Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

Operation Desert Storm was my first experience with women in a combat zone but NOT in a combat role (MOS). Based on that experience, I totally agree with Giles. And it has nothing to do with the women themselves or the jobs that they did. It has everything to do with the men–it makes them act sillier than shit.

Panetta needs to be sat down for a little talk about the “birds and the bees.” — jtl, 419

By Doug  Giles  via ClashDaily

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.