of the fact that anecdotal evidence, studies with chimps, and 90% of children ever support the idea that people are going to act their biological sex (and the fact that they’re finding increasing evidence that transgendered people have brains that match their perceived sex, not their biological sex, supports this), We All Know Gender Is Just A Fiction. Science that says otherwise is “tainted” by our culture because gendered behavior is inextricable from culture!! But it’s not in our genetics!!

    At which point I go “gee, that sounds like culture is actually a form of epigenetics” and everyone ignores me because critical thinking is difficult.

Leave a Reply