“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.
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.
“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.