HENRY McCULLOCH, a former Marine and Air Force Reserve fighter pilot, writes:

The Fools of Fox have no more sense about women in the armed forces than Barack Hussein Obama. Here’s Shep Smith last month introducing new Fox reporter Lea Gabrielle, a former Navy fighter pilot.

“Female fighter pilot” is an oxymoron on par with “Gay Marriage.”  ‘Nuff said. Except that if you want to know what sort of lethal chicanery the U.S. Navy engaged in to get its precious “female fighter pilots,” simply google the names Kara Hultgreen (R.I.P.) and Carey Lohrenz, and if you want to know how force-feeding an unqualified woman pilot into a fighter squadron effectively destroyed a U.S. Air Force fighter wing, google the name Jackie Parker.  As for what a success women in command at sea has been, please google the name Holly Graf.

The whole women-in-combat racket is dishonest, unseemly and utterly unnecessary.  Men create enough social and disciplinary problems in the armed forces all by themselves; why ask for trouble by inserting women into that world when there is no need whatever for them to be there and the readiness and social consequences are all too predictable?  The fact that they are far less likely than men to be fully qualified for their assignments because they are certain to have benefited from sexual affirmative action in selection, training and assignment only makes matters worse.  Whenever I see a puff piece about a GI-Jane who is supposed to have been some sort of ironman combat hero, my BS detector starts to ring.  When you see such almost certainly greatly embellished war stories, say “Jessica Lynch” to yourself 10 times: that will help return you to reality, as it will remind you that today’s military PR officers and senior commanders are serial liars about anything to do with women, minorities and homosexuals in the armed forces.  They have to be to keep their jobs.

And don’t tell me about how the Israelis do it.  In 1948, they put some women on the front lines in desperation; when that proved to be a complete failure, Israel still being a free country then, the Israelis withdrew them.  There are women in combat positions in the IDF today only because Leftist judges of Israel’s Supreme Court ordered them there.  Israelis are no more free of their black-robed, unelected masters than Americans are.

The other example people like to bandy about is the Red Army of World War II.  There, similarly, some women were dragooned into front-line service when the Soviet Communist Party perceived itself to be in extremis against the Wehrmacht.  Once the crisis eased, the women were withdrawn.  Presumably, if they had really been highly effective — Bolshevik propaganda notwithstanding — they would not have been.  The only other explanation is that even Soviet Communists under Stalin had a more rational view of the roles of men and women in society than do American liberals and neocons (but I repeat myself) today.  And that would be saying something…

If it were up to me the only women around the U.S. armed forces would be nurses, and they would probably be contracted civilians.  Extreme position in today’s world, I know.  But also, if it were up to me the U.S. armed forces would be far smaller and not be squandered in expeditions to distant quagmires that retard, not advance, the American national interest.  Not so long ago, most would have recognized those views as simple common sense.  And unlike the current U.S. government approach of using the armed forces as a petri dish for every social innovation and perversion to come down the pike, my position is at least internally consistent and actually does make sense — if you want armed forces that can fight and win wars, that is.

As Mrs. Wood has pointed out repeatedly here, a woman in the armed forces — especially in a combat or combat support unit — is, like it or not and whether she herself consciously wills it, an agent of social subversion.  Her presence there is unnatural, in the literal meaning of the term, and on some level most military women know it.  Officers especially.  Look at how so many behave, especially the ones who have been speed-promoted to flag and general grade by every president since GHW Bush – but on steroids (pun intended?) under Barack Hussein Obama.  They are not there to do a military job, advance the mission or – God forbid – actually win wars.  In almost every case, they are self-conscious Change Agents out to transform the armed forces into a woman-friendly, and now homosexual-friendly, social service agency.  Making the whole thing even more sick is that the most extreme of them are service academy graduates.  (Gerald Ford should have been impeached for letting them in!  But actually it was Nixon who made that social surrender; Ford just presided over it.  So Nixon should have been impeached!  Oh, that’s right, he was…  For the wrong thing.)  These feminists have plainly been indoctrinated into being subversive of the efficiency of the services into which they have been commissioned by those services’ very own academies.  We’re into Through the Looking Glass territory here, and almost everyone — including the cretinous “conservatives” of Fox — thinks it’s just dandy.  Making them into media celebrities simply underscores how transgressive even nominally conservative media organizations are.

But what has happened to the service academies shouldn’t surprise us.  They are part of the federal government: Barack Obama’s federal government — although it would be very naive to blame their fall into dogmatic liberalism entirely on him.  G.W. Bush (no conservative he) was almost as gung-ho for these follies as the overt liberals are.  What most Americans don’t realize yet is that West Point and the others are just as liberal as Harvard or Yale.  The only real difference is the funny outfits and more PT.  The worldviews of each school’s graduates are far more alike than is comfortable to think about.

The New Left long had its sights on the armed forces as an instinctively conservative social institution that must be destroyed, in typical Frankfurt School fashion through internal subversion.  When feminism became a military issue, the Left had its weapon.  With women in combat billets (now including even submarines, at vast and entirely superfluous expense) and the armed forces a happy haven for homosexuals and a magnet for foreign mercenaries, their work is almost entirely done.

What will be left is a strange parasitic organism incapable of winning wars (something Leftists don’t want it to be able to do in the first place) but with enough weaponry and personnel — especially the mercenaries — alienated enough from the ordinary American citizenry that it could be an ideal tool for suppressing domestic dissent, should our rulers deem it necessary.

— Comments —

Laura writes:

My initial thought when looking at Lea Gabrielle is to think of how difficult it must have been for the men who worked alongside her in the Navy. She is a beautiful woman. Though it’s certainly pleasant to have a beautiful and charming woman around, any acknowledgement of this on their part could ruin their careers. Leaving aside the indisputable physical inferiority of women in strength and endurance, their presence alone in the military is emasculating.

Doug writes:

I wholeheartedly agree women do not belong in the military especially deploying roles other than medical and limited even in that role. I served twenty years in the Air Force and can tell you many stories of poor relations and morale especially when deployed. Things would often turn into one big frat party. I have to add, minorities also caused much consternation. It seems leadership went out of their way to promote and reward them.

All that said, it is only fair for me to point out that strength and big bodies are not needed for fighter pilots. As a matter of fact, smaller less massive people seem to handle G-loading much better. A fit body is needed.

Michael S. writes:

Anyone who pretends to take seriously the notion of “female combat pilots” should read Hans Ulrich Rudel’s memoir Stuka Pilot.

 Diana writes:

Henry McCullogh: “and if you want to know how force-feeding an unqualified woman pilot into a fighter squadron effectively destroyed a U.S. Air Force fighter wing, google the name Jackie Parker.”

OK, I did it, and all I could find was stuff about an American guy who played in the CFL, and this fulsome “Pioneer” page.

Whatever Parker did it isn’t easy to find on the Internet. What did she do? I can imagine, but I think we should see the story on the ‘net, for the record.

Thanks.

A reader writes:

Paul writes:

It is easy to understand how women are a major distraction to the duties of male and female soldiers alike.  Endocrinology is the study of all those little-known glands that excrete hormones and reveals how powerful hormones are.  Most people have no idea about the many purposes and power of the pituitary gland, which is about the weight of a small pea, 0.5 grams (0.03 ounces).  Because hormones are so powerful, they are excreted in extremely small dosages as the circumstances require.

We all know the effect of excessive hormonal intake on men and women athletes and bodybuilders.  We all know the rage we can feel when someone says something nasty to us or pushes us.  Hormones kick in fast and only our God-given brains can tell us to fight or to flee.

But when the opposite sex says something nice or looks at us nicely, our computer-like brains do not deliver a fight or flight response.  Our computers get hung up—the natural thoughts overload our CPUs.  If placed in close quarters, single (and most married) men and women between twelve and whatever are going to succumb to lust, a direct result of hormonal release.  As the Lord has indicated, one of our purposes is to breed.

The lust felt by the traditional recruit, seventeen to twenty-one, is ordinary and cannot be controlled by most recruits.  Aside from its faults, Russia is not allowing women soldiers in combat roles but is employing them to motivate men.  It is the purpose of the Miss Russian Army beauty contest.  And from where I am standing, this is motivation.  Just ask a male vet how easy female soldiers are.

The distraction has had provable major consequences.  Look at our ex-General Petraeus, who strategized our victory in Iran.  He was not even forced to coddle in a foxhole day and night with a comely woman.  One of our most successful generals in modern history was foolishly canned over an extramarital affair during a time we needed him.  The canning was a direct result of his being forced into close quarters with a comely woman.  Iraq seems to be turning into an American defeat.

Just to make sure we traditionalists all know women are strong, here is treat from Martina McBride.

Laura writes:

Petraeus was not foolishly canned. He had an adulterous affair and deserved to lose his position.

Please follow and like us: