Implementation of a Social Classlessness Military

Apparently, the White House is more concerned with using the military to perform social experiments than it is actually keeping American forces strong and ready for war. It is the height of absurdity, especially in this day and age, when threats to our national security abound. Few people question that war is horrid, vicious and sacrificial. In our latest wars, many of the casualties suffered by American troops are a direct result of their having to obey rules of engagement created by bureaucratic mindless politicians who have never set foot on, gazed on or smelled the odor of death on a battlefield. Today's battlefield commanders must be attentive to the media and humanitarians who are all too ready to condemn troops involved in a battle that produces noncombatant casualties, so-called collateral damage.

According to a Western Journalism article by Leigh H. Bravo, Insanity: The Rules of Engagement, “our troops fighting in Afghanistan cannot do night or surprise searches. Also, villagers must be warned prior to searches. Troops may not fire at the enemy unless fired upon. U.S. forces cannot engage the enemy if civilians are present. And only women can search women.” Does this type PC non- sense not restrain or shackle our combat troops in battle needlessly? Is this PC poppycock not harmful to uniformed service personnel involved in U.S combat operations?  Collateral damage and the inadvertent killing of civilians are a consequence of war. Always has been, always will. The question our politicians should ask is: Are our troops' lives less important than the unavoidable collateral damage? I think not.

The unnecessary loss of life and casualties that result from politically correct rules of engagement are about to be amplified in future conflicts by mind-numbing efforts to put women within combat units serving in direct combat roles. Effective Jan. 1, 2016, all branches of the military must either open all positions to women or request exceptions. That boils down to having women serve in combat roles, because any commander requesting exceptions would risk having his career terminated in the wake of the shrieking and accusations of sexism that would surely ensue.

The U.S. Army and the Marine Corps both have experimented and tested force integration and results conclude that combat teams are less effective when they include women. Should anyone be surprised by the findings of male combat superiority? Are young men not teeming with testosterone? Does not testosterone produce hostility, aggression and enmity? Admittedly and expectedly such a physical characteristic produces sometimes-poor behavior in civilian society, occasionally leading to incarceration, but the same characteristics are ideal for ground combat situations.

The most disgusting, perhaps traitorous, aspect of all this is the overall reticence of military commanders, most of whom, despite knowing better, will only publicly criticize the idea of putting women in direct combat roles after they retire from service. This retired career Army officer suggests the Defense of Department and Service Secretaries get together and use objectivity, not PC in determining the roles of females in direct combat roles. Based on my experience (1965-1995), I would submit that roles involving potential and likely close combat between advisories (combatants) be limited to men only. This being the case, infantry, Armor and Special Operations Forces/units should with few exceptions exclude females. If those agency’s mentioned above decide to acquiesce to political pressure and incorporate women into units with direct combat roles, I would caution lowering physical entry standards. Serving in the military requires being both resilient and strong individuals, who must possess the utmost in strength, endurance, and persistence. To enter the military with any less would put the lives of other military members in jeopardy. Not everyone gets this, including Obama, his pawn, General Dempsey, until recently, Chairman Joint Chiefs, who two years ago essentially suggested that senior military commanders should be willing to lower entrance standards for women.

Case in point, the Marine Corps just completed a test  "to see if female officers could successfully complete its rigorous Infantry Officer Course." None of the 29 candidates who took part  in the test passed. But instead of demanding that these woman train harder and try again, the USMC, under pressure from President Obama's "gender-neutral" PC enforcers are pondering degrading standards so as to make it easier for women to make it through the aforementioned course. From what I am able to glean from various news and media sources the Marine Corps is examining each standard to see whether it is relevant to the operation and is gender-neutral. As I see it, the problem is that the standards are already "gender-neutral," in that both male and female alike must be able to meet the same standards of push-up, pull-ups, sit-ups, timed runs etc. Yet the Obama administration still wants to change them. In my somewhat subjective estimation, the Obama administration is fundamentally forcing the military services to implement social classlessness. It is apparent to me and dare I say others, that to them, the military is just like any profession or employment, everyone should have equal outcomes and equality of access regardless of the operation or mission. Anything short of that is not fair. Think about this, is it truly fair? If anything, it is unfair - not only to men, who must contend with the gender standards, but to everybody who must one day fight alongside those who make it into a particular military occupational specialty skill only because of Obama and the liberal left's degraded standards.