PENTAGON CONSIDERING WOMEN FOR ARMY RANGER TRAINING
From time to time a thought enters my mind regarding military decision making..."where has common sense, reality, and men of leadership gone in America"? All seem to now be part of "minority" statistics.
It has generally been accepted that Generals/Flag Officers in the military must satisfy political criteria for selection into the flag ranks. Until some years ago there was no criteria for a back-bone of jelly, whale manure moral standards, a brain dump, and reprograming action to meet an environment of "relativism", to become a General.
Military leaders have allowed official homosexual/lesbian introduction into the military without much more than a whimper, full knowing the negative impact on morale, moral standards, and war fighting considerations. How will they respond to two women or two men married and seeking government quarters, all the benefits of a hetrosexual couple.
Women have served our military with distinction in selected roles. In case anyone is not aware, there are gender differences which impact functional ability required in military roles. My experience with women in the intelligence gathering field generally demonstrated a higher proficiency than men. Also, my fox-hole experience confirmed the fox-hole is no place for a woman.
Introducing women to Army Ranger training is nothing more than a gimmick. For what purpose? To satisfy a "social ladder", give the impression of equal treatment, equal opportunity? Hogwash. Women cannot meet the male physical standards required in Ranger training...there would be a huge financial cost in developing a female ranger curriculum and all the other needs when women are introduced into a new field. It's gutless surrender to the proponents of insanity.
There was a day when the term "force multiplier" referred to an action of force improvement. Where is the "force multiplier" gain through token female introduction into a male war-fighting role?
The role of our defense structure is to prevent war or win conflicts if we must go to war. Any policies, procedures, social experimentation, or introduction of "politically correct" nonsense that fails to meet the common-sense and proven reality test of war-fighting, pushes our warriors into the kill zone with a measure of added threat.
Military leaders that fail to fall on their sword in support of reality, points to spineless betrayal of our troops and our nation.
Replies
More Political Correctness gone amok to the Nth degree!!!!
I got an email from a friend of mine, also retired Army, who jokingly said "A lot of drill sergeants will have to learn new language to deal with this!"
Here is my reply to him:
Col. All the ``branches of Service got this `Changey, Touchy, Feely ~~10 years ago, and Juan Obama pushed it to the Marxism / Dictatorship that's going to the Shithole / Backhouse.!! It's not my Navy anymore, I can't bow my head.. No more. Great words Joe. I'll still pray when my back is turned.!! Ron
The very thought that politics is so mired into military policy and gives little to no real thought into the impact of life and death of our military is an affront to God. What is the mission? What is the task? Put the resources on the challenge that will do the job...don't play "touch, feely" games as Ron says....warrior lives, their bodies, and their family suffer the consequences of stupid, self-serving decisions.
I do believe you said what the majority of those of us who have been there and done that. Never been in the Army or Marines but understand and agree with every word.
They be some tough a$$ girls, if they could pass the standard that is in place now.
My kind of girl...lol...
With the present crew exhibiting what they have, you are pissing in the wind.
The officers I knew have long gone, and a winderful group they were. One or two wingers, but overall, the best trained in this world.
Some of the comments made on various situations recently mshows a definite decline in the Moral fiber, and Physical fortuity of those holding positions of responsibility, and acting as the voice of the services.
Top Menges.
Another way for that traitorous, disloyal, piece of crap, sob Dempsey to suck up to the piece of crap in the white house. Did I mention Dempsey is a disloyal piece of crap, sob?
What I see is this puts real men at a disadvantage in the war sone. We all know men will not be able to do their jobs for thinking of the safety of the women. This can and will get these men killed. These men need to look at these women as men with the same abilities. Meaning if they can't keep up they must be left behind to defend for their self. If I was a Ranger and my partner was a woman all I can say is she had better be able to stay up with me. I would not put my life on the line for her. Men know they had better keep up or they are dead. A Ranger alone is a DEAD Ranger. Rangers get the bad ass jobs.
Vietnam Veteran.
Amen brother!
I have no problem with women serviong their country. Men and women have different abilities and are best suited to different tasks. It is NOT a question of who is better, and it is NOT a question of equality! I respect men and women equally as human beings, and as American who love and honor their country. Putting women in combat IS dangerous, and on more levels than I can count! I agree with Ray: It is an issue of common sense. As was said in the American Revolution, if we do not hang together we will hang separately. Mixing women with men in the army rangers is akin to the strategy of "Divide & conquer".
-
1
-
2
of 2 Next