Fighting Words

Despite what some of my less than tolerant liberal acquaintances may believe, my military experience does not date back to the era of hardtack and beans — soldiers in the field in my day supped on such culinary catastrophes as ham and chopped eggs delivered in an olive-drab tin can laboriously broached (especially when the icy January winds that regularly blast through the Fulda Gap have demobilized your every digit) by the ubiquitous P38P-38 (OPENER, CAN, HAND, FOLDING, TYPE I).  The quality of these antique military victuals may be adduced by the fact that everyone’s favorite item in a case of C-rations was generally the finely grained sandpaper that passed for toilet tissue. Fortunately, the old C-rat has gone the way of the musket and the cavalry horse. Not all modern martial transformations are as equally beneficial:

Oblivious to important differences between men and women, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Department of Defense to lift all combat exemptions for women. Not putting women into combat deprives them of their constitutional rights, the ACLU is arguing on behalf of four servicewomen in a complaint filed Tuesday in a federal court in San Francisco.

[…] The military has kept women out of direct ground combat for a moral reason: Deliberately putting women in harm’s way is not right; and for practical reasons: Women are not as physically strong, and they have an impact on the men around them. In a civilized society, men are raised to protect women. Now some of America’s elite warrior units train men to be indifferent to women’s screams. That’s what passes for “progress” in a “progressive” military. (via KNIGHT: Deceitful debate over women in combat – Washington Times)

Women In Combat

The argument posed by the left-wing lawyers nesting inside the ACLU that the fair sex possess a Constitutional right to engage in battle is as pernicious as all the other “progressive” legal speculations which inculcate the rot that currently threatens our culture and our national security.  Besides, any woman who really wants to experience combat doesn’t need to join an infantry outfit — all she need do is get married.

[…] The Marine Corps has opened Infantry Officers Course for a pilot program to study how well women could perform in combat roles. The first two females, and only two entered, both quickly flopped; one on the first day, the other within a week. No female marines have yet opted for the next session.

Women aren’t lining up for these positions; it’s mostly activist intellectuals trying to shoehorn pretenses into reality. The Marine Corps began this study at the behest of the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Service (DACOWITS). The Obama administration meddles to fix what isn’t broken …

… There was a study done of women marines during my service. It revealed alarming numbers of WMs who lacked the strength to pull the slide back on a service pistol, an inability to throw hand grenades far enough to refrain from blowing themselves up and little capacity to carry wounded comrades to safety. (Memo To The ACLU: Don’t Put Women Into Combat | Forbes)

Such a study should surprise no one, not even a poisonous leftist like our current president, a man who will routinely place the life and limb of anyone (except himself) at risk in the service of his ideological delusions. But take it from an ex-GI whose training experience includes having had one dropped at his feet one fine Southern afternoon by a fumble-fingered recruit from the Bronx (thank God for long fuses and alert drill instructors) — when it comes to hand delivered explosive devices, a strong and reliable arm is the only thing that’s ever politically correct.


About Bob Mack

Retired since 2003. Military Service: U.S. Army, 36th Artillery Group, Babenhausen, Germany 1966-67; 1st Signal Brigade, Republic of Vietnam, 1967-68 Attended University of Miami, 1969-73
This entry was posted in News, Opinion and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Fighting Words

  1. Gee! What is Code Pink’s reaction to women in combat? That should be fun to watch.

  2. Pingback: Sunday Links: Christmas Toy Commercial Edition - Conservative Hideout 2.0

  3. Pingback: Teeing it up: A Round at the LINKs (Fiscal Cliff edition) | SENTRY JOURNAL

  4. Bob says:

    The imbeciles pushing this lunacy just want to obliterate all distinctions between men and women — in other words, they want to repeal human nature (a fool’s errand if there ever was one, since nature always gets the last word). Women — and I am one, my masculine screen name and gravatar notwithstanding — in general make lousy warriors, lacking the necessary levels of testosterone, so they (we) would be a huge, probably fatal, liability in combat. Might as well just surrender and get it over with.

    Also, keep in mind that when the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the male-only draft, it did so on the grounds that the purpose of conscription is to raise a combat force, and drafting people who can’t be sent into combat would not further that goal. If women can be used in combat, then the current law that exempts women from registering with Selective Service would fall by the wayside. Women would have to register just the same as men, and if the draft is ever revived, women would be drafted on an equal basis with men.

    • Bob Mack says:

      It’s just another bad idea brought to us by leftists who specialize in destructive thinking.

    • bydesign001 says:

      Amen Bob.

      When it comes to defending our country, I’ll take a strong man any day. No offense ladies but that’s just how I would prefer to roll.

      As far as I’m concerned, the draft dodgers have a lot to say about the matter while at the same time, they are DRAFT DODGERS.

  5. Pingback: Be Sure You’re Right Then Go Ahead | Grumpy Opinions

  6. grumpyelder says:

    Bob– I think the DI’s at the grenade range were still recovering from your experience when I was there a few weeks later…. They were a nervous bunch- Course if I had to spend my day standing next to novices throwing there first ……….. yeah

    Carried a P38 in my wallet for 10 years after I got out- came in handy several times.. And the defense of the indefensible Fulda Gap.. As you know, if the Russians had ever come across. Fulda had a shorter life expectancy than a May Fly in a January ice storm. The Battalion I was in had a tank farm in Fulda- Guess it was back in ’69 I was looking at a new ops plan. We were supposed to keep it operational for 48 hrs- roughly 47 hours and 59 minutes past the time Fulda was expected to get over-run

    • Bob Mack says:

      GRUMPY, you remember Tent City at Ft. Jack … populated in part by draftees who shouldn’t have been allowed within 10 miles of a lethal weapon. One time on the rifle range, a few of those idiots opened up while one of the instructors was still downrange checking the targets. The DI’s in those halcyon days should have been given awards for bravery. Later on, I was running field crypto in an artillery outfit in Germany; spent many a freezing night in a blacked out Magic-25 van in the mountains around Fulda with only a field phone, an encrypted RTT set, a loaded .45, and an occasional wild boar for company. Had to make courier runs to V Corps field HQ also, almost drove off a cliff during an ice storm one night. It was so cold in them thar hills that even Viet Nam appeared the better option.

  7. If they want to send women into combat they had better figure out a few logistical issues besides strength, such as the fact that we cannot pee standing up and also, we menstruate. Think about how that might work out in close quarters for an extended period of time while under fire. They would have to do something to make these combat women not have to deal with menstrual issues and not need to find a nice place to drop trow and squat for peeing before they go sending them into foxholes if they were smart. The initiative to remove exemptions for women seems like an anti-female push, since it will get women killed and give females no way out if they DON’T want to go into combat.

    • Bob Mack says:

      Exactly right, ZILLA. The military is no place for social engineering.

    • bydesign001 says:

      Here, here. Such problems in the eyes of the so-called know-it-alls will be later referred to as “unintended consequences” being the fact that they would never admit that they never considered such matters. Either that or they’ll call on Planned Parenthood for those three month injections, the latter of which would not surprise me one bit.

      In any event, the ACLU suit is a “fluke.”

    • AFVET says:

      Yeah, but give them an armed aircraft and watch them go ! 🙂

    • I’m suddenly flashing back to Rush Limbaugh’s idea for an all woman “Amazon Battalion,” which would put the synchronized cycles and PMS which goes with it to good use. Only that was a joke. Not an actual suggestion, ACLU.


      Funny to hear only two women even tried for that Marine infantry school. I was wondering what would happen to that ludicrous decision. I wish that was the end of story, but here’s what will happen next. They’ll reduce certain requirements for females. In the interest of fairness, you know.


      • Bob Mack says:

        “They’ll reduce certain requirements for females. In the interest of fairness, you know.”

        They’ve already done it. They’ll always have to. Because nature doesn’t correspond to political correctness. God is not a left-winger.

      • AFVET says:

        Love your first paragraph Linda.
        That would be NASTY !

  8. AFVET says:

    Women in the military have always been supportive of the mission without being on the front lines.
    In WWII, women pilots ferried fighters and bombers to the coast to be loaded onto ships to be transported overseas.
    Some died in the effort due to malfunctions of the aircraft.
    The recent drive to put them on the front lines is not a good idea.
    It will jeopardize the lives of the men that have the desire to protect her.
    To put a female on the front lines with a muslim enemy is to provide a target that they cannot resist.

  9. Pingback: Fighting Words - Conservative Hideout 2.0

  10. Pingback: Fighting Words | Littlebytesnews Current Events |

Your thoughts?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s