IN 1979, James Webb, the future Secretary of the Navy and U.S. Senator, wrote in Washingtonian Magazine:

There is a place for women in our military, but not in combat. And their presence at institutions dedicated to the preparation of men for combat command is poisoning that preparation. By attempting to sexually sterilize the Naval Academy environment in the name of equality, this country has sterilized the whole process of combat leadership training, and our military forces are doomed to suffer the consequences.

He also wrote:

The United States is the only country of any size on earth where the prospect of women serving in combat is being seriously considered. Even Israel, which continually operates under near-total mobilization requirements, does not subject its women to combat or combat-related duty. Although some 55 percent of Israeli women— as opposed to 95 percent of the men— serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, the women have administrative and technical jobs that require little or no training.

According to Elizabeth Bumiller in Sunday’s New York Times, female Marines in Afghanistan are on the front lines and their commanders are skirting regulations that limit their presence there. One woman Marine summed up her view of the mission in Afghanistan:

“Just making a small improvement in somebody’s life, that means something,” she said. “And if that means that someday women don’t have to wear a burqa, great. If it means that they’re getting beat up and they’ve got some place to go to tell somebody, great. Or if they have a well in their compound that they didn’t have before, that’s going to make a big difference.”

                                                                                                 — Comments —

N.W., who is currently serving in the armed forces, writes:

Yes, these women are courageously performing their duty in the face of extreme danger and are to be commended for their patriotism and commitment. Their superiors however should be removed from command. Putting these women in frontline positions like the one mentioned in the article is a disaster waiting to happen. I will admit that in the winning hearts and mind strategy that is being pursued in Afghanistan, it can be argued that there are certain advantages to having women there on the ground. The primary advantage brought up in the article is that the women develop a rapport with local women. They can also search female detainees, as the local men folk will generally get rather irate about male Marines or soldiers performing that duty. The article also mentions how the presence of female Marines tend to loosen the tongues of the local menfolk; “You put a lady in front of them, they’ll start blabbing at the mouth,” says Capt. Brandon Turner.

All of these advantages must be weighed against the disadvantages of having these women in combat. First and foremost is the strain that is placed on relations between the sexes in an already stressful environment. The writer dedicates one sentence to this before moving on, writing “There have been many other strains as well, not least some male officers who question the female marines’ purpose and young infantrymen who remain resentful of the attention from commanders and the news media that the women have received.” Of course, the only problem here is not with female marines but resentful young infantryman. And of the concerns of male officers in the area we here not a thing, except that they have questioned the “female marine’s purpose.” Of course, the article clearly demonstrates just how important and purposeful these women are.

We are constantly assured that gender doesn’t matter, that women are just as capable as men in the performance of their duties. However, their are two major points of contention to be raised here. First is the fact that women are not as physically capable as men, if they were the military wouldn’t have to lessen the physical requirements for women. Men are passed over for promotion because of poor physical fitness since it is a matter of life and death in combat. Putting women into this situation is a liability to them and the unit they are with. Secondly, one must consider the emotional difference between men and women. Allowing emotion to clouds one judgement can have catastrophic effects in combat. A woman’s empathy and compassion is one of her greatest assets, but such characteristcs are a liabilty on the battlefield. Reflecting on an ambush in which the man in front of her got his face blown off Cpl. Coates admits she’s “too much of a girl to deal with these guys getting killed.” One can’t blame her for her response, it’s a perfectly natural response given the circumstances, but not being able to deal with the reality of combat is a luxury that can not be permitted in a combat environment. Ironically, later on in the article Lt. Col. Kyle Ellison assures us that these women are “Marines first, I don’t see a difference.” This attitude is far too common in the armed forces as career officers further their own careers by catering to this politically correct bull shit.

I am really quite curious as to who exactly is allowing these missions to continue, in as much as the men on the ground have serious doubts about their worth and the Pentagon is attempting to curtail these missions. While there may be a limited viable use for women in this theatre of the war, it really must be asked whether the benefits outweigh the risks. I cringe to think what would happen if one of these young women were to be captured by the Taliban. If the purpose of terrorism is to terrorise, this situation would present a great opportunity to the enemy. One must also consider the effects on troop morale this unit is causing, bearing in mind the “resentful young infantrymen” the writer is so quick to write off. And finally, there is the everday problems of having a detachment of female marines attached to a fighting unit in a combat zone. These problems range from improper emotional attachments clouding troop judgment to the plain old sanitary logistics of having a group of women in the field for an extended period of time.

Howard Sutherland writes:

The frustration of reading such propaganda for destructive foolishness is compounded by the utter uselessness, from any rational American point of view, of the mission itself. I agree with the neocons that we must Support Our Troops, but I believe the best way to do it is to bring them home from Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Germany, Japan and wherever else they may be defending the natives at our expense. If I were the commander-in-chief, I would redeploy the Army’s mobile forces and a lot of Air Force tactical aviation to the Mexican border and let them defend America for a change. (I’m not writing this as any sort of pacifist; I was a Marine infantry officer for four years, and an Air Force Reserve officer and fighter pilot for many years after that. I have experience of being shot at in pursuit of no identifiable American interest whatever, flying the F-16 over Bosnia in 1993-1994. To make matters worse, in that ill-begotten (UN) mission, Operation Deny Flight, we were protecting Moslems against Orthodox Christians! In retrospect, utterly insane.)

Reader N. writes:

There is an aspect of women in combat areas that is rarely, if ever, addressed, and that is the psychological effect of combat upon the women both immediately and at a later date. It is well
known that men who engage in violent, close quarter warfare come back changed men. Some of them adapt to later life, and some do not. The incidence of alcohol and drug abuse among
combat veterans is often higher than among the general population, as well as non-combat military vets. This is not to prolong the horribly dishonorable myth of the “psycho vet”, but to point
out the obvious: killing other humans is a terrible act, and those who do so often wind up medicating themselves later on with whatever they can get, to their own detriment as well
as the detriment of those around them.

Women are more empathetic than men. Even those trained in various military arts are still women deep inside. Every woman in Afghanistan of fertile age is at least a potential mother.
Combat can have profound effects upon the psyche of men; what it will do to women is not generally known, although we can look back at past centuries for some ideas.

We are subjecting women to stresses that they really are not intended to handle by putting them into combat units. They are likely to pay some price in the years to come, and that will affect their families, and others around them in ways we cannot know.

It is a form of abuse, frankly, and should not be allowed.

Laura writes:

What you say is 100 percent true. This point is obvious and everybody knows this is true. Everybody knows that women are more feeling and more empathetic. It’s hard enough for men to fight, let alone women. But this point is verboten and people routinely lie about it. Lies, lies, lies. Even if women had the physical capabilities of men, which they clearly do not have, they are not emotionally equipped for combat, as one of the female Marines in this profile makes clear. Their emotional sensitivity is a strength in life, not a weakness, but it is not an asset in combat or even in these other positions on the front. Imagine a man, a Marine, coming home to a fellow Marine for a wife. How much have soldiers themselves relied on the empathy of their wives?    

It is a form of abuse, in the same way making children work in factories for ten hours a day is a form of abuse. Can children do it? Yes, they can, but it stunts their development. Women are not meant to fight. When the armed forces accept women, they have lose sight of their mission.They’ve become humanitarian, rather than defending forces. 

Please follow and like us: