PETE F. writes:

The title alone of the Military Times article you recently cited, “Special Ops Troops Doubt Women Can Do the Job,” was enough to make me suspicious that a feminist had written the story, and sure enough, there are signs that is the case. Likewise, it was no surprise to find that the author is a young woman.

According to the brief professional/biographical sketch turned up by an Internet search, Lolita Baldor is a “National Security/Pentagon Reporter” for the Associated Press. Her photo reveals her to be a fairly young woman, probably of no more than thirty-five years of age.

The tone of her writing, her age, and her evident lack of genuine command of the specific subject matter of the article all suggest that Baldor is just another feminist product of the leftist higher education mill. Obviously, without seeing her transcripts and curriculum vitae, one cannot know for certain – but it would not be at all surprising to this reader if she had matriculated as an undergraduate in English or perhaps women’s studies, and then gone on the Columbia or Northwestern School of Journalism before taking her job with the Associated Press. Her worldview is precisely that of someone who is the product of such institutions – and her employer is a well-known organ of cultural leftism. “Military Times” as well has gotten much more politically-correct over the last several years.

Baldor writes: “Studies that surveyed personnel found ‘major misconceptions’ within special operations about whether women should be brought into the male-only jobs.”

Apart from the awkwardness of the statement above, and her misuse of the word “misconceptions,” Baldor’s statement is noteworthy for another reason – she suggests that the members of the elite special operations community (who comprise the upmost-tier of expertise, skill and demonstrated combat performance within the armed forces) are not competent to determine who shall enter their ranks.  Notice too, her use of the word “jobs” at the conclusion of the sentence above. Her evident belief is that being a special operations warrior is no different than holding any other “job” – an outlook which is starkly at odds with the reality of an elite combat soldier’s existence and day-to-day life.

Re: “Women have so far had mixed results as they try to move into the more demanding combat positions — jobs for which men also have difficulty qualifying.”

More shading of the facts and half-truths. Women have not had “mixed results” in trying to crack the special operations community; they have failed spectacularly. The only reason women are being permitted to try out for ground combat jobs at all – let alone combat slots in special ops – is because the services have been ordered by the White House, Capitol Hill and the Pentagon – to find a way to accommodate them.

Baldor writes: “Women have moved into Army artillery jobs and serve on Navy submarines and in the naval Riverine units. But none has made it through the Marine Corps’ officer infantry course.”

Of all of the services, the Marine Corps has done the best job resisting the pressure to admit women into (combat) jobs for which they are unqualified. It is germane to note that only the Marines have sex-segregated boot camp (i.e., what the army calls basic training).

 Re: “Special operations command leaders have made it clear that genuine concerns exist about incorporating women into some jobs.”

“Concerns”? These “leaders” so-called are more-concerned about keeping their ranks, positions and pensions than in doing what is best for the security of the nation. What a bunch of perfumed princes and paper tigers. MacArthur, Patton and their like are certainly spinning in their graves.

She states: “In 2013, when the planning was in its infancy, then-Maj. Gen. Bennet Sacolick spoke of demanding nature of missions requiring forces ‘to operate in small, self-contained teams, many of which are in austere, geographically isolated, politically sensitive environments for extended periods of time.’”

General Bennet is waging the argument using language and terms set by the left – a strategy which is doomed to failure. As you and others have noted in this space on previous occasions, there are a number of very powerful arguments against female participation in the combat arms (indeed, in many areas of the military generally) which are not addressed in comments like those above. Bennet strikes me as a man who is perhaps somewhat uneasy about the pressure to allow women into ground combat, but doesn’t quite know why. At best, one suspects that he may not possess the moral language or intellectual framework from which to mount an effective opposition; at worst, he may be a careerist whose pro forma reservations aren’t genuine in the first place. Considering the state of the senior officer corps these days, not much would surprise me at this juncture.

— Comments —

Paul C. writes:

I can sort of understand women in artillery units. But my brother, a medic mostly part of an exceedingly dangerous U.S. Army Riverine Assault platoon in Vietnam (the members of which had special patches, essentially Marines), had to rotate through protecting artillery battalions. See an inadequate story. The disgusting idea that the artillery men are somewhat not at the front is laughable. They were trained to fight. So women in such battalions are ridiculous. Oh sure, they might be lucky enough to remain many miles behind the front lines with modern artillery, but that was not the case in Vietnam, and one can’t count on it being different today with the extremely fast high-tech tactics of today. I have read that artillery positions were often attacked or overrun by Viet Cong or NVA (North Vietnam Army). And my brother confirms this.

He wore his Riverine cap when he came home miraculously. But one day he was eating by himself, as usual, in a local cafeteria, and a former soldier came over to him. The soldier, a member of another platoon in his company, told him that his former platoon was decimated in a Riverine attack on an enemy position. The landing crafts opened up to blithering firepower by the enemy. He never wore his hat again. The point is that war is hell on earth, and only the most fit should be called, no forced to engage in it.

Because of all the excessive concern over collateral damage, I think younger people today don’t understand the nature of warfare. It is hell on earth. I have a hint based on my ex-Marine father’s trek across the Pacific in WWII, my brother’s experiences in Vietnam, and my many readings on military history.

Younger people have the warped idea that Vietnam was a little country that we bombed in an evil way. In fact, Vietnam is a thousand miles long and about the size of Germany. In WWII, we killed far more “innocent” (known today as evil collateral damage) German civilians in WWII with our continuous British/American night/day bombings. In fact, the Viet Cong and NVA attacked only when they had the advantage and outnumbered the Americans and tough Australians. (The ARVN, Army Republic of Vietnam were treacherous allies.) See About Face and Brave Men by Colonel David Hackworth. The enemy withdrew immediately when we brought our superb, immense artillery (that the Chinese and NVA could not master) and helicopter forces to bear. So long. Tough it was luck for the Americans. A few leaders, such as Colonel Hackworth, knew (as a general said, do what Hack does) how to decimate them with almost no American losses. Our firepower, critical in modern warfare, was immense, as I hope it still is. And Hack knew how to trap the enemy and decimate them with almost no American losses.

My brother met Hack at the opening of the National WWII Museum in New Orleans. One tough dude, Hack was nice. His wife was particularly solicitous. My brother finds it perplexing considering the age difference. I know the reason. My brother has always been handsome. My close friend used to debate Professor Ambrose (about fifty books), the founder of the museum. I perceived the professor as a liberal, and therefore did not attend one of his lectures despite by conservative friend’s urging. But I did listen to his TV appearances.

So the idea of women in the military is dangerous. We need a male draft of all ages above 16. Women can serve in intellectual roles, out of danger, so they can be available to their sweet children.

Sydney Trad writes:

I just can’t get past the “Lolita.” I suppose I should be thankful it isn’t “Candy.”

Please follow and like us: