h/t to Texts from Hillary and Kevin Lamarque
Rick Santorum on women serving in combat:
“I think that could be a very compromising situation where people naturally may do things that may not be in the interest of the mission because of other types of emotions that are involved.
I was talking about men’s emotional issues; not women. I mean, there’s a lot of issues. That’s just one of them. So my concern is being in combat in that situation instead of being focused on the mission, they may be more concerned with protecting someone who may be in a vulnerable position, a woman in a vulnerable position.
You throw on top of that just simply physical strength and capability and you may be out there on a mission where it’s you and a woman and if you’re injured, the ability to transport that person back. And you know, there’s just, there are physical limitations. Women have served and do serve and do wonderful things within the military and… they do have opportunities to serve in very dangerous positions. I mean, they serve in very dangerous positions. And I certainly understand that and respect that and admire women for doing so, but I think on the front line of combat is not the best place and it’s not maximizing what they can bring to the table.”
Rick is just advancing to the rear; sobbing?
Given the high incidence of rape and other sexual abuse of women in the US military, the fantasy of male comrades risking the mission to protect the women looks pretty ridiculous.
Anyone else remember when women said they did not want to be just like men, and that if they ran the show the world would be a better place?
Why, when “combat” these days is just Imperial Troopers beating up on, and occasionally getting blown away by, people in countries where Our Beloved Leaders have Decided to operate War Rackets of Choice, would there be this “equality” attraction to the Thrill of Combat, the “right” to snipe or kick in doors or “go out on patrol” under Orders of futility, to invite someone to shoot at you so you have an excuse to “turn their heads into pink mist?” What’s with this vestigial notion of “equality?”
What’s the new nomenclature equivalent for the enfolding lovingkindness of the Band of Brothers, that new substitute for the esprit and mythos that used to kind of apply in most people’s minds to all Americans (except for Them, of course)? Band of Siblings? Given Green-on-Green rape and other crimes, that’s not even a universal, either, now is it? What’s happening, to all those X-chromosomals? Too much Call of Duty and “NCIS?”
I would ask if we can do better, but I guess the answer has to be … ???
There’s an understandably ad hominem (sp?) disparaging of Young Rick’s remarks, aggravated by quoting his remarkably inarticulate comments.
There’s something to be said for his points, although they could’ve been stated far better and with a nuance his targeted audience would be oblivious to.
Fighting can be, but in modern days is not always, a extraordinarily and unforgivingly physical exercise. Even in a high-tech setting, when “war” becomes more than policing, it can quickly get down to the the cash-transaction Americans have forgotten is at its core, and the last thing you need around is a “typical” woman. Killing with a shovel to the neck is different than with a button. If a patriot missile battery’s command trailer in Bahrain is overrun by some guys who “shouldn’t” be their, that will be the reality and they’ll be back to rocks and sticks, if that. Real war is not a place in which you want to be fair; being fair is stupid. The great attraction of certain people to the military is how objective it endeavors to be due to that reality.
So, of the 16 pilots in a theoretical fighter squadron, there will be one who is the weakest, even tho he may be superbly well-qualified, competent, and a great team player who is well-liked by his colleagues. Due to the stakes involved and the power leveraged by one plane, which could be tasked to deliver (heaven forbid) a nuclear weapon, or to stop an enemy plane with one, if another pilot who is on the net considered a bit stronger is available, objectively you would insist on that guy, or gal. If not, you’re an amateur.
I once ran into a group of half-drunk career Army NCO’s. They were serious guys who were about to deploy for Gulf I, who were a bit dumbfounded at a question I had about the role of gays in the military. One finally said…..to paraphrase….that if they had a guy who was detracting from the mission or their capabilities, their job was to take care of it and that the mission was all they were concerned about.
This is a political question, and on a real battlefield it has no place.
I sure wouldn’t want women in a front line combat unit under my command, and I have commanded a front-line combat outpost, though it was many years ago.
If all we use our infantry for is colonial conquest, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, then its not so bad doing all that social engineering and experimentation with our machinery of national defense. Our Army has failed miserably in both wars due to supremely incompetent leadership at the highest levels, after replacing military Generals with political sycophants, and the consequences aren’t so bad.
But let’s not undermine the ability to actually defend our nation, should the need arise.