It was, perhaps, inevitable that women would be allowed in to combat roles – though as we’ve gone along this line of liberal nonsense, there still is the fact that women will only be in combat roles if they volunteer for them. This is a secret acknowledgement that most women don’t want to and cannot perform the role of combat soldier. Men in the military, of course, go where they are sent.
Any military force, if it is guided by anything akin to wisdom, seeks to be the most powerful it can be. There is a reason for physical fitness requirements in soldiers – because while technology can do a lot, when it gets down to bullets flying and all is confusion, blood and fear, you need soldiers who have the physical strength to endure the strain. It isn’t easy and even the strongest physical specimens can break down under the burden, even if not actually harmed by combat. Right now, our army has done very well on this – you can see it in the soldiers: they are often massive bruisers, far larger than, for instance, yours truly. Even in my younger days, I probably couldn’t have measured up to the physical requirements of today’s troops. Today’s soldiers are, in my view, better trained and more able than any soldiers we’ve ever placed in the field – and this is stated in knowledge that my Dad joined the Marines in 1944 while my uncle, when asked, stated he “earned” his VA benefits at a little ridge named “Heartbreak” in Korea. And I like the fact that today’s soldiers outclass not only myself, but my Dad and my uncle…and, heck, even my grandfather and all his brothers (all of whom served in World War One and all of whom were wounded in action, some of them quite seriously). My worry about this ruling is not so much that women will be in combat, but that the requirements for being a combat soldier in the United States Armed forces will be lowered so that women can participate.
In a population as large as ours, there will be some percentage of women who can actually meet the current physical requirements for being a combat soldier. I can’t say what the percentage would be, but it would be fairly small – and out of that percentage of women who can do it, you would only get those who also wanted to do it, which would be the merest fraction of the total percentage who possibly could (in spite of intensive recruitment efforts among women, their percentage of the military has been stuck at 15% for ages; most women just don’t see the military as the place to be). But what if there are women who want it – let’s face it, being in a combat role in the military is the path to advancement – but who can’t measure up? Will standards be lowered so that they may participate? We’ve already seen physical requirements lowered for police and firefighters in the United States so that women can participate – will that now become the rule for the military, as well?
If women are to serve in a combat role it must only be if the can meet the actual physical requirements currently in place. Period. If we do anything else – any mealy-mouthed, lying liberal excuses to lower standards – then we will be deliberately creating a weaker military just so we can make leftist feminists happy. And that weaker military will pay in blood for being weaker when it could have been stronger. I do not want Americans to wind up dead simply because we put in to combat roles people who can’t take the strain.