Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea
Last Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other U.S. military leaders lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. I, for one, think this is a great idea and have a few modest proposals, if the brass inside the beltway is open to suggestions, on how they should deploy the dames (and whom they should deploy).
First off, if you truly want to eviscerate the enemy–namely Muslims–then I propose sending the most nerve grating and foul women Hollywood has to offer straight into hot zones as our forward armies. I’m a thinkin’ starting off with Roseanne Barr, Joy Behar and Lisa Lampanelli as our first offensive. Talk about shock and awe! The enemy would crap their pants (or whatever it is they wear).
Heck, those ladies wouldn’t even need to bring weapons, Leon. Just send this unholy trinity in with matching Frederick’s of Hollywood teddies juiced up on a pot of espresso and then have them confront hajji with their spurious insights, high-pitched, nasally voices and their unfunny comedic screeds, and our foes will shoot themselves in the face. War on Terror over. Boom. It’s that easy. You’re welcome.
If for some reason Barr, Behar and Lampanelli’s sensory assault on our enemies’ sensibilities doesn’t immediately devastate our adversaries then I suggest sending wave after wave of liberal college students, at the height of their PMS rage, into the thick of battle and have them quote Sandra Fluke and Lady Gaga at the top of their lungs. I believe (and I could be wrong) that this would absolutely demolish any forces that survived the initial onslaught of the Tres Amigas.
From a PsyOps standpoint you could work soft targets and wear down our foes and their enablers with Yoko Ono’s latest solo album blaring from trucks with loud speakers. On top of that scary scenario, we could simultaneously have choppers drop leaflets over the various villages warning them that if they don’t surrender now Yoko’s going to show up at their village and do a six-hour concert. They’ll fold up quicker than the Beatles did. Guaranteed. And radical Islam will leave us the heck alone for many, many moons.
With that said, I share the following concerns that my buddy who works with the U.S. Army and special forces has with deploying the ladies to combat positions:
1. One of the most significant issues with women in combat arms (MOS) is the lack of suitable hygiene. In other words, there are times in our military careers where we go through extended periods where we don’t have showers. Women have monthly hygienic concerns that a man doesn’t.
2. When the government mandates acceptance into a job/work force scenario, standards must be lowered to accommodate the numbers. Most females are not as strong as men. This will be a direct issue in combat. If you have a 5’10” male weighing 200 pounds, he will weigh between 250-275 pounds by the time he has donned a full combat load. How many women, after being hit by an IED (improvised explosive device), could drag 275 pounds out of a burning vehicle while drawing fire? Or how about if a unit is assaulting a radical Muslim compound and a soldier weighs 250-275 pounds. Can his female battle buddy pull him out of the room while shooting several muzzies in the face? This goes back to height, weight, psychological and physical exercise standards. If you lower the standards, the mission is compromised. Last year and this year the U.S. Marine Corps tried this by allowing women in their infantry school without lowering standards.: Only two signed up, and neither made the grade. None signed up this year.
3. When soldiers deploy they live together, sleep together, eat together, shower together, and bleed together. So will women be given separate quarters and showers? What if a female platoon leader (in charge of 40 men) becomes pregnant? Will she go home? Will she have to stay in combat? What if she is the only female in the platoon … does she not have to bunk with a man?
4. Emotionally women are not made like men. There is nothing like being face to face with your enemy and pulling the trigger again, and again, and again. Women have been in combat zones and have performed excellently, but to put them in combat arms responsible for the killing of others has not happened yet. What is the emotional and psychological effect of this on women (not meant or created for war) versus men (who were created to protect and be warriors)?
5. What happens when the first female is captured in combat and brutally murdered? What about when al-Qaeda rapes a woman on video and uploads it to YouTube for all to see? How will the American public handle that? Will men act more carelessly and recklessly to spare their female counterparts than they would another man?
Look, I’m cool with and appreciate anyone wanting to give and/or receive a bullet on my freedom’s behalf, but I believe putting girls on the front lines of combat is a bad, bad, bad idea.
Facebook62.5kTwitter74Email1 Considering how often we see horrific stories of animals being abused and murdered by sadistic monsters, it’s a nice break to see the often unnoticed acts of kindness towards...Read More
FacebookTwitterEmail The contrast between the two women couldn’t be sharper. Hillary is the ultimate political insider, taking $20 million from
FacebookTwitterEmail There’s more to the deceit and dishonesty about Social Security and Medicare discussed in my recent columns. Congress tells