NEVER TOLERATE TYRANNY!....Conservative voices from the GRASSROOTS.
An organization that promotes high standards and sound priorities in the military is blasting “lame-duck” Defense Secretary Leon Panetta for opening combat positions to women.
Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness said the move compromises the aim of having the most trained, most skilled and best-performing military.
“Career pressures to make this ‘work’ will vitiate core values, because the military’s honorable tradition of recognizing individual merit will have to yield to pressures for ‘diversity metrics,’” she said.
Donnelly warned that Marine and Army field commanders “who desire promotion will be compelled to pursue gender-based quotas by ordering women into direct ground combat (infantry) battalions.”
The Pentagon, under Barack Obama’s direction, this week said virtually every ground-combat job now will be opened to women.
The decision came even though the military itself concedes men have physical advantages over women that are relevant to carrying out basic tasks. The average women, the military acknowledges, for example, has lower upper-body strength than the average man, and women are hospitalized at a rate 30 percent higher than men.
Even the left-leaning Time acknowledged accommodations for women are forthcoming.
“Integrating women into the combat arms – primarily infantry, armor and artillery – is going to be a balancing act,” the magazine said. “Standards must be met, but there will be pressure to ensure enough women qualify so there’s not only one or two in a 150-troop company.
“Before long, commanders will have to implement various types of double standards involving women, known as DSIW. And to avoid soaring injury rates in tough training, challenges for men will be dropped and forgotten, weakening the finest fighting force in the world.”
Donnelly charged that the “lame-duck” Panetta “recklessly announced unilateral nullification of direct ground combat exemptions that are important to the majority of military women who serve in the enlisted ranks.”
She noted Panetta decided to exclude Congress and the American people from the decision “and imposed a radical ‘diversity’ agenda on our military without disclosing the data and results of extensive research on the subject of women in land combat that the Marine Corps conducted last year.”
Congress now should insist on seeing the results of the Marine research, Donnelly urged, and “conduct immediate oversight hearings before the harmful policies imposed by the outgoing secretary of defense become de facto law.”
“We are hearing assurances that training standards will remain the same, but no matter what is promised now, incremental pressures to assign women to Marine and Army infantry and Special Operations Forces battalions will drive qualification standards down. The same advocates who demand ‘career opportunities’ in combat are the first to demand unequal, gender-normed standards to make it ‘fair,’” Donnelly said.
She said Congress has the constitutional responsibility to make policy for the U.S. military.
“If data gathered … showed that gender ‘diversity’ would strengthen infantry battalions, surely we would have heard that news by now,” she said.
“Despite current denials, training standards will have to be lowered to achieve the desired ‘critical mass.’ And as we have seen many times before, officials will deny gender-normed standards or disguise them with sophistries pretending that ‘equal effort’ is the same as ‘equal results,’” she said.
“Gender-norming will not work in infantry battalions, but it will increase resentment and harm team cohesion and morale. These negative dynamics surely will increase problems of sexual misconduct, across both sides of the spectrum ranging from sexual abuse to inappropriate relationships. ”
The Miami Herald recently posted a list of nations in which women serve in combat, including Israel, where the five major infantry brigades still are all-male.
Other nations where women are in the combat ranks include Canada, France, New Zealand and several Nordic countries.
Earlier this week, Donnelly’s organization released a new report on a U.S. Marines plan to put women in “tip o...
It argued females are not “equal” when it comes to hand-to-hand combat. The report warns America’s social experiment with the members of its military may become costly.
“Mandatory ‘diversity’ taken to extremes is all about elitist attitudes, ideological groupthink, and Amazon Warrior myths that disregard inconvenient facts,” the report says. “Ancient Greeks and Romans believed in mythical Amazon women, but today’s theorists seem to believe in popular culture depicting super-female warriors on television and in feature films.”
The report warns that as “1984″ author George Orwell “recognized decades ago, false beliefs are likely to ‘bump up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield.’”
Donnelly pointed out in a Washington Times commentary about her group’s new report that female officers were invited last September to participate in the grueling 13-week Marine Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va.
“Of the two women who volunteered, one left on the first day, and the second dropped out (along with 27 of 109 men) several days later,” she writes.
“Professional football entertains fans with non-lethal combat on the gridiron, but the National Football League does not ‘diversify’ its teams with female players,” she argues. “Military teams that engage in lethal combat, however, are supposed to deploy significant numbers of women, willing or not, to achieve gender-based ‘diversity metrics’ on the battlefield.”
The report cites 30 years of studies in the U.S. and allied countries showing that “in a direct ground combat environment, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive or to help fellow soldiers survive,” Donnelly says.
“There is no question that female Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors have served our country with courage and dedication in the wars since the 9/11 attacks on American and before. Some are still deployed,” says the report.
“The current debate is not about women serving ‘in harm’s way’ in war zones. It is whether women should be assigned to direct ground combat – ‘tip of the spear’ battalions that attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action under fire.”
“Lives and the success of land combat missions depend on individual movements in battle zones, marches under heavy loads, the digging of fighting positions, lifting and mountain machine guns, lugging cans of ammunition rounds, and throwing grenades,” the report says.
“The only way to achieve ‘equality’ for women in tough training is to use gender-normed (adjusted) scoring systems that measure ‘equal effort,’ not equal results.”
This is exactly what bothers me. If women in combat rolls requires the lowering to standards. That's what usually happens then women try to compete with men for physically demanding jobs. Have no problem with women doing that they want, but DO NOT LOWER STANDARDS!!
A theologian and 20-year military veteran is calling out the Obama administration for putting political correctness over national security.
Never one to back down from calling a spade a spade, Dr. Michael A. Milton, chancellor and CEO of Reformed Theological Seminary and a veteran of more than two decades with the U.S. Armed Forces, is in disbelief with the Obama administration's latest policy move concerning America's national security.
"Just how much more disruption can the radical Left cause our military while we are at war?" asked the former Top Secret Navy security service member.
He sees Hillary Rodham Clinton's recent declaration as more of a breach of a necessary and protective military code than an advancement for civil rights.
"So now the Secretary of Defense has announced the military will allow women in combat," the graduate of the Eisenhower Command and General Staff College says. "This egalitarian move supposedly clears the way for better promotion opportunities for women in the Army, heretofore, barred by law from combat roles."
What's your greatest concern about the military opening front-line combat positions to women? VOTE
Leftist ideals not right for our safety
Contesting the government-endorsed politically correct thinking of our time, Milton maintains that centuries-old laws keeping women from the frontlines weren't put there to squash women's rights -- but to ensure their safety and that of other soldiers.
"The prohibition of women in combat not only had to do with clear, cogent arguments (often made convincingly by women in the military who know better) that the differences between the male and female physique bring more risks to troops in hand-to-hand, front-line war-fighting and could threaten a mission, but more with unit morale and long-term sustainability in the desolate environments," the U.S. Navy veteran argues.
"We are at war -- and to deny it is naïve; but to make sweeping changes in military operations, plus use the military budget as an expendable pawn in a political chess match, is like lobbing hand grenades into our own barracks!"
- Dr. Michael A. Milton
Milton says that because lives are at stake every day in the military, it doesn't function the same way as the business world and other civilian affairs -- and shouldn't be run as such.
"No one ever denied that women, or men, who are fit for military service -- but who may be unfit to do a full body lift of a 225-pound wounded soldier, running from incoming fire while weighed down with a 75-pound ruck sack and weapons on your shoulder -- should be denied promotions because of their inability for 'tip of the spear' service, if their primary role is being performed with distinction (yet even that is the Army's business and not ours anyway: it is not a democracy in the military, believe me)," contends the Defense Language Institute graduate.
The latest major change within the military is considered as little more than meddling with policies that should be determined within the ranks -- not by politicians.
"Yet, like so many other recent changes in core military policies, and using the Armed Forces as a veritable petri dish for social experimentation, this new change will, no doubt, get mixed in with the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,' women serving on submarines, and other gigantic shifts in U.S. military operations, with little to no opposition," Milton asserts.
Feeding an agenda to starve our security
Milton is livid that the White House has put its agenda -- forcing the nation to conform to its mindset -- ahead of its primary job: to protect its citizens.
"When these monumental changes, and the extraordinary amounts of money that will be spent on indoctrinating troops into accepting them, are compounded with the threat of dangerous cuts to the military because of sequestration, and the inability to plan for the defense of our nation (read the current cover of the Army Times to see just how real those deep, budgetary cuts are impacting Army plans), we get not only a threat to the military's mission, but the administration has the gall to make these radical, leftist moves on the military while this nation is at war," said the former president of the Reformed Theological Seminary-Charlotte.
He insists that the timing couldn't be worse to be toying with national security policies.
"Who are we kidding?" posed the former top-secret Navy linguist. "We can withdraw from one front, but in this new century [of] global war waged by radical Islamic terrorists, the 'front' is always moving."
According to Milton, the Obama administration has its priorities severely mixed up.
"Western Africa now looms as a new battle front," asserts the author of Silent No More: Why the Church Must Speak Biblically to State and Culture. "We are at war -- and to deny it is naïve; but to make sweeping changes in military operations, plus use the military budget as an expendable pawn in a political chess match, is like lobbing hand grenades into our own barracks!"
Stop playing games with soldiers' lives
Milton exhorts Americans to no longer sit back and tolerate a presidency that he believes is single-handedly tearing the nation down, one perilous policy at a time.
"Enough is enough," says Milton, who is also a singer and songwriter. "It is getting to the brink of self-destruction."
He notes that American soldiers shouldn't fall as casualties of war so Washington can keep implementing its social experiments.
"It is not time for putting women onto the front line," insists Milton. "It is time for our strongest young men, who always must stand first, to know that we are not playing social games while they are climbing through mountains in far-away places chasing Taliban, or fighting door-to-door in African terrorist-infested urban centers."
Instead of making serving in the military harder on soldiers and putting them through more unnecessary training that has nothing to do with national security, Milton argues that Americans need to do all they can to make soldiers' jobs easier and safer.
"It is time to support them, and the men and women who provide cover for them, with our prayers, our thanks, and most of all, by letting them do their job without constantly sending them through more sensitivity training classes or threatening to cut off essential supplies," contends the ordained minister, who is also a former pastor of First Presbyterian Church in Chattanooga, Tenn. "It is wrong."
He urges Congress to do a lot more than it's been doing, as he sees the Obama administration dropping one bomb after another on the nation's military.
"So who will stand in the Congress and call this latest plan what it is: another liberal agenda being forced on the U.S. Armed Forces?" Milton ponders. "And who in Congress will have the courage to actually say, Enough is enough. We are at war?"
Milton implores Americans on both sides of the debate to take his advice.
"At minimum, can't reasonable people who disagree affirm this?" he asks. "Men and women of good will may differ on important issues. Let us not debate those most arguable issues and implement extraordinary changes in operations while our troops are being fired on."
He insists that the nation cannot afford another social experiment in the military -- especially now. "There is a time for everything," Milton concludes. "Now is not the time to make another sweeping change to the military."
Philip you make an excellent point! They lowered the standards for firemen too didn't they? I support equal opportunity but no "affirmative" action for women or anyone else.
"“Before long, commanders will have to implement various types of double standards involving women, known as DSIW. And to avoid soaring injury rates in tough training, challenges for men will be dropped and forgotten, weakening the finest fighting force in the world.”
It happened 40 years ago in law enforcement and the standards completely fell apart both for males AND females. Wanna know why there are noticeable numbers of "rogue cops", look to the lowered standards.
And then, what do you do with "pregnancies"?
Everytime " "equal" oportunities are openned to women the standards have been lowered to accommodate them. I have NO problem with women doing whatever they want to do IF they can meet the standards. I do NOT support lowering standards.
© 2023 Created by Your Uncle Sam. Powered by
You need to be a member of REAL CONSERVATIVES to add comments!
Join REAL CONSERVATIVES