Friday, January 25, 2013

A Socially Engineered Military

     After Major Nadil Hasan executed 13 American soldiers at Fort Hood in the second most bloodiest terrorist attack on U. S. soil ever, General Casey stated that as horrible as the loss of life was, it would be even more horrible if we lost our diversity in the military as a result of the attack. I didn't realize that we had become so diverse that we now allow the enemy to serve right along side our brave men and women who are charged with protecting this country. But that is the danger and the folly of the Lefts drive towards diversity. This week, the Pentagon lifted its ban on women fighting in combat positions, and in so doing has sacrificed the security of this country.
     It's not that I am opposed to women serving in war zones, this is something they have done for a long time in roles as diverse as helicopter pilots to medics. But it is a mistake to place women at the tip of the spear in the actual engagement of the enemy in close quarter fighting. First there is the obvious physical limitations of the female sex. As much as the Left would have us believe otherwise, men and women are built differently. And men with their superior upper body strength are more suited to the rigors of combat. In fact the U. S. Army recently asked for 90 female volunteers to run their grueling physical course used in training combat troops. They only got 2 women who wanted to run the course and neither could successfully complete it. The administration is forcing diversity on the military in a system of metrics which charges the military to reach what is called critical mass of women in combat roles. To further this goal, the military will have to lower their standards for what constitutes a combat-ready soldier, and in so doing sacrifice the success of future missions. I wonder if the much less dangerous NFL will have to allow women to play professional football in an attempt to diversify the game?
     An additional problem with placing women in combat roles is the question of unit cohesion among combat battalions, and how that cohesion might be negatively affected. For the combat soldiers who are not busy being openly gay, the presence of women can be an obvious distraction and in some cases may expose the women to sexual harassment. There is also the natural male imperative to protect the female of the species, which can place troops in more danger and put their mission at risk. But the administration has said that the strategic imperative of the military is diversity. Odd, I thought the strategic imperative of the military was to maintain the most effective fighting force possible for the purpose of protecting this great nation, not to engage in social engineering projects created by people who have no appreciation for or knowledge of the greatest military the world has ever seen. But then what do I know? I'm just a guy with a blog.

No comments:

Post a Comment