Panetta to allow women in combat? meh

7
247

File it under “You Knew It Was Coming”

Now that the two wars are winding down and Obama’s channelling Neville Chamberlain with his “Peace in our Time” is coming closer to reality (the war on terror being over and all), SecDef Leon Panetta is going to lift the ban on women in combat:

Women in all branches of the military soon will have unprecedented opportunities to serve on the front lines of the nation’s wars.

Leon Panetta, in one of his last acts as President Obama’s defense secretary, is preparing to announce the policy change, which would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war, the Pentagon confirmed Wednesday.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

I was once against women being in combat roles, until I served alongside a few heroes in Iraq in the Seabees. A very good Seabee female friend of mine was killed in action in 2005. The M-60 gunner in our lead Humvee on convoys was a young woman who crapped in an ammo box the same as we did, and was ready to respond with a rain of leaden death to anyone who would threaten “her” Seabees. Although she did give her weapon a stupid cutie girly name, she did her job. Doesn’t mean she’d make it in the Seals or an elite Airborne unit, but few men do either.

I really don’t think we’ll see a real life “GI Jane” unless somebody lowers physical standards, and most women I served with didn’t particularly want to be on the front lines.

Well we’ll see if Hollywood is going to get its wish or not.

20130123-142521.jpg
Women SEALS? I doubt it

I didn’t think women could be firefighters, either, and I know a female Captain now. She did the same physical performance exam the men did, and got a fairly high score.

I wasn’t in a front line combat unit, the Marines kicked the crap out of the bad guys and then waved us forward to “safe” areas (where Scuds launched over our heads).

One guy who was in a front line unit has similar views:

I’ve never subscribed to the theory that women in combat will distract from the job being done, but rather I’ve opposed this because the sociologists will force square pegs into the round holes, with a hammer, if needed. But, I’m sure between allowing the gays to serve openly and allowing women into combat jobs, the recruiters must be amazed at the target-rich environments in which they’re operating. Yeah, that’s sarcasm.

Exactly, it’s the leftists trying to shape the hated military into something more to their liking that’ll muck stuff up. Kind of like putting women in nuke submarines where men have to hot rack due to the lack of space as it is. Square peg, meet round hole.

Whatever the dark lords of the left throw at our military, I’m sure they’ll adapt and overcome. Besides, as Obama seems to be saying, it’s nothing but peaceful fields and unicorn meadow muffins from his Immaculation Day forward. What could possibly go wrong??

UPDATE One good first step if Panetta thinks men and women are exactly physically alike would be to make the fitness standards for men and women exactly the same. Ready, GO!

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Erick Brockway
Work seven days a week at two jobs, a newly RETIRED EO1 (E6) in the Navy Reserves (Seabees), blog when I can from cellphone and computer. @erickbrockway #catcot #tcot

Currently living in Camarillo, CA, about 45 miles North of LA. I have a wife (20+ years) son, and two daughters.

Leave a Reply

Subscribe
Notify of
7 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
bobmontgomery
January 25, 2013 4:51 pm

Yes, there are exceptions to rules. Yes, I’d rather Sarah Palin have my back out in the woods than Anderson Cooper. Yes, institutions adapt. The Episcopal Church is really good about adapting. As is the Republican Party. But whatever we think we can live with, or get around, or won’t hurt anything, remember one thing: those promoting the adaptation are NOT doing it to preserve, let alone strengthen the institution. Nor are they doing it out of compassion for whatever group it is they are propping up.

GC
Editor
GC
January 26, 2013 5:58 am

Yes, the rule will initially espouse a conservative ideal, i.e. that we will judge individuals by the same standard, and so based upon that, coupled with a history of other nations deployment of women and that men can be trained to control their natural chivalrous inclinations, I support the new rule; BUT I am sure that liberal lawyers and judges will muck it up based upon “institutional” sexism.

JadedByPolitics
January 26, 2013 9:14 am

I don’t want them on the front lines, women firefighters around the country only have to PULL the victim across the line while the men have to LIFT the victim and carry. You want a 150 woman (assuming muscle mass) pulling you from your wounds on the front line? or the 280 6’4 guy lifting you and making a run to save your life? I will take the guy any day of the week! btw just today the Joint Chiefs said if the women cannot meet the conditions then perhaps the conditions need to be looked at and there you… Read more »