Monday, January 28, 2013

The Big Lie

 Why this feeling? Why this glow?
Why the thrill when you say Hello?
It's a strange and tender magic you do
Mister Wonderful, that's you 
--Mr. Wonderful, Peggy Lee 

'Cause it makes me that much stronger 
 Makes me work a little bit harder
Makes me that much wiser
So thanks for making me a fighter 
--Fighter, Christina Aguilera

--Lieutenant, why are you doing this?
 --Do you ask the men the same question? 
--As a matter of fact: yes, I do ask them.
--And what do they say?
 --"Cause I get to blow shit up." 
--Well, there you go
--G. I Jane (1997)

Ranger would rather sandpaper his ass and soak in Epsom salts rather than entertain the decision that will open combat MOS's to female soldiers.

The Global War on Terror, The Long War, gun control and the decision to allow women into the combat arms all share a lowest common denominator of being based upon a lie posing as a valid hypothesis.  The lie justifying women in the combat arms is that they will be required to meet the same standards as do male service members; they will not, and it is this inequality which fuels Rangers opposition to their admittance.

Beginning with what seems a superficial difference between gender standards, but a difference nonetheless, consider haircuts.  The high and tight is required of male recruits to maintain standards of cleanliness, neatness and uniformity of appearance; it keeps lice and other vermin from setting up scalp residence, is necessary for getting a good seal on the protective mask and it makes treating head wounds easier (these comments are aimed at the Army, as the other services have their own criteria.)  Women may wear their hair longer than men.

So we say we have one standard, but this most basic difference in regulations shows the difference, the accommodation.  If short hair is correct for men, why not for women? Clearly standards will be different, but is this desirable in the most dire of military operations when less exceptions and more codification equals more simplicity and focus on the operation?

Surely gender integration into the combat arms can be done but as with our criticisms of the endeavors in the opening paragraph, we always discuss the "hows" versus the "why's".  Why do we accept that pushing the boundary is a good and necessary thing?  Nuclear bombs might be a more elegant -- less bloody -- way of killing than all the others, but is killing an art form we wish to maximize, sanitize and perfect to the point of utter dehumanization?

William Saletan at Slate -- who routinely warps the facts to forward his social agenda -- wrote in the falsely titled, "Putting women in combat isn’t a dangerous 'experiment' anymore. It’s a success":

Members of the House of Representatives now serve with Rep. Tammy Duckworth, D-Illinois, who lost her legs as a helicopter pilot in Iraq. They also know Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-Hawaii, another Iraq veteran. And many lawmakers have visited war zones. “I’ve seen firsthand service men and women working together in a range of dangerous operations to achieve our military objectives,” says Sen. Kelly Ayotte, R-New Hampshire. “Today’s announcement reflects the increasing role that female service members play in securing our country.” McCain agrees: “American women are already serving in harm’s way today all over the world and in every branch of our armed forces. Many have made the ultimate sacrifice."

But "men and women working together" and being in harm's way does not constitute fighting in an Infantry unit; that, no woman has (openly) done.  Think of any battle in which the United States has participated -- Valley Forge, Gettysburg, Bataan, Iwo Jima, The Bulge, Khe Sanh, ad infinitum.  Can anyone say how adding women to these battles would have enhanced them?  Over 100 women have died in the last decade's War on Terror, but these have come predominantly from roadside IEDs or artillery attacks, not as a consequence of their participation in a planned combat operation.

This is a dire statement, but the U.S. will pay in blood for this ill-advised transformation of the combat arms, for one day the U.S. will fight a real theatre level war again with a forward line of troops (FLOT) and a forward edge of the battle area (FEBA), rather than fighting largely irregular non-state insurgents.  A war of maneuver is much different than an "inside/outside of the wire" paradigm.

A real war is a nightmare, and it is Ranger's experience that keeping women out of nightmares is a good thing.

Next: The emotional challenge of placing women in combat MOS's

Labels: , , , , , , ,


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Outstanding. This post is the kind of stuff that keeps bringing me back to RAW.

Flying a helo is NOT infantry.

Sitting in a cupola behind a ma duece in an armored vehicle is NOT infantry.

The standards are already lower and for damn sure the bureaucracy will do whatever it takes to make political quotas. Our people are going to get hurt and killed by this assinine decision.

Why do women want to do this any how? Are they f'ing crazy? Do feminist really want to sacrifice their sisters on the alter of some retarded ivory tower theory that gender is merely a "social construct"? Are they really that out of touch with reality? Does feminism mean no one is feminine any more? Why don't they re-name their movements "masculanism"?

All I can say is that the social marxists are screwing themselves in the long run. They won't be able to lie and deceive enough people to keep their bogus silly ideas afloat for ever. It's all going to bite them in the ass, hard and soon.


Monday, January 28, 2013 at 9:21:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

any how, at bottom and beyond practical issues, this idea of putting women in infantry is related to the whole notion of "warriors". It's more pagan barbarism.


Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:17:00 PM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

"Masculanism" ... yes, that's good.

I responded to a post on spree shootings a month or so ago that I had some thoughts that might be in alignment with yours on the matter. You see, I blame it on Marlo Thomas and her, "Free to Be ... You and Me." Of course she's not the only one, and it goes downhill from there.

Believe me, I am plum tuckered out on the gender construct - Marxian - feminist - Foucauldian theories of life; I played that game for a while and I am bored to tears by it now.

Gender differences are actual and quantifiable.

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:22:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Kurt said...

Although I don't like the idea of quoting Colonel Oliver North, he did make the most intelligent statement on this subject. When asked by a reporter if women should be allowed in combat, North replied, "War is so terrible, MEN should not be allowed in combat."

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 10:35:00 PM GMT-5  
Anonymous Carl said...

For what it's worth even my old state police dept in Australia was directed to radically change the way selection was carried out for potential recruits, to appease the politicians and gender ratio equality experts.

No more height/weight minimums. Timed runs, pushups and weight lifting tests were altered to specific M/F qualifiers. Males had less time to complete all tasks.

Chain link fences, walls and other were actually lowered on the obstacle course.

Heavy dummies were lightened for the drop, drag, load to vehicle test.

Ammo cans with lead weight were reduced to light dumbbells to be carried at a brisk pace.

The list goes on.

Many incidents have been recorded however of when the serious doo doo hits the fan, the gentle politically correct selection and recruit training process bites back in glaring obviousness.

The people police generally have dealings with on the streets are not at all becoming kinder, weaker, lighter, nor slower.

Most if not all are affected by some kind of substance abuse or other.

The larger percentage of offenders by far are still male, and tend to be rather violent.

If it were totally equal qualifying tests and training for male and female, then by all means go for it - without lowering standards or processes one iota to appease certain people or groups, who will never be there in the thick of it at the most critical of times.

Best of luck with the military side of things.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 9:30:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

I'm proud to have a blog site that is home of the troglodites.
I'm glad to see you are still aboard.
Best to you.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 9:47:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

As for flying a helo is not infy, i'd like to add a thought.
The whole rationale for USMC aviation is that the pilots MUST THINK like ground leaders IF THEY are to provide proper air support.
Danger close and all that stuff.
What happens when a pilot is shot down 150 miles in en terrain and it's 10 below 0?
There's more to air support than sitting in a cock pit.
BTW-why do we call it a cock pit?

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 9:53:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger rangeragainstwar said...

i find it of interest that the decision to allow women into combat mos's was made immediately after Zero dark thirty made a hero out of a female analyst.

Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 10:01:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cockpit - good one ;-)

The women advocates are saying that if a female flier is shot down then SERE training will kick in, men get raped too, etc, etc yadda yadda yadda. they don't are. The feminine is no longer sacred. That is antiquated oppressive troglodite thinking.

I don't want to give anyone the false impresson that I personally know what infantry life is like. I don't (reservist pog). However, I do have common sense and that's enough to figure it out.

Also, I listen to people who are/were infantry and I give careful consideration and respect to what they are telling me. It's not that hard to do if one opens one mind and tries it.

My son has related a couple of "war stories". In one he and some ANA dudes climbed 5,000+ ft straight up a moutain (He showed me a pic - it is pretty much vertical) to a pos where they could call arty and airstrikes on insurgents setting IEDs, etc on a vital crossroads. In the pic he is carrying a full combat load, min 85 pound pack, helmet, body armor, ammo, weapon, commo gear, etc. He was laughing saying that it was among the toughest physical challenges he had ever performed, but it was a vital mission. Would a female troop get to opt out of the mission? What happens to morale when females can't pull their load?

In another, they got into a fire fight when they were patrolling somewhere in the hills. One of them got his leg blown off by an rpg. They were ambushed in a wadi and they had to get the hell out of there. My son took the wounded guy on his back and ran up and out of the wadi in a zig zag pattern because they were shooting AKs and firing rpgs at him. He would stop, set the guy down, return fire, pick him up and move and then repeat until they had found a defensible position where they could hold out. He said something about the adrenaline giving him super human strength such that it amazed even him. Based on what he told me I HAVE NEVER MET ANY WOMAN THAT COULD THAT.

In thoroughbred racing fillies run against fillies and colts/geldings run against each other. Rarely, a filly crosses over, but if owner/trainer plans, as a strategy, to race a filly with the boys, it is a losing season overall, prety much guarunteed. I do not think that horses are creating illusory gender constructs.


Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 11:07:00 AM GMT-5  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"...Zero dark thirty .."

I refuse to watch it. It is war glorification and propaganda.

That said, it must be working. Women want in on the "glory".

Misinformed fools.


Tuesday, January 29, 2013 at 11:09:00 AM GMT-5  
Blogger Lisa said...

avedis says,

I do not think that horses are creating illusory gender constructs.

Horses are not that smart. by a furlong. Well-done.

Wednesday, January 30, 2013 at 10:44:00 AM GMT-5  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home