AS I SAID in the previous post, there are so many unexamined consequences of the Obama administration’s decision to place women in combat — a decision that has been in the works for many years and that is the logical extension of the radical equality embraced by most Americans — that one barely knows where to begin. But here is perhaps the most serious consequence: Children will lose their mothers in war.

Not only will more young children stand at military airports waving their mothers tearful and uncomprehending goodbyes, but more children will receive the news that their mothers have died violent deaths. Some will learn that their mothers were raped or dismembered.

It is a great hardship for a child to lose a father in war. But when he loses a father who has fought for his country, he at least gains a hero. A heroic, absent father can give strength. A heroic, absent mother weakens. No normal child will be comforted by a mother’s medals. Every child wants a mother who is a loving presence. The idea of a mother as a warrior is an unthinkable abomination. Given the high rate of illegitimacy, women soldiers will not always have husbands, which means that some children will lose their only parent in combat.

The woman soldier represents perhaps the supreme offense against the values of maternity. Thus, leaving aside the fact that some mothers will be killed, the approval of military aggression in women will further damage these values in general, turning women who will never see combat into poor, unfit mothers.

In hailing the novelty of sending mothers to war, Obama has advanced by one giant leap his ongoing war against the young and civilization itself. A country with women soldiers will create children who feel betrayed. A country with women soldiers will create feral, dehumanized children.

— Comments —

Mrs. H. writes:

A few years ago Touchstone Magazine had an article on why women should not serve in the military, and I found the following paragraphs poignant:

The question of rape is touchy. Some would like to deny that it exists in modern warfare. After all, if both warring nations are signatories to the Geneva Conventions, then surely they will respect women prisoners? This is nonsense. As has been proven in war time and again, abuse of prisoners occurs even in spite of the official statements of a nation’s leadership and a nation’s participation in the Geneva Conventions. Furthermore, being sent into combat against non-signatory nations or groups is always possible, even likely, in our age.

The first Gulf War offers a case in point. It is a little-known fact that the Iraqis captured two American women soldiers during this war. It is even less well known that at least one of these women, Army Major Rhonda Cornum, was sexually assaulted. During testimony on the treatment of prisoners of war before a Congressional committee, Cornum said that she was “treated no differently than a male soldier would have been,” and it was only when asked explicitly that she admitted to having been sexually assaulted. In the current Iraq war, Pfc. Jessica Lynch, wounded and captured in the same ambush that took Lori Ann Piestewa’s life, was also apparently sexually assaulted.

It is understandable that women soldiers would be unwilling to draw attention to this sexual abuse. That America’s leadership has downplayed these episodes is less understandable.

The contention that female POWs are treated the same as male POWs is false. From the Vietnam War through the present day, there have been no substantiated reports of sexual abuse of male American POWs, although hundreds of male American POWs in Vietnam were tortured. None of the more than 5,000 American servicewomen in Vietnam was captured. But America’s brief experience with female POWs during the first Gulf War should have served as a warning of the sexual abuse female prisoners would face in future conflicts.

Major Rhonda Cornum stated that rape is “an occupational hazard of going to war, and you make the decision whether or not you are going to take that risk when you join the military.”

The author may have failed to recognize cultural differences between Vietnamese and those we combat in the Middle East (perhaps Major Cornum was technically speaking the truth when she said she was not treated differently than the males), but the point still stands.

There was a local story last year about a father who left his two small sons napping to run to the grocery store.  The poor children succumbed to smoke inhalation when the house caught on fire before their father returned.  The story got even sadder as the newspaper article stated their mother was deployed abroad and hadn’t been home in over a year.  I read between the lines and concluded that that marriage would not survive, although I prayed it would.

But the President says, “Today, every American can be proud that our military will grow even stronger with our mothers, wives, sisters and daughters playing a greater role in protecting this country we love.”  And our families and homes will grow weaker, or cease altogether.  And then what will there be to love about our country and what will we be protecting?

Please follow and like us: