February 8, 2016

The idea that the government would forcibly put young women in a foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them doesn’t make any sense at all to Ted Cruz.

"I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was, ‘Are you guys nuts?’... Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it.... But the idea that their government would forcibly put them in a foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them doesn’t make any sense at all."

Said Ted Cruz.

The "conversation" he was listening to was a segment of Saturday night's GOP debate, which I detailed in a post yesterday. I've been surprised how far public opinion has shifted toward the acceptance of drafting women. The poll I took yesterday shows that:



It was nice to see somebody — Ted Cruz — holding down the traditional position. It's one thing, I think, to allow women to volunteer for the military. (My mother volunteered for the Women's Army Corps in World War II, and I owe my existence to that.) But the idea of forcing women into combat is something I have long believed the American people would not accept. (And this is an idea I've been talking about annually in conlaw classes for many years.)

146 comments:

David Begley said...

Ted is a true feminist. This is a winning issue for him. Expect more on this. Way more.

Tregonsee said...

If you are applying logic, Cruz's argument is sound. However, the current discussions are based on "fairness." Since Men and Women were DEFINED to be physically equal back in the Clinton years, adjusting the draft to reflect that political reality is not only reasonable, but required. We must be fair, after all.

rhhardin said...

Draft 220-pound women.

Rusty said...

This is what you asked for. Now deal with it.

Karen of Texas said...

I wonder how much of the "yes, draft women" is 'reactionary'. People are sick and tired of pc crap and everything must be equal and fair, so maybe many are saying, "Fine. You want? You got it. Take THAT."

Also, I don't necessarily think they equate signing up for the draft as anything actually happening. Eighteen year old males have been required to sign up for how long without being dragged off to boot camp and tossed into a war zone?

If we actually needed boots on the ground and females were given marching orders? I think some people might re-evaluate. I could be wrong, though. We've fallen pretty far, I think.

MartyH said...

The poll used the term "register" and I voted that both men and women should register. IF there were a draft, women could fill the 90% of non combatant roles. The number of men fighting could double, while the number of women fighting could stay zero.

The original question in the debate really conflates three questions-registering women, drafting women, and having women in combat roles. The answer to each of those three questions can easily be different without being inconsistent.

Humperdink said...

Cruz's logic will escape most libs. Why? Logic is not, has never been, nor will ever be, in their DNA.

Single payer? Show me where it has succeeded.
Tax the rich? Show me the results.
Declare war on poverty? That war is lost.

All feel good stuff.

Mingus Jerry said...

Why does "draft women" = "draft women into combat roles?" There are hundreds of jobs in the military that are not combat roles. Medical, quartermaster, signal, intelligence, military police and so on. You can draft women without forcing them into a foxhole.

Saint Croix said...

If you are fighting for your existence, women fight. If you are in the frontier and there is an Indian tribe who is going to rape and kill you, you pick up a gun and learn to shoot. If you're in Israel and you are surrounded by people who want you dead, you sign up for the draft and learn how to fight. If you are in Vietnam and you are in a fight for your country, you fight.

I think it would be good for women to learn self-defense and how to handle a gun. It might make them less hysterical on the subject of rape.

I think too that a draft is a bad idea, that a volunteer fighting force is always the best. But if you are going to have a registration for the draft, then citizens should register.

And this "feminist" idea that men have duties and women have rights? What an awful and dishonest ideology feminism is.

Gahrie said...

It was nice to see somebody — Ted Cruz — holding down the traditional position.

You mean the position upholding female privilege? It's curious you describe it as traditional, given your rejection of the traditional in favor of Progressivism on every other social issue. But suddenly when it comes to women sacrificing, not so much.

It's one thing, I think, to allow women to volunteer for the military.

Yes...it is...female privilege.


But the idea of forcing women into combat is something I have long believed the American people would not accept.

They wouldn't have....but you have spent the last fifty years demanding equality for women, insisting that men and women were equal, and in fact there was absolutely no difference between them, and to even suggest that there was was enough to get you fired. (I'm looking at you Larry Summers)

Now it is time for women to put up or shut up, and all of a sudden it is a different story.

I used to oppose drafting women. In my perfect world, I still would. But we're living in the world that you worked hard to create instead.

sykes.1 said...

The draft is a red herring, a non-issue. We will never again fight with mass conscript armies like we did in Vietnam or Korea or WWI and WWII. Modern wars are fought with small professional armies composed of volunteers.

We ought to do away with the draft entirely. It just keeps a few more bureaucrats at the public trough.

Karen of Texas said...

MartyH, you are correct. There is a huge difference between registering and what would be required if drafted.

However, I have seen a lot of people say "yeah, throw 'em in combat roles. Not just pilots, but Infantry!!, too."

SayAahh said...

Thank you for your 'service'.

Rumpletweezer said...

Why is it okay to force young men to serve?

rhhardin said...

Only men can endure a hostile work environment.

chickelit said...

Althouse wrote: It was nice to see somebody — Ted Cruz — holding down the traditional position.

I missed Donald Trump's response to this question. What was it again?

buwaya puti said...

Mass armies are not obsolete.
The idea that they are is the result of the long peace, the Pax Americana. The few cases of mass warfare since 1945 have usually required the weaker side at least into total mobilization, within the capacities of the society involved.
The idea that "smart" weapons trump mass armies comes about because in these cases post 1945 there usually was a great technological gap between the sides.
Advanced technological weapons are available in very small numbers because the long peace has led to the elimination of mass production facilities for these. All of these, including every "smart" shell and bomb, is mainly handmade in spite of CNC tools, etc(at one time I was supporting CNC tools in various defense industries). Behind each of these things are expensive R&D and bureacratic organizations much larger than the actual producers. It is a reversion to craft production. That's why we are talking about jet fighters costing $ 100 million.
A true total war among high technology fully mobilized societies would see huge forces equipped with high tech weapons produced through mass production methods. And I think even nuclear weapons will not prevent this.

Larry J said...

Mingus Jerry said...
Why does "draft women" = "draft women into combat roles?" There are hundreds of jobs in the military that are not combat roles. Medical, quartermaster, signal, intelligence, military police and so on. You can draft women without forcing them into a foxhole.


Women have served in the US military for generations and most of them have done a good job. The current idea of putting women into ground combat jobs (e.g. infantry, armor, artillery, etc.) is insanity in the name of political correctness. I was a paratrooper (airborne infantry) as a young man, so I know a bit about the physical demands of the job. A lot of men aren't able to do those ground combat jobs. Putting women into those jobs will result in a lot more people being killed and wounded. While soldiers today have technology we couldn't even dream of in my day (as well as body armor), all of that also adds to the heavy combat load everyone is required to carry. That technology is cool and increases a soldier's effectiveness, but ground combat is still a very long way from the fantasy of push-button warfare.

Keep women in the military in the jobs where they've proven themselves capable. Get rid of the politically correct generals and admirals who'll kiss anyone's ass to get another star.

Gahrie said...

Why is it okay to force young men to serve?

Women have rights, men have responsibilities.

chickelit said...

Mingus Jerry said...Why does 'draft women' = 'draft women into combat roles?'

The short answer is because Ted Cruz will pretty say anything to get elected.

tds said...

all feminists should be forced to serve and sent to real combat

Ignorance is Bliss said...

The only time we would actually implement a draft is if the country was in an existential fight. At that point we need men to fight, and women to produce more men to fight and more women to later produce more men, etc.

So I say draft women into combat roles. Put them in the trenches with the fighting men. Include a provision that pregnant women get shipped home.

Problem solved.

Humperdink said...

"The short answer is because Ted Cruz will pretty say anything to get elected."

Speaking of red herrings.....

My name goes here. said...

Why does "draft women" = "draft women into combat roles?"

Becasue equal protection.

The Drill SGT said...

sloppy language by some posters. I'll just discuss the Army for ease of terminology, but my comments apply equally to the USMC.

Women already serve in "combat roles", but not (up till now) in a handful of direct combat career jobs (e.g. Infantry, Armor, Artillery, Special Ops). Under the old rules, women served as MP's, Combat pilots, door gunners, manned (personed?) machineguns on vehicles, etc. What they did not do is walk to war carrying 140lbs of gear. The old saying goes, "there is no such thing in combat as having too much ammo. There is only having too much ammo to carry". good luck as the 100lb female needing to carry your own gear and your slice of the squad common load. another 40 pounds on top of your 70lbs.

This means that there are lots of female MPs guarding convoys from atop Hummers, but no females on long range dismounted patrols, carrying 120lb rucks.

There is never going to be another draft, but the equality argument now being codified in the Army allows women to serve in all those jobs, but the other side of the same coin implies that women can be reassigned to any job now based on "needs of the Army". The same rules that have always applied to men. This will be a shock to some, the first time it happens.

traditionalguy said...

Equal Protection of the laws is a bitch, and then you draft one. The Draft is the problem.

The original draft levies laws allowed the purchase of a substitute volunteer to serve in your place. Sort of a free market for cannon fodder. No wonder Cruz and Goldman Sachs like the old ways best.

It's enough to make one want Woodrow Wilson back again.

rhhardin said...

There are no atheists in pigeonholes.

Bob Ellison said...

Women of IDF.

MountainMan said...

Bravo for Ted Cruz. My opinion is that putting women into combat roles has nothing to do with equality but is just another dumb idea from the left to make our military less effective. This kind of thinking is coming from an administration where the President and nearly all of his advisors not only have no military experience but are anti-military to the core.

I don't disagree, however, with having women register for the draft. There are many jobs women can do in the military very effectively, just like they did in WWII, and that would free up more men for the actual combat roles where men are more effective. But ground combat would not be one of them. If you think that women could handle the horrors of combat such as our troops and Marines saw in WWII, I strongly suggest you read Eugene Sledge's "Witih the Old Breed on Pelilieu and Okinawa", widely considered the best first-hand account of combat ever written. Sledge was a young Marine grunt who later went on to become a college professor. His literate and highly readable personal story leaves little to the imagination about the horrors of the front lines. If you think putting women, who are not as physically capable as men, into such a role would not weaken our combat effectiveness you're crazy.

The Drill SGT said...

Bob,

Those pics were excellent, but showed females in combat units but not in direct combat roles. The loads looked like 20-30lbs not 100-140lbs.

There were no pictures of a female running to the medic with a 180lb man on her back. We used to have a PT event, called in those days by the un-PC name "150 yard man-carry". Just what it sounds like. a skill needed by soldiers in combat. Pick your wounded buddy up and run with him 150 yards. Not fun...

PS: I have no issues with women in the Army in general. I married a soldier.

Charlie Currie said...

Where does it state that being drafted into the military automatically puts the draftee in a fox hole? My cousin was drafted into the Marines during the Vietnam war and spent his two years as the life guard at the Camp Pendleton pool.

I believe the ratio of support personnel to combat personnel is 11 to 1. There are plenty of no combat positions in all the services that could be filled with female draftees.

Quit be so hysterical.

Terry said...

Include a provision that pregnant women get shipped home.
Of course any female soldiers will be released from hazardous duty if she becomes pregnant, and that pregnancy will be a matter of choice. Feminists will insist that a soldier who takes medical leave for a voluntary pregnancy has the same opportunities for advancement as soldiers who cannot choose to opt out of hazardous assignments.
It'll be great for moral!

amielalune said...


I would never call myself a feminist, probably only because activist feminists have made a mockery of the word; but I work in what used to be considered a "man's" field yet have never experienced real discrimination for being a woman. (Teasing, yes; what feminists would call sexual harassment, yes; but nothing I couldn't handle with humor and dignity and without making enemies of my antagonists.) But anyone who thinks the average/typical 18 year old girl is the physical equal of the average/typical 18 year old boy is delusional.

Having said that, if women really are demanding to be treated exactly like men (which is questionable; I think it's just the leftist activists making all the noise, as usual) then they absolutely should be drafted, and for combat roles. It's extremely hypocritical to think otherwise.

But maybe I can say that because the entire next generation in my extended family is made up of little boys (11 and counting - thank God someone is having girls, because we aren't).

Scott M said...

Perhaps what's driving public acceptance of forcing women to sign up Selective Service is that people are fed up with the hypocrisy of the whole thing. Maybe everyone's saying, "if they're going to be allowed into combat jobs, then they can damned will sign up for the draft."

This is all, of course, academic at this point. Terry mentioned the real world when he said, Of course any female soldiers will be released from hazardous duty if she becomes pregnant, and that pregnancy will be a matter of choice. Feminists will insist that a soldier who takes medical leave for a voluntary pregnancy has the same opportunities for advancement as soldiers who cannot choose to opt out of hazardous assignments.

It is a fact of life in uniform that some women will get pregnant on purpose to avoid deployment to shitty places. Fact. Of. Life.

Bob Ellison said...

The Drill SGT said, "Those pics were excellent, but showed females in combat units but not in direct combat roles. The loads looked like 20-30lbs not 100-140lbs."

Agreed. Men are simply stronger than women. But they (the women) sure are pretty!

The Drill SGT said...

Charlie Currie said...
Where does it state that being drafted into the military automatically puts the draftee in a fox hole? My cousin was drafted into the Marines during the Vietnam war and spent his two years as the life guard at the Camp Pendleton pool.


The point is that draftees dont get to chose "lifeguard" as an assignment. The USMC makes those arbitrary decisions.

So your approach would be to pretend to be equal, by drafting both genders, but then give all the good or safe jobs to females?

because they aren't really as strong or tough?

exactly...

every squad today has a weakest link, the butt of jokes and the doer of shitty jobs. Allowing women in infantry squads assures me that that weakest link will now always be female...

not good for unit morale

Bob Ellison said...

What's driving this whole thing is:

1) Leftists hate the military

2) Leftists hate the draft

3) Leftists want equality between women and men

...which makes things difficult.

Leftists are the ones promoting the draft. Switzerland has it. Why not America?

Curious George said...

"(My mother volunteered for the Women's Army Corps in World War II, and I owe my existence to that.)"

Well, that and the fact that she didn't decide to murder you by having an abortion, something that is totally cool if she did.

jr565 said...

Women are not physically as strong as men. Or as fast. And those they are "competing" against are trying to kill them. Its not like combat will be run like sports, where the women have their own division and compete against the women on the other teams divisions. No ,they will be competing against the 220 pound psychopath.

I almost want to see it happen just to show women how stupid they are about this. Enjoy your female privilege. IF though, you insist on being one of the guys don't complain when they disembowel you.

Eustace Chilke said...

I think the shift in willingness to draft women is a reaction to feminist overreach. The most infuriating parts of the feminist program are actually supremacist and hateful - and they've had success in implementing a big chunk of it. Men are more often willing now to say something like "you're telling me that I'm just a woman with balls? Or that a woman is now a man because she says so? Ok, then. You weren't careful enough what you wished for. How do you like it now that you've got it?"

This response doesn't account for the rule that only women make the rules, only women know all the rules, and that women change the rules whenever they want. Men are just women with balls until women don't want it that way for some reason and, if you find internal tension in this or any other feminist position, you're just mansplaining and hating on them. So get back in line, butthole, and back in the foxhole, and shut the fuck up.

The new willingness of men to say "Ok, have at it and let's see how it works out for you" will be short lived as well. At the longest it might last until female draftees start getting killed and getting other soldiers killed in combat. I'd be amazed if it even lasted that long. Women will be handed all the benefits and soft jobs and that will be the limit.

The Drill SGT said...

jr565 said...
I almost want to see it happen just to show women how stupid they are about this. Enjoy your female privilege. IF though, you insist on being one of the guys don't complain when they disembowel you.


No females want to be "riflepersons".

There are some USMA grads that want to be Commanders of "Riflemen". That's where the Stars fall.

There are lots of Elites, who would not dream of allowing a son to join, much less a daughter, who like in theory, the idea that the Army is now "gender neutral"

jr565 said...

the worst thing about the idea of women in combat is the effect they will have on their fellow comrades. Who will not be secure in the knowledge that if things get FUBARed that she will be able to drag them to safety. She'd be the one on the team that can't save her brothers, the weak link on the team. That's not a good thing to people. It will breed resentment if one person on the team isn't pulling their weight.

themightypuck said...

Conscription is a blight upon liberty. If a country can't garner enough volunteers to fight when fighting is really needed, it doesn't deserve to survive.

Brando said...

As a practical matter we're never going to have a draft, so making women sign up for selective service is a nice purely symbolic move.

Ann Althouse said...

Note to Nichevo: As you must have noticed by now, I delete all your comments when I see them. There is nothing you can do to change my position on this. I am directly telling you in case you somehow have not processed this reality. Go away. Don't attempt to comment here again. As for other commenters, please don't respond to this commenter, who has committed an unforgivable offense in my book. If he doesn't know what it is, I'd be very surprised, but if so, the only good faith response is to stop commenting here forever. Never come back. Further commenting is more evidence of your bad faith.

tim in vermont said...

I could be wrong, but my understanding is that even the IDF has a hard time keeping the men from specifically protecting the women in combat, taking risk they otherwise wouldn't, etc. For instance, on D-Day, men were ordered to attack defensive constructions on the beach with what was basically a suicide bomb. The bomb didn't kill the soldier, it was sort of a long pipe he jammed under the fences, but he was sure to be killed by enemy fire. I can't imagine the man who could order a woman to do that.

buwaya said...

Whatever the merits of the desire to punish people for the various idiocies of modern ideology;
this desire is immoral.
Wishing that some poor teenage girl comes to avoidable harm just for the sake of personal satisfaction in an argument with a foolish leftist - well, that is an evil wish.

David said...

Registering women for the draft and actually drafting them are two different things. I voted yes but my position is that whether and for what purpose women would be drafted should be left to when and if we actually draft people.

I have never been in combat but my friends who have are adamant that ground combat is no place for women. They base that more on self interest than concern for the women. It only takes a few deficiencies to turn a battle against you. The disparity in physical strength between men and women is very dangerous to the force ruling on female infantry combatants.

Gusty Winds said...

Draft the Feminists. Leave the women at home.

tim in vermont said...

I guess ISIS uses women for that purpose, so I suppose that we can eventually devolve to the point where we will do it too.

CarlF said...

Ann, you are misreading your poll. I am opposed to women in combat and the drafting of women. But I voted in your poll that both men and women should register for the draft. The current reality -- which I oppose -- is that at the insistence of the Democrats, the military will put women in combat positions. As long as that remains the reality, the Democrats should face the political downside of telling their women supporters that they face the possibility of being drafted and fighting.

Gusty Winds said...

Reminds me of Shel Silverstein's Ladies First.

Pamela Purse screamed, “Ladies first,”
When we went off on our jungle trip.
Pamela Purse said her thirst was worse
And guzzled our water, every sip.
And when we got grabbed by that wild savage band,
Who tied us together and made us all stand
In a long line in front of the King of the land-
A cannibal known as Fry-‘Em-Up Dan,
Who sat on his throne in a bib so grand
With a lick of his lips and a fork in his hand,
As he tried to decide who’d be first in the pan-
From back of the line, in that shrill voice of hers,
Pamela Purse yelled, “Ladies first.”

Charles said...

I really think we need to get rid of the draft registration totally. If we have to have it, then for equality issues, we need to have everyone register.

As others have said just being drafted does not mean direct combat role, though I see the point with this even as that then favors women to non direct combat roles, which is a pickle in and of itself.

So the best answer is get rid of Draft registration totally.

Terry said...

In WWI the Soviets tried out female regiments.
They didn't fight well. This didn't mean that the women soldiers were cowards, it meant that they required more resources to support than a similarly effective regiment of male soldiers.
The Soviets tried to shift the female soldiers to support roles, but this caused moral problems for reasons mentioned in this thread -- the women got easy duty as guards away from the front. The men they replaced were sent into combat.

dreams said...

We are living in a crazy time.

Big Mike said...

@Althouse, your poll question was whether women should be subject to the draft. There are, in fact, wa-a-a-ay more noncombat jobs than actual combat jobs in the military. A person can be drafted and not serve in combat.

Fernandinande said...

a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them doesn’t make any sense at all.

Billary often doesn't make any sense at all, but I don't think she weighs that much.

Cog said...

The three Republicans who favored drafting women at the debate generally accept the cultural agenda promoted by Hollywood/Academia/Media. We’re being trained to turn a blind eye at the natural differences of men and women. Radically departing from the way people thought for millenia is fast becoming passe. Look how quickly transgenderism is being normalized; NY fines people now for using pronouns that indicate someone is the sex they were born as rather than the one they fantasize they are.

Eustace Chilke said...

I'd like to know what AA's unforgivable offense is. A man's got to know his limitations.

Lauderdale Vet said...

When I served, only men could be billeted to combat ships. I served on one for my first four years. The crew was dedicated, professional.

I served next on an auxiliary ship. It was like a floating brothel and reminded me more of high school than a military command.

buwaya said...

As for the tooth to tail ratio -
In a sense this is artificial. I don't think its necessary to use persons under military discipline for most of this. Civilian workers were used for all of these functions in the past. The reason the uniformed military expanded into these areas was the need to impose discipline
This started historically with the artillery. In the early days of artillery the gunners were civilian craftsmen engaged for a campaign or siege. When they started getting shot at it was considered prudent to turn them into soldiers. Then it was artillery teamsters. Until the late 18th century these were usually civilians. The need to have artillery maneuver on the battlefield, putting them in harms way, required their militarization.
Then came the supply columns. Until quite late in the 19th century unit supply was also in the hands of civilians, though it was clear that this was a tactical and operational asset. Wellingtons most valuable units, in his own estimation, were his crack column of bullock carts and their expert drivers, during his Indian campaigns, and later his Spanish muleteers.
Beyond that it started to get rather far from disciplinary requirements. I suspect many rear-echelon roles were and are military simply because it can be cheaper labor than civilians.
Given that a total war requires the socialistic organization of society I don't see the need to militarize the workers required for most of these roles.

Gusty Winds said...

How come "Only Women" wasn't a choice in the poll?

Mingus Jerry said...

The last person drafted was in 1972. Aren't there more pressing issues for candidates to discuss? This seems to be another manufactured issue where someone (media or candidate) raises a non-pressing or even irrelevant issue just to play gotcha. Let's get back to the real issues like Marco Rubio's wife's traffic tickets!

Lonetown said...

I voted to draft both men and women not for combat roles, but rather for roles. It would be for roles for which they are capable and ideally had a choice in.

In the 60's draft, you had no choices. If you wanted to choose, you had to enlist, the catch is enlist for 4 or be drafted for 2. That draft system was so corrupt, people like Bill Clinton had help with deferments from politicians.

Ann Althouse said...

CarlF said "Ann, you are misreading your poll. I am opposed to women in combat and the drafting of women. But I voted in your poll that both men and women should register for the draft. The current reality -- which I oppose -- is that at the insistence of the Democrats, the military will put women in combat positions. As long as that remains the reality, the Democrats should face the political downside of telling their women supporters that they face the possibility of being drafted and fighting."

I'm aware of that, and I don't outright say the thing you would (correctly) regard as a misreading. The linked post is very clear about all that.

Here, I'm quickly referring to "how far public opinion has shifted toward the acceptance of drafting women." I could belabor the distinctions that I agree are important, but I belabored them in the linked post.

I do stand by the idea that public opinion is shifting and the poll is evidence of that.

Fernandinande said...

Gusty Winds said...
How come "Only Women" wasn't a choice in the poll?


'Twas an expression, both visible and subliminal, of the Structural 'n' Institutional Matriarchy.

Drafting only women would make up for the sexist injustices of the past. Can't have that.

Owen said...

Buwaya: thanks for the knowledge and perspective on how the "tail" got militarized.

khesanh0802 said...

We are not talking about drafting women into combat (stupid!). We are talking about treating women equally and requiring them to register for Selective Service. Women yell "I am equal", but when it comes to something that might create danger "Oh no we can't do that". In this case, put up or shut up!

Scott M said...

Wishing that some poor teenage girl comes to avoidable harm just for the sake of personal satisfaction in an argument with a foolish leftist - well, that is an evil wish.

Is it evil if you know that once it happens enough, a lot more lives (women AND men) will be saved when the policy is reversed?

LarsPorsena said...

Women in foxholes? First and foremost, women can't dig foxholes. Some man will have to do it for them. Digging a foxhole every day after a nice walk in the sun is a son of a bitch.

Terry said...

If you were an enemy of the US, and you knew that the US army had women in combat roles, how would you exploit that fact to your advantage?
What would the Vietnam War have been like if some significant number of combat troops -- say, 25% -- were young women draftees?

MayBee said...

It's unAmerican to draft either men or women.

But I don't see why, in today's environment, women should be protected from registering.

Jupiter said...

The whole thing is a crock. Drafting anyone, male or female, is involuntary servitude outlawed by the 13th Amendment. If we are going to draft young people because we are unwilling to pay enough to induce them to serve willingly, why not draft doctors and nurses to reduce health care costs? We could also slash education costs by drafting teachers and administrators. Yes indeed, there's a lot to be said for slavery, when you're not the slave.

Dan Hossley said...

In for a penny, in for a pound.

MayBee said...

I'm sad nobody will discuss my idea of drafting women into pregnancy service for their country.

If women can't be drafted into combat because they need to procreate, I say we can draft them to procreate.

Would people object to this? Is it more objectionable than drafting young men to combat?

Michael K said...

"of course any female soldiers will be released from hazardous duty if she becomes pregnant, and that pregnancy will be a matter of choice."

In Gulf War I, the first in which women could serve on ships deployed, 25% of female crew members got pregnant and were sent home.

I interview a lot of women applying to the military. A few are skilled professional like nurses and engineers. The young less educated ones are looking for jobs and I have yet to meet one who was interested in combat.

On the other hand, I see young fit men who are college graduates but are enlisting because they want to be SEALs or Special Forces. SEALs in particular, are almost all enlisted because officers do not stay with their units but are transferred back to the fleet. If you want to be a career SEAL, you do not apply to be an officer. I see quite a few who want to try to make it.

Alexander said...

The idea of having a draft without women is absolutely insane, always has been.

A draft does not require that everyone drafted has to be given a gun and sent to the front line. But if the purpose of the draft is to be able to, when necessary, mobilize the entire population in the defense of the nation... why would you leave out half of it?

Why would you not want a full account of the numbers and locations of the women that, in the world wars, made up your war factory personnel and your women's auxiliaries? The population that will make up the staff of your back-line hospitals and supply centers?

For that matter, a nation serious about civil-defense would never allow one's draft-time to expire. Okay, you are no longer a male 18-35... but a nation that can compel young men to go overseas to die can certainly compel a slightly older man to report to Norfolk or San Diego and be pressed into a shipyard, or to drill in the Dakotas. Men and women who are either too old or injured can be enlisted to mind the children and in generally make sure things are as smooth as possible for the ones deployed away from home.

A nation that was serious would not only have a draft registration, but allow citizens to access and submit additional information to their draft file: certifications demonstrating fluency in foreign languages, objective qualifications in electronics, computers, fields of engineering, medicine, police & security, construction, truck & locomotive drivers, etc. etc.

In short, a nation that was serious about a draft - and EVERY nation that accepts one should be serious about it - would not behave like we behave.

By all means, the moral arguments against a draft at all can be made; but once one decides to have one waiting in the wins for the sake of practicality, be practical.

Freder Frederson said...

Just because you'red drafteddoesn't mean you are going to be in a combat unit. The vast majority of the military personnel are in support units.

James Pawlak said...

One of the reasons I enlisted in the US Navy, rather than the Army/USMC, was that I did not wish to be have to run myself, many pounds of personal weapon & equipment ANN such objects a very, very, heavy mortar base-plated, over broken ground, while under fire.

There are very few women who can do that.

(I was on the receiving end of "Friendly Fire" in the Navy.)

coupe said...

I don't think a warrior should ever be called a 'psychopath'.

Regardless of their mental condition, they have only one mission, and that is to merge with the enemy and destroy them.

I don't care if a warrior has a penis or a vagina, or is 90 pounds or 220 pounds. Given enough gunpowder and numbers, any Army will do well.

We need to 'dispel with' this notion that women can only be non-warriors in life.

Alexander said...

I don't care if a warrior has a penis or a vagina, or is 90 pounds or 220 pounds. Given enough gunpowder and numbers, any Army will do well.

Observably false.

buwaya said...


" But if the purpose of the draft is to be able to, when necessary, mobilize the entire population in the defense of the nation... why would you leave out half of it?"

If you could do that anyway, why bother with the fiction of enlisting them ?
The Soviets, British, Germans and who knows who else did this in WW2 without putting most in uniforms.
There are those pictures of babushkas digging anti-tank trenches in front of Moscow.

Levi Starks said...

How can young women ever succeed, (or know they've succeeded) unless they're subjected to the same instutionalized abuse as are young men.
Not only should they be required to register, they should be lined up outside post offices national wide demanding to be allowed to register.

tim maguire said...

Forcing anyone into combat is something the American people should not accept. The validity of the draft is based on the notion that the citizen is the property of the state. Once upon a time, we knew this. During the War of 1812, our government found the notion of a draft so noxious and offensive that they chose to let the capital burn rather than embrace this form of slavery.

Then Abraham Lincoln, the most dictatorial president in US history (almost entirely given a pass for the road he set us on) changed all that so now we can talk about a draft and maintain a registry for the draft, not only in peacetime, but in an atmosphere where the technological sophistication of the military renders an actual draft worse than useless.

Alexander said...

You don't have to enlist them. There is no reason for everyone to be given a military rank.

But the purpose of a draft is to have a comprehensive list of available manpower in the event of war. However, as it stands the draft only provides us with the people who will form the point of the spear: it does not assist in mobilizing the population's industry, logistics, or support. It does not - within the selective service requirement - take into considerations technical expertise of vital infrastructure, from broadcasting to surgery. It does not earmark the people who will take up the slack when the first group is pressed into service.

A serious draft would do these things.

rcocean said...

People say there in favor of drafting women because they:

1) know it will never happen
2) have no idea what war is like
3) don't know what the military is like
4) and have swallowed feminist propaganda

The draft ended 40 years ago, and the number of veterans -as a percentage of population - is at its lowest point since 1940.

rcocean said...

In this age of nuclear weapons, drones, and cruise missiles we're never going to need another 8 million man army.

However, if we do draft women, I'm in favor of feminists in foxholes.

The Godfather said...

What a wonderful planet Althouse World is! In Althouse World, if a man and a woman make a baby, only the woman gets to decide whether to kill the (not-yet-born) baby, and the man has to live with her decision. And in Althouse World if a woman wants to join the military she is allowed to do so, but she can't be forced to join, and she can't be required to go into combat, but a man can be drafted and sent into combat whether he wants it or not.

khesanh0802 said...

@ Maybee I think your idea is a good one in the sense that it makes demographic sense and is very realistic from the the point of national survival. In past conflicts nature has seemed - anecdotally - to take care of that by increasing the number of pregnancies in the population. The idea is unrealistic also because so few are actually in combat arms and the threat of not having enough breeding age women is small.

Ann's post really is about registering for Selective Service which is miles away from being assigned to a combat unit. Equality requires that women register.

PS I still haven't forgiven you for calling Tom Brady a liar. I hope that you have paid enough attention to "Deflategate" to understand that if anyone was deceitful their names were Roger Goodell, Jeff Nash and Ted Wells, the Exponent lab and other officers of the NFL. This article in the NYT is a good synopsis of what went on. ( I know it's the NYT but there are many more detailed pieces including Judge Berman's decision that I didn't think you would want to read!)

khesanh0802 said...

"How can young women ever succeed, (or know they've succeeded) unless they're subjected to the same instutionalized abuse as are young men."

Well said, Levi.

JAORE said...

"The reason women don't play football is because eleven of them would never wear the same outfit in public." - Phyllis Diller

Rick said...

Karen of Texas said...
If we actually needed boots on the ground and females were given marching orders? I think some people might re-evaluate. I could be wrong, though. We've fallen pretty far, I think.


If it actually came to pass (which it won't) we would draft women but assign them in non-combat roles unless they volunteered for combat. We're never going to force women into combat against their will. The enemy might but we won't.

HoodlumDoodlum said...

It's called "equality," The Godfather, catch up.

AllenS said...

You can argue all you want that there are 9, 10, 11 rear area safe military jobs to support the Infantry, but what will happen when those rear area troops are ambushed on their way to provide the food, ammo, water... to the Infantry?

Some of you watch too much tv.

Sigivald said...

But the idea that their government would forcibly put them in a foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath trying to kill them doesn’t make any sense at all

1) The opposing force is usually not psychopaths, and if they're in the foxhole with your troops you've already got a big problem.

2) It's no more nonsense than putting young men in foxholes to fight people trying to kill them, against their will - we got rid of the draft for a reason, after all.

3) Hand-to-hand combat is very rare these days, and women shoot just fine.

buwaya said...

"In this age of nuclear weapons, drones, and cruise missiles we're never going to need another 8 million man army."

Sez you. History has a way of making fun of such assumptions. As per 1930's thinking WW2 was supposed to have been settled by gas-bombing of cities. Didn't happen that way.

" but what will happen when those rear area troops are ambushed on their way to provide the food, ammo, water... to the Infantry?"

Its not even just that. Modern artillery ranges mean lots of the "rear" is in combat.
http://articles.latimes.com/1991-02-26/news/mn-1889_1_scud-attack
"Military sources said the warehouse, hidden behind a shopping center and about three miles from the Dhahran airport, contained a mess hall and barracks for at least 100 men and women. A singed sign at the entrance marked it as the home of the 475th Quartermaster Group, a reserve water supply unit from Farrell, Pa. Scores of trucks parked nearby were not hit."

This was a "mixed" male-female support unit.

coupe said...

Cock pit and Fox hole. They always make me giggle. Must be my non-farm childhood.

tim in vermont said...

Faced with a genuinely new situation, Rubio could not figure out what to do …. and so stumbled into doing precisely the wrong thing - Frum on Rubio


ARM finds this "effectively" showing that Rubio is unprepared, But Obama's utter and complete dependence on teleprompters in no way indicated that he was not trusted to speak off the cuff by anybody close to him. He had no teleprompter with Joe the Plumber, and fucked up royally, and of course, Joe the Plumber, a nobody who got his door knocked on, had to be subject to a destroy mission.

tim in vermont said...

In this age of nuclear weapons, drones, and cruise missiles we're never going to need another 8 million man army.

I don't know, it sounds like a good thing to have if we were subjected to an EMP.

Terry said...

Coupe wrote:
"I don't care if a warrior has a penis or a vagina, or is 90 pounds or 220 pounds. Given enough gunpowder and numbers, any Army will do well."
There is a scene in Mark Halprin's A Soldier of the Great War where the Italian enlisted men are talking about a looming close-quarter battle with Austrian army. The Italians are full of bravado, but all of them are thinking about how big the Austrian soldiers are compared to Italian soldiers.

buwaya said...

"There is a scene in Mark Halprin's A Soldier of the Great War"

Highly recommended. Go read it.

Cody Taggart said...

Your poll was sexist.

Why was there no "No one, but if anyone, only women"?

Because female privilege.

For 200 years, only men have been subject to the draft. We deserve reparations, and it's time that women bore the burden of compulsory military service.

Alexander said...

@Cody,

Good catch!

There should have been two additional choices. No one, but if anyone, only women. AND Only women.

Course, the thing about privilege is that those who have it just don't see it, amirite?

virgil xenophon said...

tim in vermont@8:59am/

Those long pipes/tubes filled w. explosives you speak about are called Bangalore Torpedos and are used by combat engineers to clear/breach defensive barbed-wire entanglements, etc., and were originally lengths of explosive-filled bamboo, as they were invented by a British officer in India.

coupe said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
joetheragman said...

We will draft again. On that issue I am fairly certain. People who believe that drones take the place of boots on the ground, were fired from the Bush administration after we went into Iraq. If you think that, you were not paying attention in the aughts with Iraq and Afghanistan. The military was totally stretched to its limit. Something slightly bigger will require a draft and to think that a slightly larger war is impossible, is folly. It reminds me of a old Time magazine I was reading from 1999 that sarcastically was saying there was no reason to prepare for a military that needed to fight two wars at the same time. I was reading in the CIF while picking up my gear to head to Iraq in 03.

Rick said...

AllenS said...
what will happen when those rear area troops are ambushed on their way to provide the food, ammo, water... to the Infantry?


Some will die, as has already happened.

wildswan said...

Not one single woman has posted to say that she herself or her daughter should or could serve effectively in combat. If women and men are the same then most women, when trained, can serve equally effectively in combat as a man and they ought to be asking for the right. I've never met a women who wanted to face combat and I've met women who wanted every other item on the feminist wish list from being an abortionist to being a nurse who kills patients. An ambition to kill the helpless is the only "combat" for which feminist women seem ready and eager.

buwaya said...

"A Forgotten Solder" by Guy Sajer

Also very much worth reading. Go get it.
Be prepared for depression. Nearly as grim as E.B.Sledge.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

The purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.

It is not to be a social services agency.

If women in the military make it better at killing and breaking I am fine with them being in the military on exactly the same basis as men. That includes being eligible for the draft just like men

Otherwise their role should be limited as it used to be with Waves, Wacs and Wafs.

John Henry

ndelancie said...

To paraphrase H.L. Mencken: "[Feminism] is the theory that [feminist activists] know what [all women] want, and deserve to get it good and hard."

Exacerbate the internal contradictions of third-wave feminism.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

When I was in the Navy, 67-74 I was a Machinist Mate. That meant I worked in an engine room and could expect on a normal day to work 12-16 hours when underway. More if there were problems, emergencies or drills. I could expect my ship to spend 20 days a month away from homeport. As a seagoing rate, I could expect to spend 10-12 years at sea before being eligible for 2 years of shore duty.

When I did get ashore, there were not many jobs in my specialty. A few in LOX plants and repair facilities but it was mostly security, barracks management, I worked in the base marina for the last part of my time ashore.

In 1972 they started letting women in the seagoing rates. But since they didn't go to sea, that meant that the sea tours of men lengthened. It meant that the few in specialty jobs that existed ashore went to women and men got more shit jobs.

Women got sent to schools and, when they did, they took up spaces for men that could have actually used the training when they got back to the fleet.

They also started competing with men for promotion. Since in the Navy promotion is based mainly on a Navy wide competitive exam and since there are only a finite number of promotion slots Navy wide each cycle, women started keeping men from getting promoted without having to go through the hardship of serving and deploying at sea.

Admiral Elmo Zumwalt was a pretty sharp guy in many respects but he famously tried to turn the Navy into a social services agency. Lots of good people, myself included, got out of the Navy in the 70s as a result.

If women are going to serve in the military, they need to serve on an equal basis to men. They never have and I doubt they ever will.

John Henry

Larry J said...

chickelit said...
Mingus Jerry said...Why does 'draft women' = 'draft women into combat roles?'

The short answer is because Ted Cruz will pretty say anything to get elected.


Nope. In a previous decision, the supreme court ruled that women didn't have to register for the draft because they were prohibited from serving in direct combat roles. The Obama administration has pushed that aside and the star-wearing sycophants in uniform think it's a wonderful idea. So, if women can now serve in those direct combat roles, the objection to them having to register for the draft goes away. It is a direct case of sex discrimination. If a young man doesn't register for the draft, he can suffer many legal consequences including being denied student loans and possible fines.

None of this actually factors in what is best for the military. That's something Obama and his ilk have never been concerned about. Weakening the military through political correctness isn't a bug, it's a feature. Generations of my family have served in the military including me. As long as this nonsense goes on, I won't be encouraging my grandkids to join the military. Let someone else's kids take the risks.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Blogger The Drill SGT said...

No females want to be "riflepersons".

I taught for 22 years at a satellite campus of SNHU at Roosevelt Roads NS So had a lot of active duty students. Since I taught a lot of HR courses the subject of gender neutral titles came up. Since I taught Operations Management, the subject of shooting also came up. (Is a tight group off the target higher quality than a loose group all over the target?)

I had a Marine Gunnery Sergeant in one of my classes and asked about the expression "Every Marine a rifleman". I suggested, sort of joking, that perhaps it should be "Every Marine a Rifleperson" She took exception to that and explained that she was proud to be a "rifleman" and maintained her expert qualification. The Marines do not, or did not, have a separate qualification for women. Everybody was expected to shoot well.

She may not have had a dick but she was definitely a rifleman and I think would have given a good account of herself in combat.

John Henry

n.n said...

Send in the abortionists! Call the unit "Reactive Parenthood". A special operations group skilled in committing mass collateral damage, clinical cannibalism, and diverse torture techniques. A psy-ops campaign advertising this new direction may be sufficient to force the enemy to reconsider their choice and act to avoid losing their heads, lungs, hearts, etc.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Buwaya,

Just sent the Kindle sample to my tablet.

For a really depressing book, that I read more or less in one sitting this weekend, 365 Days by Ronal Glasser.

Glasser was a pediatrician at one of the main evac hospitals in Japan in 1967-68. A lot of the book deals with the medical trauma and how it occurred. Very moving. Probably the very best book I've ever read on VN. Perhaps the best on any war.

And I have read Sledge and many others. I take nothing away from them.

I suggest that anyone who thinks that women could serve in combat read this book (or Sledge). Not whether they should or not, that is a different question. Just on whether it would be physically possible.

John Henry

The Drill SGT said...

I suggest that anyone who thinks that women could serve in combat read this book (or Sledge). Not whether they should or not, that is a different question. Just on whether it would be physically possible.

Sledge was one of the main characters in "The Pacific"

For a sense of the life of a grunt in combat, see this short segment in Okinawa...

Mud, filth, violent death, disease, wreck and ruin.



Michael K said...

Then Abraham Lincoln, the most dictatorial president in US history (almost entirely given a pass for the road he set us on) changed all that so now we can talk about a draft and maintain a registry for the draft,

So, you don't think that Lincoln faced an existential crisis in 1861?

Lee could have taken Washington City, as it was called then, in 1863 if he had not lost his head and sent Pickett on a useless charge. It was, as Wellington said of Waterloo, a "very closerun thing."

The original union army was all volunteer until after Gettysburg when the draft act was passed. The New York City Irish rioted but my Irish great uncle was killed in 1862 at Vicksburg.

I expect we will face an existential crisis soon as Obama has destroyed the image of Pax Americanus that kept the peace since 1945.

Anthony said...

The last call up was in 1972. Registration was only restarted in the late 70s by Carter to deal with Cold War concerns.

How about we get rid of registration for everyone?

Hammond X. Gritzkofe said...

The question exposes the absurdity of the position that "men and women are equal and must be recognized as such by full force of Law."

It it patently obvious to any five year olds playing "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" that men and women are not equal.

Ted Cruz did what Ted Cruz does best amongst the GOP contenders - clearly elucidate a consistent, principled position.

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

Drill Sgt,

Did not know about "The Pacific". Just added the sample to my Kindle to check out.

I had in mind EB Sledge who wrote "With the Old Breed"

I gather that The Pacific is roughly about him. If so, it sounds like it will be worth reading.

John Henry

The Drill SGT said...

Eugene Bondurant Sledge (November 4, 1923 – March 3, 2001) was a United States Marine, university professor, and author. His 1981 memoir With the Old Breed: At Peleliu and Okinawa chronicled his combat experiences during World War II and was subsequently used as source material for Ken Burns' PBS documentary, The War, as well as the HBO miniseries The Pacific, in which he is portrayed by Joseph Mazzello.

same same

The Drill SGT said...

Michael K said...
Lee could have taken Washington City, as it was called then, in 1863 if he had not lost his head and sent Pickett on a useless charge. It was, as Wellington said of Waterloo, a "very closerun thing."


The mistake was that Lee didn't listen to Longstreet, who knew that the Rebels could outmarch the Yankees. Longstreet told Lee to march around the South Flank of the Union positions and set up on terrain between the Yankee Army and Washington. This would threaten the city and Lincoln would demand that Meade run the Rebels off.

That would have forced the Yankees to attack Lee on a place of Lee's choosing.

Lee refused Longstreet's advice, thinking that it would be cowardly to slink away and slip around the flank.

buwaya said...

"I gather that The Pacific is roughly about him. "
Him and Leckie "Helmet for my Pillow"-
Leckie the parts (Guadalcanal, etc.) up to Peleliu

PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

A bit off topic but the Sunday book thread over at Ace of Spade HQ had the Marine Commandant's Professional Reading List reading list a month or two back. Lots of great books on it and I have been working my way through some of them.

You can see the whole list here: http://guides.grc.usmcu.edu/content.php?pid=408059&sid=3340387

I have a bio of Victor Krulak and a history of the Corps by Victor Krulak that I have read the samples of and am looking forward to reading. Both from the list, both look really good.

Buy them through Ann's portal.

John Henry



PuertoRicoSpaceport.com said...

And to bring it back on topic, none of the books on the Commandant's list are Harlequin romances.

There are a couple by Robert Heinlein, though. Starship Troopers is one that I remember.

John Henry

buwaya said...

"Marine Commandant's Professional Reading List"

For years I've been suggesting to High School teachers that the first parts of this would make a great Middle-High School boys reading list. Miles better than Maya Angelou or Amy Tan.

McCackie said...

So if a male soldier picks up an injured female soldier without an explicit "YES" for each stage will he be charged with rape? Safer to let her lie there.

AReasonableMan said...

But, they'll have guns. Doesn't that solve all self defense problems?

The Godfather said...

As I've said in other contexts, we've made a big mistake in trying to fit all "discrimination" issues into the black-white model. When the US was considering whether to admit Blacks into the military on a non-discriminatory basis, there was a lot of prejudice to overcome -- people claiming that Blacks weren't as smart as Whites, that they didn't possess the same physical courage, etc. But there was plenty of real world experience that showed that these opinions were wrong, going back to the Civil War and the Indian Wars. So military and civilian leadership could look at the issue objectively and conclude that the big problem was that White soldiers, particularly Southerners (and we've depended on Southerners in our military for generations) weren't willing to live and fight with Blacks, that integration would be bad for morale. But you could also say, quite logically, that a soldier who shows that he does his job well will be accepted, notwithstanding prejudice, by his fellow soldiers. And that (I know I'm oversimplifying) is what happened.

But in the world of the foot soldier, the dog face, the dough boy, the "rifleman", only a very, very few women will prove physically equal to the men; it's not just prejudice, it's objective fact. Yes, some women are stronger and fitter and faster than I am -- or even than I was when I was young -- but how many of them are as fit and as fast as the men they would fight with? And if it's only a few, is it really worth the bother to open these roles to them, given how much adjustment would have to be made to accommodate them? These are the questions that need to be addressed, and are not being addressed.

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

Reactive Parenthood units are known to achieve a nearly perfect kill rate and commit positive and progressive collateral damage in a controlled environment. They are known for their ruthless efficiency that far surpasses any conventional armed force and known special operation units. While they have yet to be tested in a real-world environment against a target that is armed and fully conscious, with nearly one hundred million kills to their credit, there is moderate risk to deploy abortionists in the wild against a determined and able target. They are a highly trained unit of killers with no compunction for torturing a belligerent enemy. They should be drafted and deployed against their counterparts in terrorist organizations worldwide.

cubanbob said...

@buwaya @ 9.17

In short the military isn't unionized and can be ordered into harm's way. And unlike a contractor, a soldier can't just say, eff it, I quit.

AllenS said...

We won World War II with a segregated Armed Forces. How has our success rate been since integration?

cubanbob said...

Jupiter said...
The whole thing is a crock. Drafting anyone, male or female, is involuntary servitude outlawed by the 13th Amendment. If we are going to draft young people because we are unwilling to pay enough to induce them to serve willingly, why not draft doctors and nurses to reduce health care costs? We could also slash education costs by drafting teachers and administrators. Yes indeed, there's a lot to be said for slavery, when you're not the slave.

2/8/16, 10:03 AM"

Actually FDR dealt with this quite effectively when the coal miners union went on strike during the war. He simply threaten to draft them into the Army and subject them into working in the mines for Army wages and be subject to military discipline. Strike over in a hurry.

cubanbob said...

AllenS said...
We won World War II with a segregated Armed Forces. How has our success rate been since integration?

2/8/16, 6:09 PM"

The more relevant question is when since WW2 has the US fought a war to win outright and not to avoid a loss?

Simon said...


Seems to me that this question was decided—for all intents and purposes—in US v. Virginia; don't blame us, blame Justice Ginsburg. Can't have it both ways.

Charlie Currie said...

The Drill Sgt said at 8:40 -

"The point is that draftees dont get to chose "lifeguard" as an assignment. The USMC makes those arbitrary decisions."

The decision to place my cousin in the role of life guard was no arbitrary, he was a life guard before being drafted. They chose the best, most qualified person for the job.

Everyone would be assigned an MOS based on their abilities and qualifications...you wouldn't put the strongest person in the typing pool and weakest in the Rangers, or send Barney Fife to sniper school. That said, I have known pharmacists who were placed in the motor pool, but I've never know an Expert Rifleman who ended up in the kitchen.

And when the barbarians are at the gate, everyone must stand on the wall.

Michael K said...

"Lee refused Longstreet's advice, thinking that it would be cowardly to slink away and slip around the flank. "

Yes and Longstreet who was not a Confederate, was savaged by the southern vengeance squad for years after. Lee had lost Jackson and the battle was a "meeting engagement" which was not a strategic objective. Lee was looking for shoes for his men.

I think he knew he was wrong after he said, "It is well that war is so terrible - otherwise we would grow too fond of it."

Robert E. Lee, Statement at the Battle of Fredericksburg (13th December 1862) (Before Gettysburg,)

Lee was badly wounded by the loss of Jackson. Stuart was too fond of independent missions and let Lee down badly.

I have been a student of the Civil War since college.

We spent last September visiting the battlefield of Waterloo with friends, one of whom had an ancestor in the battle. We also visited Ypres, the great British salient of WWI

cyrus83 said...

I suspect the public's opinion is based on the fact that there hasn't been a draft now for over 40 years and there really haven't been any heavy and extended armed infantry conflicts against an organized army for about as long. Nobody's thinking about real war, they're thinking about color guards, neat uniforms, and maybe more of a video game hi-tech sort of military. If a real war comes around, and suddenly lots of young women end up dead - particularly if they're drafted instead of volunteering - support for women being drafted should plummet.

If women do end up having to register and there arises a need for a draft again, particularly a need that requires a lot of infantry, one of two things is likely to happen: either the military leadership realizes this is a bad idea as it is unfolding and intervenes to stop this madness, or an unseemly number of young women will end up casualties of war because the military was forced via political correctness to field people who should not have been there and would not have been there had the proper standards been applied.

The sad thing about the second scenario is that it is unlikely to convince supporters of drafting women that they are in the wrong. More than likely, they'd see it as more evidence of the military being sexist and campaign for equality in casualty rates - but obviously not by limiting women's roles in any form. With any luck, the women veterans would come home, tell the armchair equality busybodies to go screw themselves, and push Congress to end the draft for women.

Terry said...

Charlie Currie wrote:
" . . . or send Barney Fife to sniper school."
What?! I thought Barney only carried one bullet was because that was all he ever needed!
It's the nervous looking fellows that turn out to be stone-cold killers.

Terry said...

ARM wrote:
"But, they'll have guns. Doesn't that solve all self defense problems?"
Why would you think that access to a gun would solve all self-defense problems? Armed people are killed while engaging in self-defense all the time.

future toothless bum said...

America doesn't need a draft. Someone should have put that question to rest in a different way.

I admire Cruz for being the only one willing to say a mother and father's girl shouldn't be put in the government's hands to decide if they end up in a combat group. If a women wants to go there, well and good. If they are a conciseness objector because she raises the children of a country and doesn't need PTSS in the process, I have three girls, they are right.

Still, America can hire an army. Things have changed and if gets to the point where all hands are on deck there will be far worse to worry about than are there an equal number of women in the transports as men.

The Godfather said...

Speaking of drafting recalcitrant workers during war time (eg Cubanbob, 6:12 pm): My father was in the Army Medical Corps during WW II and most of the time was stationed on Long Island. He told me there was a barracks on the base occupied by Black longshoremen. As civilians they had been loading and unloading ships with military supplies in the port of New York, and had threatened to strike over something. In response, they were all drafted into the Army and immediately assigned to -- loading and unloading ships in the Port of New York.

Rusty said...

AReasonableMan said...
But, they'll have guns. Doesn't that solve all self defense problems?

Sometimes it just the wise thing to let the covefrsation flow. Without any undue input. This would have bben one of those times.
Have you met garage?

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

But the idea of forcing women into combat is something I have long believed the American people would not accept.

It's not the forcing of women into combat, it's the women who insist on forcing themselves into the front lines because equality. On average, they'd weaken the average strength in that position, and it's alarming that the Admirals and Generals who seem to be cheerleading this PC development have been successfully bullied into parroting the Administration's position.