Leon Panetta, American Defense Secretary, along with most of our governing elites, are showing signs of military and metaphysical Alzheimer’s: women, it is reported, will now be allowed to fight in combat. Oh boy, the scourge of war, the fruit of sin, that hell on earth called war may now be joined and fully enjoyed by our mothers and our sisters and our cousins and our aunts.
Mothers used to be the givers of life (Eve, “mother of the living”). Today, January 23, 2013, is Roe v. Wade 40 Years Plus a Day. It marks a sad trail that has been blazed, from approving women killing their own children to women killing soldiers in combat. A long way.
Euripedes’ Medea: I would rather face the enemy with my shield in the phalanx three times than face childbirth once.
As politically incorrect as this will seem, I believe this is simply one more natural devolution that comes from rejecting the Orders of Creation. I am aware that this thinking makes me a knuckle dragging Neanderthal, but so be it. Then again this is where the U.S. military is going, rejecting the God of heaven and earth for the false gods of secular humanism.
Mothers in the Line of Fire: Women in Combat Is a Pro-life Matter of Moral Theology by Andrew A. Sicree
http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=23-01-023-f
Cuddling in a fox hole. Ya gotta love it. God have mercy.
Robb
US Army Retired.
Expressions of bemusement and wry resignation aside, ask yourself how many successful campaigns in military history were conducted by women soldiers, or armies with any non-trivial number of women combatants. (Molly Pitcher or the odd Civil War cross-dresser don’t count — there are no Armies of One.) When you get to the right answer — which is zero — you will have computed the odds of our military winning its next conflict if this policy takes hold in any significant (beyond tokenism) way. BTW, I am a 27-year Army retiree who served as an infantry lieutenant in Vietnam. I have nothing against women serving their country in uniform, but in combat? It is insanity.
If anyone — male of female — is stupid enough to want to serve in combat, he or she deserves to be allowed to do so. Seriously, though, modern technology makes the difference in strength between the average man and woman less relevant. A woman can fly a plane or guide a missile as well as a man. Perhaps having more women in the officer ranks will make the military a little more ethical. Statistically, there are fewer antisocial personalities among women than among men, and women tend to be less reckless.
Modern technology, sadly, does not reduce the weight of an 80-pound combat load or give even the strongest, best-conditioned women more than half the upper body strength of an average man. This is not flying a plane or guiding a missile, this is ground-pounding combat. The idea that “if they want to do it, they should be allowed” will get both men and (many more) women soldiers killed. I don’t know, maybe that’s what they want. It would be more “equal.”
This policy has more to do with feel good politics than any other reason. The military has known for years that women have reduced readiness and capabilities of units, because of past experiences during military operations. During Desert Shield/Storm Naval support ships were not mission capable because 21 percent of the crews were pregnant. And the Army and Air Force were required to expend manpower to curtail liaisons between active duty members while deployed in the desert. These are just a few known issues.
The recent actions of expanding women combat rolls will only exacerbate an already serious problems within the military.
This is so indicative of the complete misunderstanding the American culture has of the roles of the sexes. Men and women are equal in value, but certainly different in body type. It is elementary and fundamental.
Check out Denny Burk’s quote from the President…stomach turning. Our President is throwing our daughters to the wolves. I wonder how long till our daughters get drafted.
http://www.dennyburk.com/