January 23, 2013

"The U.S. military will end its policy of excluding women from combat, officials said."

"Defense Secretary Leon Panetta will announce Thursday plans to open combat jobs and direct combat units to female troops, multiple officials confirmed to CNN."

Email, just now, from CNN.

296 comments:

1 – 200 of 296   Newer›   Newest»
Original Mike said...

Gee, lucky women.

Maguro said...

Ah, progressive social engineering - what could go wrong?

Inga said...

Good, it's about time they are recognized for the combat roles they were already performing.

chuck said...

Now we are ready for the war on women.

Mary Beth said...

Is this supposed to distract us from Clinton's testimony?

As my whimsy leads me.. said...

Michael Yon says women have been in combat roles for years.

Toy

Tom said...

When will women be required to sign up for selective service?! End the bigotry now!!!!

Lyle said...

Godspeed Ladies!

Now our daughters are eligible for the draft! Feminism is over!!!

chickelit said...

The USMC Junior ROTC unit out here is half female and mostly hispanic. This is upward mobility for many. Though they represent nascent leadership, they are the face of the next generation of combatants too. I fully support them.

Maguro said...

Well, there are combat roles and there are combat roles. If this means women in infantry units, it's a bad idea.

Inga said...

Tom, they should be required to now.

Bob said...

Inga. They performed roles in combat service jobs. Those jobs are routinely in combat too.

Lets just not go wail when the women break under combat loads. 110 lbs for 20 miles will cause significant stress injuries of shins, hips and back.

Bob said...

Inga. They performed roles in combat service jobs. Those jobs are routinely in combat too.

Lets just not go wail when the women break under combat loads. 110 lbs for 20 miles will cause significant stress injuries of shins, hips and back.

Lem said...

It took Obama four years to do this?

Take it away Inga.

Bob said...

Inga. They performed roles in combat service jobs. Those jobs are routinely in combat too.

Lets just not go wail when the women break under combat loads. 110 lbs for 20 miles will cause significant stress injuries of shins, hips and back.

Right is right! said...

Now that they are allowing fairies in the military why not allow women in combat? God damn communist democrats. They won't be happy until they completely destroy the American military.

Colonel Angus said...

Good, it's about time they are recognized for the combat roles they were already performing.

Being thrust into a combat situation can happen to any non combat role. My grandfather was a typist during WW2 when one day in 1944 Belgium he found himself behind enemy lines and was suddenly a 'combat soldier' for several weeks.

AllenS said...

Panetta isn't talking about humpin' a ruck.

Rabel said...

Hey Colonel,

"But Sergeant, you don't understand. I was sent to clerk-typist school. That's all I've ever done in the army was type!"

Bob newhart in Hell Is for Heroes.

Marshal said...

No mention of whether the military will also end use of gender-normed standards?

bpm4532 said...

Let's hope we have performance standards that are gender-blind, but appropriate to the task, with out dilution to achieve quotas. Then anyone who meets or exceeds standards can perform the job. Those who don't, are barred from performing the job.

Lauderdale Vet said...

Meh. I could generate a good list of concerns and objections *I* might have, but I trust the military to identify and overcome all obstacles.

They're professionals.

Hagar said...

Career lines to "elite" military jobs open up, but so does foxhole duty on lonely hillsides with icky-smelling men.

edutcher said...

Does this mean David Petraeus gets his job back?

PS Can't wait to hear Oop whining about how her "daughter" should be brought home because she's too sweet to be shot at.

PPS Flexibility.

Valentine Smith said...

Every soldier wears on his or her blouse all of the items needed to establish recognition of their service

The Drill SGT said...

dumb and dumber

Getting shot at is being in combat. Women have been shot at on the ground for 20+ years. They can do well as MP's and support types, fighting from light vehicles,

Being a light infantryman is vastly different. The Army considers that 60 pounds is a combat load for an infantryman, in 100 degree 5,000 ft hikes. The 'approach march' load is 100 pounds. The 'emergency approach march load is 130 pounds.

Only folks who are fools don't recognize the difference.

PS: I'm a combat vet
PPS: I'm married to a retired Army Colonel (female :) I don't have anything against women in the Army.

Valentine Smith said...

They've just redefined Light Infantry.

ALH said...

Good timing - it will take HRC off the lead story for today's news cycle.

sparrow said...

Another example of the sloppy thinking that moral equality under the law demands equality in all things. By ignoring empirical physical differences this would just put women and the men on their team in harms way. Considering the consequences of policy is rare among liberals.

Libertarian Advocate said...

Brings to mind Starship Troopers - Will we start seeing unisex showers too?javascript:void(0)

Shouting Thomas said...

The U.S. needs to close down most of its foreign bases and bring the troops home, then slowly downsize its military to a peacetime force.

Assigning women to combat is a farce, but as a precursor to demilitarizing the U.S., it's a good strategy.

In the same way, the rape hysteria had to be the precursor to attempting to reduce violent crime. Offenses against women get people weeping. Who gives a fuck if a man is beaten up or murdered?

People don't care if men die. That will change if women die. The cost won't seem worth it.

edutcher said...

Question, does this mean women are assigned, like it or not, or do they have to volunteer for combat service?

Inga said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Drill SGT said...

Marshal said...
No mention of whether the military will also end use of gender-normed standards?


To those that don't understand what Marshall implies...

The Male and female PT standards are different.

Nobody thinks that scoring average on a male test makes you a good infantryman. a fit infantryman ought to max the male test.

yet,

The mininum pass for men at all age groups aligns directly with the standard for a MAX female score.

Women officers think that if they get a shiny CIB they'll become Generals. By all means, let's eliminate this last barrier of segregation, and hold everybody to the same high standard, then pass 95% of the women over for promotion, and boot them out, because they fail or score in the bottom 10% of fitness.

That will be a great leap forward for women's rights...

Rob said...

Suits me fine. And a salutary consequence of this is that we'll continue to have an all-volunteer army, because there would be no justification to draft only men, and drafting women into combat ain't gonna fly.

Inga said...

Edutcher, you are a stupid man.

And she is home in Pendleton now. Her year is over, she may be deployed again in 9 months, depending on if the CLR she has been attached to deploys.

Franklin said...

As soon as they register for Selective Service, we'll be on our way to true gender equality.

Paul said...

Every major country in the WORLD figured out putting women in front line combat positions was not good unless your back was against the wall.

But Obama figures it's a job program. Once he as destroyed the middle class, well where else can women in that category go?

Salamandyr said...

I'm guessing that they are not requiring that women also meet the same physical standards that men have to meet. A 150 PT score for a woman is an entirely different thing from a 150 on the man's scale. And no Infantry soldier should be aiming for the minimum standard anyway.

This is not a knock on the bravery of women in the military. Heart is one thing. But the day to day life of an Infantry soldier in the field is one of the most demanding jobs in the world. It's not even something all men can physically hack.

McTriumph said...

No problem, body bags are one size fits all, buy stock in the companies that manufacture them.

Scott M said...

When will women be required to sign up for selective service?! End the bigotry now!!!!

This is absolutely, 100%, the crux of the matter. Obviously, Inga feels strongly that women should be included in the draft.

Shouting Thomas said...

Folks, the military is our make work employment and welfare system.

It's time to find our way out of this racket. We can't afford it any more.

This is an ass backward way to go about it, but it is a first step.

So, I welcome it.

Inga said...

Scott, yes I do, I case you missed my comment I which I said so above.

david7134 said...

I know someone training for the military. He says that the women can not keep up the the physical demands and will fail the training unless given special consideration.

Brian said...

Why not keep going until we have an all-female military? It worked for Leto II.

Inga said...

David, women Marines train as hard as the males. Women Navy Corpsman take the FMTB which is the first step to becoming an FMF Corpsman, they do as well as any man.

Shouting Thomas said...

I know someone training for the military. He says that the women can not keep up the the physical demands and will fail the training unless given special consideration.

Exactly! This the the plan.

We don't need the massive military that requires us to maintain a huge standing army capable of keeping up with those physical demands.

The military is bankrupting us. Getting women in there will slowly make us less adventurous and gung-ho. Feminization first. Followed by dismantling.

It's the only way it can be made acceptable.

Scott M said...

David, women Marines train as hard as the males.

I know several marines, male and female, who would disagree with you. The females will admit that they do not "hump ruck" like the guys have to.

Marshal said...

david7134 said...
I know someone training for the military. He says that the women can not keep up the the physical demands and will fail the training unless given special consideration.


A small percentage of women can keep up with the men. So we'll lower the standards and eventually people will die because of it. And anyone pointing it out will be attacked as sexist even while everyone in the room knows the accusation is true.

The Drill SGT said...

It's ultimately a debate about two different issues.

One side sees it as a civil rights issue. The other as a force effectiveness issue. Does allowing women to be infantrymen, increase the effectiveness or decrease it. Integrating black men, arguably increased effectiveness because it was 10-15% increase in fit candidates.

Women won't move the needle. Envelope math follows

500,000 active soldiers
15% female
thus 75k females.
number that can meet the standards of maxing a male PT test and want to carry 100 pounds and live in the mud for 2 weeks? 1 in 1000

now we're at 75 females.
half the army is in schools, or staff assignments, or pregnant, or whatever, now we're down to 40 females at any time to assign to the 40 combat brigades? so:

1 female infantryman in each 4000 man brigade?

or one 40 female platoon, of all second LT females, in one company in one Bn in one Brigade in the Army?

more effective force, or social engineering with lipstick?

Methadras said...

Hagar said...

Career lines to "elite" military jobs open up, but so does foxhole duty on lonely hillsides with icky-smelling men.


Guess a lot of them are going to sniper school now. :D

Shouting Thomas said...

I can see that you're all sticking your fingers in your ears so that you can't hear...

So, I'll let Fred tell you about it.

Marshal said...

Scott M said...
David, women Marines train as hard as the males.

I know several marines, male and female, who would disagree with you. The females will admit that they do not "hump ruck" like the guys have to.


Training (an input measure) and achievement (an output measure) are different. Supporters of gender-norming point to inputs to avoid having to explain the difference in achievement. If women could in fact schieve at the same levels at the same rates there would be no reason for gender-normed standards.

jacksonjay said...

Prediction: Before Jan. 20, 2017 Commander-in-Chief Obama will award the Medal of Honor to a female warrior!

Of course, for that to happen we must continue combat operations somewhere!

Maybe a drone pilot!

McTriumph said...

"elite" military jobs will open up, but not combat infantry "elite" jobs, they can't hack it.

campy said...

Prediction: Before Jan. 20, 2017 Commander-in-Chief Obama will award the Medal of Honor to a female warrior!

If not, certainly in the third term.

jacksonjay said...

I believe that the Marines are the only branch that does not "modify" the qualifying standards! True?

X said...

so the "if it saves even one life it's worth it" standard goes out the window when we're talking about women soldiers and firefighters.

TosaGuy said...

I've been in the military since Reagan was president, of which a portion was spent in the infantry.

I have served with many fine and capable female soldiers and was led by some excellent female soldiers. They bring alot of talent to what they do and some can perform well in limited combat.

I have never met a female who would be able perform at the most minimal level required of an infantryman.

Shouting Thomas said...

Feminization of the military is the necessary precursor to dismantling it.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.

Tom said...

I joked about selective service being expanded to woman earlier but I think we're to that point. I was in line at the BMV Saturday and saw the selective service sign. I remembered it was a requirement for me to sign up for selective service in order to drive. I'm 38 now, so at the time we had just ended the first gulf war and thought that Saddam may need another spanking. Although I had no problem serving my country if the need were to arise, getting drafted wasn't something I was very excited about. But reflecting back, every male I know did this and did it without complaint. How will that change if selective service is expanded to woman?

Titus said...

Maybe Jason Wu can design their dresses.

AllenS said...

Combat jobs. Well, what does that mean? Does that mean, women will be driving tanks? I don't care, and I say this as an award winning Combat Infantryman Badge recipient. I don't care who drives the tank. I do care if someone who isn't strong enough is following me and can't keep up humpin' the ruck. That would endanger the whole unit that is in the bush. When one person can't hump any longer, others have to take his (ok, hers) rucksack and then carry them with you. Oftentimes, you can't get a helicopter into extract the individual, so you carry that person and their gear until you reach your objective.

Does Paneta understand this? Does Inga? Hey, Inga, does your daughter usually accompany those Marines outside of the wire for a week or two on a hump?

The Drill SGT said...

jacksonjay said...
I believe that the Marines are the only branch that does not "modify" the qualifying standards! True?


short answer: No,
longer answer, closer equality that the Army, but hanging from a bar is not the same as pullups, and the run times are 1 minute longer per mile. 3 miles, three minutes longer

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/marines/l/blfitmale.htm

RonF said...

Yeah - because making women "equal" is more important in the military than actually, you know, fighting battles.

Shouting Thomas said...

Yeah - because making women "equal" is more important in the military than actually, you know, fighting battles.

It's time to find a way to dramatically reduce the size of our military so that it will cease looking for battles to fight.

Christopher said...

I'm okay with this so long as the women meet the current standards for male infantry and there are strict rules regarding fraternization.


On a side note I am curious how you square the statement that women are capable of doing this with the belief that women need special protections from violence.

edutcher said...

Shouting Thomas said...

Folks, the military is our make work employment and welfare system.

Wrong, you actually have to measure up in the military.

It's Federal civilian employment that's our make work employment and welfare system.

Take it from one who saw it up close for 4 years.

We don't need the massive military that requires us to maintain a huge standing army capable of keeping up with those physical demands.

The military is bankrupting us. Getting women in there will slowly make us less adventurous and gung-ho. Feminization first. Followed by dismantling.


We tried that after 2 (3 if you count the Cold) World Wars and 'Nam.

Remember how swell that worked?

If memory serves, we've had several hundred women killed or wounded in action during the GWOT. Notice the difference?

PS Mary Beth, yes.

PPS Does anybody really believe a word Oop says?

TosaGuy said...

Women can do lots of things that will put them in combat and they can perform and survive brushes with combat.

Women, as a group, cannot operate and survive sustained combat.

Ralph L said...

To paraphrase the end of "Around the World in 80 days",
The American Empire has fallen!

I believe that the Marines are the only branch that does not "modify" the qualifying standards! True?
Don't think so, but I believe they're the only branch that segregates all basic training by sex.

James Pawlak said...

Hod will the ladies pee in a foxhole while still being able to keep alert and use weapons, Somewhat hard with pants around the knees. Perhaps, we should adapt-and-adopt the military kilt.

Carol said...

No problemo - they'll just ease up on the requirements and let the men pick up the slack, to facilitate this great leap forward.

dreams said...

I can remember back in the seventies when the feminists assured us that women would never serve in combat. The way it works with liberals is first get your foot in the door and proceed from there.

n.n said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
n.n said...

Shouting Thomas:

I agree. However, we cannot withdraw to a strategic position until our environmental and energy policies are corrected to correspond with reality. We cannot reasonably afford policies dictated by "good" intentions, "philosophical" (i.e. speculative) arguments, shifted risk, obfuscation, and indoctrinated phobias.

That said, the military would better serve the interests of America to prevent the illegal entry of around one million aliens annually, which corrupts our institutions and displaces Americans at work, school, and throughout society (e.g. health care).

Shouting Thomas said...

n.n.

I agree completely.

bagoh20 said...

Does this mean if something goes bump in the night, us men get to stay asleep?

Sorun said...

Women aren't exactly signing up in droves

Nomennovum said...

"The military is bankrupting us. Getting women in there will slowly make us less adventurous and gung-ho. Feminization first. Followed by dismantling."

The problem is that, while it certainly will make our military weaker, more cautious, and less effective, it will not make it smaller. It will just make it more bureaucratic and sclerotic.

What a asinine idea this is. Obama really wants to destroy this country, doesn't he?

The Drill SGT said...

AllenS said...Does that mean, women will be driving tanks? I don't care,

The elephant in the room is light infantry units. Any pussy can be a gunner in a bradley :)

Having said that, Allen, everything on a tank weights 100 pounds, except the shells which are only 55 pounds. Doing jerk and lift with 40 or 50 shells after 24 hours in operations is work. breaking track is real work...

I guess though, tanks with officers on them survive with less than a full 4 man crew, due to the officer being off elsewhere doing checks some of the time. You could just figure that the men would do all the maintenance and the female could sit in the cupola and pull guard. that would go over well :)

rhhardin said...

I don't see why women can't have their own units with lighter guns.

LarsPorsena said...

"..
On a side note I am curious how you square the statement that women are capable of doing this with the belief that women need special protections from violence.

1/23/13, 3:42 PM"


Excellent point.

bagoh20 said...

"The military is bankrupting us."


It's historically low as a portion of the spending. It's been rising since 2008, but except for the late 90's, it's never been lower as a piece of the pie of spending. It was twice as much during the cold war. We may be spending more than we need to, but it's not the thing breaking the budget.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/90/U.S._Defense_Spending_-_percent_to_Outlays.png/800px-U.S._Defense_Spending_-_percent_to_Outlays.png

Maguro said...

It's time to find a way to dramatically reduce the size of our military so that it will cease looking for battles to fight.

You keep saying this as it it's relevant to the topic at hand. It's not. Whether women are physiclly suited to be effective infantrypersons is a completely seprate issue from how big the Army should be.

edutcher said...

bagoh20 said...

Does this mean if something goes bump in the night, us men get to stay asleep?

Not bump.

KABOOOOOMMM!!!!

Nomennovum said...

What a asinine idea this is. Obama really wants to destroy this country, doesn't he?

I believe we answered that question just about 4 years ago at this time.

rhhardin said...

I don't see why women can't have their own units with lighter guns.

And their own officers - Big Sis, Barbara Mikulski, Sheila Jackson Lee, Seantor Ma'am, Gloria Steinbrenner, and, of course, Oop.

Let's send them to the next Benghazi.

Shouting Thomas said...

What you guys don't see coming is that feminization of the military will ultimately shift the rationale for why a military exists.

Feminization of the domestic economy led to the election of Obama, because women favor social welfare and healthcare spending over abstract concepts like free markets.

I'm not exactly speaking pro or con, just reality.

Ultimately, the majority of women aren't going to give a fuck about whether men can carry a bigger backpack. Once in control of the military, they will undermine its current raison d'etre, which is to find battles and fight them.

Seeing Red said...

Jarrett: 'If There's One Thing We Should All Agree In, It's Protecting Women From Violence'

Maguro said...

Feminization of the military is the necessary precursor to dismantling it.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.


Uh no, it isn't. Defense spending has been dramatically slashed in the past without putting women in frontline combat jobs. Many times. The two things you're linking - womein in combat and the size of the military - literally have nothing to do with each other.

Maguro said...

If anything the military will get bigger and more expensive once the women are in charge because of all the nurturing they'll want to do. Nurturing ain't cheap!

carrie said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllenS said...

Drill, I've never been in a tank. I would imagine the new ones have power steering. Was in a couple of APs, but only stateside, and never even looked at who was driving.

I could imagine women manning artillery. Not actually loading shells into the thing, but commanding the men who are doing the labor.

Combat. So, what did you do in the war, Mom?

Maguro said...

I do find it amusing that they're putting in this policy just as the real fighting is winding down over there.

Nomennovum said...

The problem is that the American people watch too many Hollywood produced fantasy. While it may be fun to watch a hot babe fight and beat the crap out of a man, it is a sick joke ... mainly on women.

My wife used to think that she was as strong as, and more tolerant of pain than, any man, including me. I really enjoyed finally showing her the truth. I arm wresteld her one day to show her some reality (she is, BTW, my height, a tall woman). It lasted not one second. I slammed her arm down hard enough that it brought tears to her eyes. Probably more from the humiliation than the pain, but I couldn't stand her braggadocio any longer. Women today are just so convinced of their skills vis-a-vis men.

It didn't stop her from being a braggart, of course, but at least she knew she couldn't beat me. Should I be worried that she bought a gun?

Aridog said...

AllenS said...

Panetta isn't talking about humpin' a ruck.

The load this "Herd" trooper is carrying is of the "approach march" variety...that carried in on an airborne drop in to northern Iraq.

Hammond X Gritzkofe said...

Yeah, just looked at Drudge. Pic of a room full of old white guys apparently deciding to send women into combat.

Methadras said...

Shouting Thomas said...

Feminization of the military is the necessary precursor to dismantling it.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.


Feature creep.

Sorun said...

I'll be more supportive when this is no longer true: On moving day, women hang out together in the kitchen while men move the furniture.

Methadras said...

Shouting Thomas said...

Feminization of the military is the necessary precursor to dismantling it.

It's not a bug, it's a feature.


Feature creep.

AllenS said...

Aridog, no link, but I know what picture that you are talking about.

bagoh20 said...

I don't see the path from pedestal to fox hole as a promotion, but it does take some pressure off of men. I look forward to the day we are simply drone bees, playing video games by day and screwing by night. Keep up the good work, girls.

Maguro said...

The whole thing is about allowing a few fast-burner female officers to "check the box" of commsnding a combat unit and get them promoted.

Revenant said...

Feminization of the military is the necessary precursor to dismantling it.

Anyone with common sense already knows we need to dramatically cut military spending. Hint: when your military relies on loans from your largest potential enemy, you're spending too much on it.

The majority of Americans already want military spending cut. If the "feminization" of the military convinces the remainder to stop mortgaging our children's future to defend against nonexistent threats, I'm all for feminization. :)

Aridog said...

AllenS....dang, the link works for me. Here is the literal version:
http://api.ning.com/files/hWsIkySxVpfJypRno*E3VDek2syJcel8acH9wB*-yofz2q05XnFzhMg4AQSxfQbE8hi7zp20o5w0JJeYr8DVvnJyfUFJQ7-X/173rdABNBrig.InvasionofIraq.jpg

It is a great image of what is required in light infantry and Marine expeditionary forces.

edutcher said...

Shouting Thomas said...

What you guys don't see coming is that feminization of the military will ultimately shift the rationale for why a military exists.

Feminization of the domestic economy led to the election of Obama, because women favor social welfare and healthcare spending over abstract concepts like free markets.

I'm not exactly speaking pro or con, just reality.

Ultimately, the majority of women aren't going to give a fuck about whether men can carry a bigger backpack. Once in control of the military, they will undermine its current raison d'etre, which is to find battles and fight them.


The reality is with people in Congress like Senator Ma'am and Patty Murray, and people in the Executive like the Hildabeast and Big sis, we've had women deciding military policy for years.

Again, notice the difference?

bagoh20 said...

Can a fetus earn a purple heart?

The Drill SGT said...

AllenS said...
Combat. So, what did you do in the war, Mom?


Enlisted? I was shanghied into a covert SigInt unit, but when I arrived, they had not completed my TS clearance, so I was on the perimeter for 3-4 months, followed, after I got my full clearance, but before I needed to be shot before capture :) with a couple of weeks with L Co, 75th Ranger, where I help train them on some covert equipment. Did a couple of in-country missions with them.

Seeing those tanks drive by with the lawn chairs and ice chests on the back made me decide that Armor was the civilized branch when I was commissioned...

I did not deploy for Desert Storm... I was a Pentagon REMF then.

The Drill SGT said...

bagoh20 said...
Can a fetus earn a purple heart?


No, by definition, it's a 'dependent' and hasn't taken an oath. Civilians cant get purple hearts...

EDH said...

Relax. Don't you know?

Obama declared Iraq and Afghanistan the "wars to end all wars".

Seeing Red said...

Ahhh, I remember the days we had military spending cut.

And Yes, I do know there is waste there.....

It'll be fun reading about all the bad luck that will follow.

Shouting Thomas said...

It'll be fun reading about all the bad luck that will follow.

Bad things happen.

We can build up a large army when and if the need arises in crisis.

The other side of this, conservative guys, is that you cannot constrain the power of the presidency when you maintain the huge military presence that the U.S. maintains.

If you want to reduce the power of the Fed, you've got to reduce the size of the military.

If you want to continue to live in this state of continual crisis, there is no way to check the power of the Fed and the presidency.

Erika said...

Are they going to pump them full of depo-provera before shipping them out?

Aridog said...

The cuts in the military are already underway if my former associates are any indication. In some areas they are being notified to prepare for cuts, but to not notify their subordinates yet. They are distinctly being told to eliminate any cost not directly funded..e.g. overhead that isn't part of the official mission statement. No matter how justified, anyone submitting a request & justification, which is officially acceptable (a head fake nowadays) for increasing an expense is just setting themselves up for a future long term furlough. Trouble maker, you know, etc...

Women in all combat arms? Oh, look...SQUIRREL!

Comanche Voter said...

What the heck. When the Bamster and Chuck Hagel get through downsizing our armed forces, we'll be like Belgiium--with the biggest unit in the Army being the Army Band. Yer damned straight that a female trumpet player can serve in a combat role when all that's left is a "battle of the bands".

bagoh20 said...

"During World War II, nearly 500,000 Purple Heart medals were manufactured in anticipation of the estimated casualties resulting from the planned Allied invasion of Japan."
~Wikipedia

Are sure this is a good idea, girls?

Bryan C said...

We'll dispel some myths about female psychology. Or at least we would if there were any chance of an honest assessment of the policy by this administration. Or honest reporting from the press.

A more feminized military does not imply more caution or less aggression. I'll argue that men compartmentalize aggression far more effectively than women. Consider an infantryman whose mission now requires him to fight alongside the militiamen who tried to kill him last week. Now consider female infantry, required to support militiamen who attempted to kill and rape her. Should we expect there to be any difference?

icepilot said...

Military physical standards are not gender normed, they are gender preferenced. When the ladies came to the Naval Academy, they were run through the normal PT tests, and a gaussian distribution applied to the results. So the fitness requirement was set by the fitness of the first women, and not by any recognized standard.

Also note that the Navy-wide standard for passing the 1.5 mile run (part of the physical readiness test) is exactly the same for women as men - women 17 years old and men over 65, that is

edutcher said...

Shouting Thomas said...

It'll be fun reading about all the bad luck that will follow.

Bad things happen.

We can build up a large army when and if the need arises in crisis.


You are, of course, joking.

It took 4 years to build an Army of 90 divisions to fight WWII, and that was with the Limeys, Diggers, Russkies, and various Chinese doing our dying for us for at least 2 of those years.

I'll let our vets explain the old saw, "It takes 2 years to make a soldier", and remind you, after WWII, we had an Army of 25 divisions standing and, after 'Nam, an army of 18 divisions.

We'll be cutting from 10 divisions. Who's going to run interference for us while we build up, the Saudis, the Dutch, the Paks?

Get real. You want to cut the government, start with HHS, Education, Social Security, and all the subsidy programs, many of which are run out of Agriculture.

That's where the real money and the real power is. As Victor Davis Hanson has noted, we've got the most comfortable poverty in the history of the human race.

That's why the stupids keep voting for people like Kerosene Maxine.

Lem said...

Whatever women have wanted to do, they have gotten around to doing so.

If they want to fight?

Let them fight.

Lem said...

Remember Jessica Lynch?

Next time... I dont want to hear it.

Revenant said...

Ahhh, I remember the days we had military spending cut.

Oh, please. At the peak of Cold War military spending we spent 30% less -- inflation-adjusted -- than we do now.

Carol said...

This ought to reduce frivolous enlistments, yes?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

Is there any first world nation which has put women into full combat roles? Is there any data on the results and there performance?

Diogenes of Sinope said...

This is a purposeful effort to weaken the US military.

The Drill SGT said...

I withdraw all my objections, it has been settled:

There has always been some level of opposition to increasing the diversity in our military whether it has been minorities or women,” Duckworth said in a statement. “It is clear that the inclusion of groups like African Americans and Asians has made our military stronger. As a combat Veteran I know the inclusion of women in combat roles will make America safer and provide inspiration to women throughout our country.”

On the other hand, she was a helo co-pilot (8 years out of flight school), and I never saw a pilot ever carry anything heavier than a flight bag or stay out longer than 5 hours...

icepilot said...

Who thinks that the average Seal Team will be improved by adding sex, love, jealousy and hormones into a hot zone?

bpm4532 said...

For a defense secretary to do this on his way out of office, brands the decision as weak, almost desperate. It should have been announced by the president or the incoming defense secretary. We need strong leaders willing to be accountable, not weak ones needing to stand behind, seek subterfuge or deniability.

Baron Zemo said...

Well I think they should rotate all the woman who are having their periods because that would scare the shit out of anybody.

Let's put them in the "Big Red One!"

The Drill SGT said...

Revenant said...
Oh, please. At the peak of Cold War military spending we spent 30% less -- inflation-adjusted -- than we do now.


back-up? My memory says that spending decreased after 91, then went back up after 2001, but never as high as it had been as say 88.

measured as a pct of GDP. or as a pct of outlays

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Defense_Spending_-_percent_to_Outlays.png



bagoh20 said...

"Oh, please. At the peak of Cold War military spending we spent 30% less -- inflation-adjusted -- than we do now."

But as my link above shows, it's only half as large a percentage of the budget. Weapons appropriate for modern use are gonna be a lot more expensive, and we also spend a lot more to reduce casualties than we did. Even inflation adjusted, a lot of things cost more today, because the standards are higher. They are apples and oranges. Again, this is not our budget's real problem.

Lem said...

Jessica Lynch..." is a former United States Army soldier who served in Iraq during the 2003 invasion by U.S. and allied forces. On March 23, 2003, Private First Class Lynch was serving as a unit supply specialist with the 507th Maintenance Company when her convoy was ambushed by Iraqi forces during the Battle of Nasiriyah. Lynch was seriously injured and captured. Her subsequent recovery by U.S. Special Operations Forces on April 1, 2003 received considerable media coverage and was the first successful rescue of an American prisoner of war since Vietnam and the first ever of a woman."

The media and probably the Pentagon too used it... put out scenarios of rape and torture to hype the war.

Short of a foreign invasion on American soil... do we have the stomach to take reports of the girls being captured and used by a media savvy enemy?

The pentagon seems to believe we can.

Lydia said...

Diogenes of Sinope said...
Is there any first world nation which has put women into full combat roles? Is there any data on the results and there performance?

There's a pretty good piece at NPR from a year ago about the actual experience in countries that allow women in combat roles. Here's the case in Israel and Canada:

"All told, only 12 percent of military positions in Israel are off-limits to women, including combat positions in the armored corps and infantry. But women can service in light infantry, artillery, and border patrol roles. More and more positions have been opened over time, though there are alsoreports that the IDF often doesn't accept women for units for which they are eligible and evacuates women during combat situations. Women comprise only 33 percent of the IDF due to a shorter length of service and a more lenient discharge system for religiously observant Jewish women. Recent years have seen the creation of the "Caracal Batallion" a mixed-gender infantry unit that patrols near the southern border with Egypt and the first woman commanding a sniper platoon.

Even in countries with no restrictions, women's participation in combat units is relatively rare. For instance, in Canada, which has had no restrictions since 1989, 17 percent of troops are women but women make up only 3.8 percent of combat troops. Although not excluded by law, no women have yet qualified for Canada's elite anti-terrorist unit, which requires an extremely high degree of physical fitness."

MajorSensible said...

It's much ado about nothing.

What it means is that line Infantry companies, tank companies, and field artillery batteries will be allowed to have female supply sergeants, mechanics, personnel clerks, and the like. There still won't be female Infantrymen, tank crewmen, or artillerymen.

"Combat jobs", like "assault weapons", is a meaningless term. Full of political expediency, signifying nothing.

AllenS said...

Alright, everyone sit the fuck down. AllenS is going to do a pictorial --

On the hump in the bush


Relaxing in the bush


Full ruck with M60



Burying the enemy, since we didn't know his name, we signed the grave with a 173d acknowledgement

Boy scout training. What the hell, as long as we were in the area.

Let us review... this is fucking war. Can you understand this? Do you think that just anyone can do this? Do you think that there are any women who can go on a rucksack hump and keep up with what is actually involved in a war situation? Do you realize how many different men were killed and horribly wounded before these pictures were taken?

Look at the second picture. See the man in the lower right hand picture? That's Roger O. Does he already have that 1000 yard stare?

Yeah, we sure could have used some women with us. One thing is for sure, nobody wanted a fucking sissy ass bitch like Panetta with us.


Colonel Angus said...

Hint: when your military relies on loans from your largest potential enemy, you're spending too much on it.

Since keeping and maintaining armed forces is a core requirement of government, I would argue we are borrowing to sustain our welfare state.

Revenant said...

My memory says that spending decreased after 91, then went back up after 2001, but never as high as it had been as say 88.

You might be thinking defense spending as a percentage of GDP or as a percentage of total outlays? By those measures we're below the Reagan era.

Colonel Angus said...

I suppose combat in an AFV but I doubt woman could handle light infantry duty. I run a landscaping business and I've had two women apply in 20 years. One lasted three days and the other quit before lunch.

Lem said...

What difference does it make?

Baron Zemo said...

AllenS thank you for your service and your insight into this matter.

Revenant said...

Since keeping and maintaining armed forces is a core requirement of government, I would argue we are borrowing to sustain our welfare state.

Defense of the nation is a core role of government. Keeping and maintaining armed forces is a key role of government only inasmuch as it is a means to that end.

That aside, even if you think the welfare state is less core than military spending, the public wants military spending less than it wants the welfare state. When the day comes that we need to cut budgets, military spending WILL get cut first for the simple reason that people want medical care and comfortable retirements more than they want a democratic Taiwan or a Jewish Israel.

Baron Zemo said...

But maybe you should leave all the decision making to people who have never served like Valarie Jarrett and Leon Pancetta and of course the Jug Eared Jesus.

Baron Zemo said...

What Lem said.

The Drill SGT said...

AllenS, though I like your pics, you and i know the weight load has gone up in the 40 years since then. imagine how much fun it would be with an extra 20 pounds of ceramic plates and batteries :)

Is that you with the pig? (pic 3) (M60 LMG to the unenlighted. The term Light Machine Gun, only being a relative term :)

The M60 was 23 pounds and change without the 20 pounds of ammo needed to make it talk...

hence why it was called a pig...

AllenS said...

Drill, I'm in none of these pictures. This is the 3rd platoon. I was in the second. My good friend, Bill, who was in the 3rd platoon sent me these before he died of cancer a couple of years ago. I have more pictures, but I doubt if a lot of this crowd could handle them. I laugh at those who've never served that think that anyone can do the 11Bravo thing. It astonishes me, actually, but all they know is what they see going to the movies. Our society is getting dumber, and that is an unfortunate fact. So be it.

chickelit said...

Revenant observes: That aside, even if you think the welfare state is less core than military spending, the public wants military spending less than it wants the welfare state.

I concur. There is a natural tendency for people to let down their guard and just lie about letting others do. This is a fundamental human condition/vulnerability which lefties enable. The perennial question they pose is "why can't we be hedonistic pacifists?"

Baron Zemo said...

Wait a minute.

Did President Obama announce that he was ending the policy of excluding women from his cabinet?

NitneLiun said...

I could imagine women manning artillery. Not actually loading shells into the thing, but commanding the men who are doing the labor.

I was a U.S. Army Field Artillery officer for 7 years. You have no idea what you are talking about.

AllenS said...

Oh, and lets now forget the wildlife that you might encounter in the bush...

Reptile in the bush

TosaGuy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
TosaGuy said...

"What it means is that line Infantry companies, tank companies, and field artillery batteries will be allowed to have female supply sergeants, mechanics, personnel clerks, and the like. There still won't be female Infantrymen, tank crewmen, or artillerymen."

My infantry company headquarters with the supply sergeant, armorer, clerk, etc. conducted its own missions as a regular infantry platoon. That is what happened when our mission load in Iraq required four platoons and our company only had three.

Colonel Angus said...

That aside, even if you think the welfare state is less core than military spending, the public wants military spending less than it wants the welfare state.

That's not much of a surprise. Few people want to give up freebies. On the other hand, the country has maintained armed forces since its founding whereas welfare came around some 150+ years later so there is seniority at least.

When the day comes that we need to cut budgets, military spending WILL get cut first for the simple reason that people want medical care and comfortable retirements more than they want a democratic Taiwan or a Jewish Israel.

Well again, that's not a shock because freebies versus potential enemy attach, freebies win. Although I don't think the core mission of the US armed forces is ensuring the integrity of either nation. I'm trying hard to remember but I don't recall a single instance of the US military coming to the aid of Israel. My guess is since Israel can nuke their enemies, they really don't need us.

Colonel Angus said...

Revenant,

I think the comment you made about non-existant enemies isn't consistent with history. WW1 and WW2 demonstrated that despite loudly declaring neutrality we still were dragged into two world wars.

There are always enemies, some may just not know it yet.

AllenS said...

Nitne, I've watched men load shells in the 1960s into 105s and it didn't look like a job women could do. Same thing with 81 mm mortars. I know a lot of artillery men who don't have all of their fingers. Who did you serve with, and what kind of arty are you talking about? How much do these shells weigh that anyone can load?

Revenant said...

But as my link above shows, it's only half as large a percentage of the budget. [...] Again, this is not our budget's real problem.

Social Security, as of 2011, was 100% funded by the payroll tax. Other tax receipts came to $1,484 billion. Military spending was $929 billion. "Everything else" comes to $1,650 billion.

Military spending isn't THE problem, but it is damned well *A* problem, and a big one.

Revenant said...

On the other hand, the country has maintained armed forces since its founding

That would be a relevant point if I had said "we need to eliminate our military", but I did not.

For the vast majority of our history, yes, we maintained a military -- but a small one, designed for defense. Not a gigantic one, designed to be able to stomp the crap out of any two rival nations simultaneously on their home ground. *That* is an FDR-era invention, just like the welfare state.

The Drill SGT said...

a 155 round as I recall runs 100 pounds.

The Arty talks about 'serving the gun', meaning feeding shells into the breach for 24 hours at a time a a rate consistent with not cooking off rounds. not a soft job, at 100 pounds plus power a pop.

TosaGuy said...
"What it means is that line Infantry companies, tank companies, and field artillery batteries will be allowed to have female supply sergeants, mechanics, personnel clerks, and the like. There still won't be female Infantrymen, tank crewmen, or artillerymen."


In my day the 1SGT's clerk and the Commander's jeep driver were also 11B (Grunts) or 19E (tank crew), so there are some jobs females can do in a Tank or Rifle Co...

Female officers? not so much, they need to perform at a higher state than their troops, not in the bottom 10%...

Revenant said...

Well again, that's not a shock because freebies versus potential enemy attach, freebies win

What potential enemy attack? Do you realize that the last time a credible military attack was launched on the actual United States, it was launched by the Confederate States of America*? And led by former American officers, ironically.

Walk me through how a military assault gets launched against the United States that couldn't be easily defeated by a military one-tenth the size of what we have now, aided by state and/or citizen militias. For bonus points explain how the country in question avoided getting nuked back to the stone age by us.

We face no real military threats to our freedom. We haven't faced a real military threat to our freedom -- unless you count the five years we spent kicking our OWN ass during the 1860s -- since the war of independence. We need a huge military not for defense, but for global dominance. Thanks, but I'm uninterested in paying for global dominance on my credit card.

(* Hawaii was a colonial possession at the time of Pearl Harbor)

Wayworn Wanderer said...

What could possibly go wrong?

Wayworn Wanderer said...

What could possibly go wrong?

Jason said...

"Women in the Marine Corps train just as hard as the men."

Inga, shut your ignorant piehole, libtard. Veterans are talking, here.

glenn said...

Coupla gang rapes will put a stop to this shit.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger AllenS said...

Drill, I'm in none of these pictures. This is the 3rd platoon. I was in the second. My good friend, Bill, who was in the 3rd platoon sent me these before he died of cancer a couple of years ago. I have more pictures, but I doubt if a lot of this crowd could handle them. I laugh at those who've never served that think that anyone can do the 11Bravo thing. It astonishes me, actually, but all they know is what they see going to the movies. Our society is getting dumber, and that is an unfortunate fact. So be it.

1/23/13, 5:39 PM
__________________________________

AllenS: Tell Inga what your not wearing under those fatigues and why. The 11B's have the same problem in Afghanistan.

AllenS said...

In my picture called "relaxing in the bush", the man giving the finger is Bill Ruddy from Philly, the man who sent me these pictures.

simarilian said...

Just another distraction thrown into the media. If it's not bread, it's circuses.

David said...

There goes any chance of bringing back the draft.

TosaGuy said...

DrillSGT,

You attributed my quote of someone else to me. I made the same point you did.

The Drill SGT said...

LarsPorsena said...
AllenS: Tell Inga what your not wearing under those fatigues and why. The 11B's have the same problem in Afghanistan.


Short version, the underwear and your external genitals get various exotic funguses and rot off. Not sure how somebody with internal genitals would fair...

Colonel Angus said...

That would be a relevant point if I had said "we need to eliminate our military", but I did not.

It was relevant to the point that I was making that maintaining a military force is a core responsibility of the government. Welfare state, not so much.

For the vast majority of our history, yes, we maintained a military -- but a small one, designed for defense. Not a gigantic one, designed to be able to stomp the crap out of any two rival nations simultaneously on their home ground. *That* is an FDR-era invention, just like the welfare state.

Well considering we haven't been able to stomp the crap out a motley collection of goatherders in Afghanistan, I would suggest our military isn't big enough :-)

TosaGuy said...

""Women in the Marine Corps train just as hard as the men."

Probably do, doesn't mean that they are training on the things that infantry units train on.

With regard to the quip about a female officer can simply order the men around while they do heavy labor.....Lieutenants who lead that way don't last long. And if you can't hack it as an LT, it doesn't matter what career opportunities are supposedly denied because of gender.

Inga said...

Drill SGT and Lars, it's pretty darn dry in Helmand Province, not conducive to fungi. I'm not sure if any part of Afghanistan is as tropical as Vietnam is.

Revenant said...

Well considering we haven't been able to stomp the crap out a motley collection of goatherders in Afghanistan, I would suggest our military isn't big enough :-)

Stomping the crap out of Nth-world nations is not a core function of government. :)

Revenant said...

Humidity isn't the issue, heat is. Human beings supply their own undergarment humidity.

Colonel Angus said...

What potential enemy attack? Do you realize that the last time a credible military attack was launched on the actual United States, it was launched by the Confederate States of America*? And led by former American officers, ironically.

Revenant

I think you have mistakenly assumed I favor a giagantic military. The fact that I favor spending money on the military over maintaining a generational welfare state does not mean the Pentagon should receive a blank check.

My belief is credible threats we face are from rogue actors such as the ones we did on 9/11 that killed more people than the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The Drill SGT said...

train as hard = try as hard, not succeed in running as fast or carry as much.

I've seen a number of female and one or two male infantrymen crying along the side of the road, having giving up on the EIB or EFMB. Sometimes the body betrays the heart...

That article by the female USMC CBT Engr CPT was tragic. a female jock on her second combat tour, broken, by combat loads and 24 hour days. She was effectively an Inf PLT Ldr, albeit in static positions (while building combat outposts)

Colonel Angus said...

Stomping the crap out of Nth-world nations is not a core function of government. :)

Well I rather think it is when they provide aid and comfort to the nasty folks that launch attacks that kill thousands of people in this country. But that's me. YMMV ;-)

AllenS said...

Nobody had any underwear at that time, Lars, and for good reason. Let me say to everyone who thinks that women can do the hump with the ruck in the bush, do you understand that when you have to shit and piss, that you don't want to go too far off into the bush to do it? If you were a women, would you feel, you know, intimidated that maybe someone would want to watch you? Would that make you feel uncomfortable? Maybe you'd like to walk about 100 meters off into the bush so nobody would watch you piss and shit.

And, for all you mothers and fathers with sons and daughters in the military medical profession, let me say this: in one day, when we had a major military action, out of the 13 KIAs, 2 were our medics. Irville Knox and Gary Schwellenbach. May they rest in peace. Men who risked their lives to save others. Two of the best men that this country ever raised.

Make sure everyone understands this. War is hell. People die and suffer terrible wounds. It's not like watching the TV show MASH.

You want women in combat? Fine. So be it.

TosaGuy said...

We can all rationally state just how dumb and misguided this decision is.

However, it is barely an issue since it will impact so few women as it will be meaningless.

The real issue is that we have a military full of rot in the senior leadership of both officer and NCO. We have small group of fighters and a large group corporate hacks who happen to wear a uniform.

We still have generals and colonels who have never lead troops in combat, but hold pivotal positions like Chief of the National Guard Bureau......a four-star general who has never deployed. He directs policy for a force of citizen soldiers who dropped their civilian lives to deploy multiple times.

The Drill SGT said...

yeast (fungi) infection? they happen, even in air conditioned NYC in winter...

fungi in strange lands can be less than benign...

Inga said...

Revenant, as far as I know my daughter and the female troops didn't go commando. Of course she was on base, during the 120 degree heat walks from her can to anywhere she needed to be.

Inga said...

Well Vagisil will be dispensed by the trusty Corpsman.

AllenS said...

How often do you change your underwear, Inga? If you were sent off into the bush, and you were out there for a month, would you still be wearing your underwear? Or, are you under the impression that it's like going to the mall, and you get back before dark and then shower and put some new stuff on?

The Drill SGT said...

AllenS said...
How often do you change your underwear, Inga? If you were sent off into the bush


We did carry bar soap. When the afternoon rains came, guys would strip, (only 50%) and pull out the 'dial' and yell 'showers'

The Drill SGT said...

showered while still wearing boots I might add. The razor grasses, snakes and pungi discouraged walking around barefoot.

TosaGuy said...

Afghanistan: Experiences may vary.

http://www.tracksmag.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=218

n.n said...

With a rejection of the natural order (or at least an assertion of a temporary suspension), there is no longer a valid reason to distinguish between men and women acting to preserve our security and defend our interests. Women are capable of dying just as readily as men. Along with other perverse interpretations, we have been made interchangeable and disposable from conception to grave.

Furthermore, with the effort to normalize evolutionary dysfunction, there is actually an incentive (albeit perverse) to remove individuals, men, women, and other, engaged in dysfunctional behaviors from the gene pool. Then again, the so-called "breeders" seem to suffer a disparate impact.

I suppose this is the reason we have elected normalization of other participation, and, since we have no interest in actually winning, the loss of life, whether male, female, or other, can no longer be considered a motivating concern.

With the violation of the inviolable principle of evolutionary fitness, the priorities of society have changed accordingly. That is progress, of some kind, I suppose.

Inga said...

Allen, of course I realize that those out in the field and on the remote bases have to deal with extreme conditions. Women are not less able to tolerate heat and dirt, they may not be able to physically carry or lift to the same degree a man could, but I'm sure that they could serve a purpose.

Aren't we jumping to conclusions about just how they will be utilized in combat roles?

chickelit said...

Do you realize that the last time a credible military attack was launched on the actual United States, it was launched by the Confederate States of America*?

The defeat of both Germany and Japan created enormous needs to defend and rebuild Europe and Asia. We had competition. In Germany for example, a revenge-seeking Soviet Union could have extended its borders to the Rhine if not beyond. We may have overstayed in Germany, but the time we did stay there throughout the Cold War was justifiable in my opinion and it would have been derelict to have avoided.

Methadras said...

Why must military laced threads on this blog endure Inga's perpetual bleating about the horrible endurances her daughter has to go through because she volunteered to go through them in the first place and having this human punch-faced clown of a mother try to lecture us on them?

TosaGuy said...

"Aren't we jumping to conclusions about just how they will be utilized in combat roles?"

The most critical commenters on this subject are combat veterans from the combat arms -- people who know intimately what is needed to survive in prolonged combat. They have earned the right to jump to conclusions.

The Drill SGT said...

AllenS, be polite and pass on the softball that Inga set up for you.

Let's just say, there can't be two grades of infantry in a unit. Those that pull their weight and more, versus those who "serve some purpose"

TosaGuy said...

"Why must military laced threads on this blog endure Inga's perpetual bleating about the horrible endurances her daughter has to go through because she volunteered to go through them in the first place and having this human punch-faced clown of a mother try to lecture us on them?"

And somehow her vicarious experiences carry more weight than those who actually laced up the boots.

Inga said...

n.n.,
Do you realize how many of the female troops are married and have children? "Breeders" even in the miltary.

Palladian said...

With a rejection of the natural order...

When reading any of n.n.'s comments, it's helpful and amusing to hum "The Horst-Wessel-Lied", softly, at first, and with increasing vigor.

AllenS said...

You don't realize anything, Inga. You're a fool. Not only are you a fool, but a damned fool.

chickelit said...

The notion up thread of feminizing the military in order to ultimately be rid of it is as nutty as unilateral disarmament. What needs to happen instead is militarization of feminists.

Chip Ahoy said...

[women army israeli hot]

TosaGuy said...

"Do you realize how many of the female troops are married and have children? "Breeders" even in the miltary."

And how many of them can't deploy because they can't pull off a family care plan for those children (single guys with custody have this issue too).

chickelit said...

And somehow her vicarious experiences carry more weight than those who actually laced up the boots.

Not with me. I'd take an Allen S opinion any day over an Inga one. Inga dispenses halfway decent medical, health, beauty, and diet tips and that's about it. Her politics are completely left field.

Palladian said...

Furthermore, with the effort to normalize evolutionary dysfunction, there is actually an incentive (albeit perverse) to remove individuals, men, women, and other, engaged in dysfunctional behaviors from the gene pool.

...Einst kommt der Tag, da gibts Vergeltung, kein Vergeben wenn Heil und Sieg durchs Vaterland erschallt...

Bob said...

Inga, it is easy to say "they can serve a purpose" but that purpose may be "bullet catcher". I wonder how well this policy goes down when a unit finally gets overrun and we get to see pictures of US female soldiers being abused and beheaded.

The vets on this thread have years of experience on how "they" will be utilized. Because "they" use to be "us".

Inga said...

Tosa Guy, I haven't dismissed or diminished anything a veteran has had to say here.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 296   Newer› Newest»