Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Max Boot:
Gay or Female, Uncle Sam Should Want You
At a time when the Army and Marine Corps are struggling to fill their ranks, many conservatives are determined to limit the ability of women and gays to contribute to the war effort. Are they more concerned with winning culture wars at home or winning the war on terrorism abroad?
The issue of women in combat has arisen again because the Army wants to assign mixed-sex support units to work with combat battalions. Almost all jobs in the military already are open to women. They're allowed to serve as fighter pilots and medics, truck drivers and police officers. But Pentagon policy keeps them out of ground-combat battalions and some attendant support units. Anti-feminist activist Elaine Donnelly charges that "politically correct group-thinkers and Clinton-promoted generals in the Pentagon" are conspiring to traduce this policy.
To block this nefarious plot (actually hatched by Rumsfeld-promoted generals), some House Republicans introduced legislation to prevent the Pentagon from opening any more jobs to women and to reassign 22,000 women already serving in forward-support companies. Opposition from the Army, which wants the flexibility to assign personnel as needed, killed this measure. Ranking minority member Ike Skelton rightly called the bill a "solution in search of a problem."
The role of women has been steadily expanding since no coincidence the end of the draft in 1973. An all-volunteer military can't afford to ignore half of the population. The integration process was not always smooth, as scandals like Tailhook attest. But today, 212,000 women (15% of the active-duty force) play an integral role in the military. Keeping them out of combat is impossible, whatever the law says, because in a place like Iraq everyone is on the front lines. Thirty-five female soldiers have died in Iraq and almost 300 have been wounded.
Even as women have taken on roles once reserved for men, the disastrous consequences predicted by naysayers have not come to pass. In 2000, the late Col. David Hackworth wrote: "What the British longbow did to the French army at Crecy in 1346, the failed military policy on gender integration has done to the U.S. armed forces at the end of the 20th century: near total destruction." Yet in the last five years, "near total destruction" has been the fate not of the U.S. armed forces but the Taliban and Baathists they have battled.
Far from being crippled by the presence of women, the military has found that female soldiers can perform some jobs that men can't, such as searching Iraqi women. As long as standards are not compromised to allow women into jobs beyond their physical capacity, I don't see why we should reverse the trend toward greater opportunities for women.
I also don't see why we are still barring all gays and lesbians from serving openly. Between 1994 and 2003, according to the Government Accountability Office, the military discharged 9,488 homosexuals, including 322 with badly needed knowledge of such languages as Arabic, Farsi and Korean. In other words, the fight against gay rights is hurting the fight against our real enemies. That's a compelling reason to change the law, even for those of us who used to be supporters of the gay ban.
In 1993-94, when the current "don't ask, don't tell" policy was promulgated, I was persuaded by the warnings of Colin Powell and other generals that opening the door to gays and lesbians would hurt morale and cohesion. But in the intervening decade, society has become more accepting of homosexuality.
In a survey of the military last year, 42% of respondents said gays and lesbians should be allowed to serve openly; 50% said they should not. Among junior enlisted personnel the figure was 50% in favor of acceptance. In the rest of the population, it's 79%. I suspect that in a year or two, attitudes will tilt even more in the pro-gay direction, making the existing policy unsustainable.
It may still make sense not to assign gay personnel to ground combat units, where they might have trouble fitting in, but why kick out gay translators or technicians? Sooner or later, the U.S. military will follow the example of Australia, Britain and Israel and lift its ban on openly gay service members. In the struggle against Islamic fanatics, we can't afford to turn volunteers away.
I say if women want to be equal (which they are in most things), let them go into combat. "Some" people may accept queers in the military, but not many. I'll bet when they open the doors they will lose a lot of people.Mr. P said:IMO women should NEVER be in a combat role. As for gays, they have been here as long as man, sooner or later people will accept that..
Women may be more equal in society than ever before, but I think we must draw a line somewhere..For me combat is it.Merlin said:I say if women want to be equal (which they are in most things), let them go into combat. "Some" people may accept queers in the military, but not many. I'll bet when they open the doors they will lose a lot of people.
Mr. P said:Women may be more equal in society than ever before, but I think we must draw a line somewhere..For me combat is it.
I don't understand what you mean about opening the doors?
although most women would disagree... I don't... a lot worse things can happen to us... men are tortured as well, but I think women are raped a lot more and a lot of messed up things can happen... And a lot of women are physically fit, I can out do most guys in sit ups, but we're still not built the same... with me being 92lbs and 5'1" I don't think I'd be too efficient against a big guy in a hand to hand combat situation...Mr. P said:IMO women should NEVER be in a combat role. As for gays, they have been here as long as man, sooner or later people will accept that..
im not sure about this one. intellectually, they are equal, but physically...Merlin said:I say if women want to be equal (which they are in most things), let them go into combat. "Some" people may accept queers in the military, but not many. I'll bet when they open the doors they will lose a lot of people.
Merlin said:I say if women want to be equal (which they are in most things), let them go into combat. "Some" people may accept queers in the military, but not many. I'll bet when they open the doors they will lose a lot of people.
no1tovote4 said:It didn't happen in other places where they have opened those doors. In some places those doors were never closed and their military is still alive, Israel comes to mind. Women are also in combat roles in the Israeli army.
Shattered said:If a woman has gone through training with no "curves" or "breaks", and can match a guy head to head for combat skills, I say let her go. If she needs even the tiniest bit of "concession" because she's female, not a chance.
GotZoom said:I open doors for women. I pull out chairs for women. Women deserve equal pay - equal jobs.
I don't want them in combat situations. Not out of worry that they can't protect or pull their own weight, I just don't want them hurt, captured, or worse.
Call me sexist - that is fine.
Gays......I personally wouldn't want to see that but I think that is coming quicker than a lot of us realize.
I wonder - a question for the ladies.
We know the a lot of guys would have a problem serving with gay men; showers, weeks in a fox hole, etc.
Ladies - what are your feelings about serving next to a lesbian?
Ladies - what are your feelings about serving next to a lesbian?
I agree about the capture thing... as I said before a lot of extremely messed up things happen to girl captures...GotZoom said:I open doors for women. I pull out chairs for women. Women deserve equal pay - equal jobs.
I don't want them in combat situations. Not out of worry that they can't protect or pull their own weight, I just don't want them hurt, captured, or worse.
Call me sexist - that is fine.
Gays......I personally wouldn't want to see that but I think that is coming quicker than a lot of us realize.
I wonder - a question for the ladies.
We know the a lot of guys would have a problem serving with gay men; showers, weeks in a fox hole, etc.
Ladies - what are your feelings about serving next to a lesbian?
kancer43 said:I agree about the capture thing... as I said before a lot of extremely messed up things happen to girl captures...
As far as serving with a lesbian, lesbians really are totally different than gay men... I've never heard of a girl raping a girl... Look at prisons for example... Men are raped there constantly, but in a women's prison, I don't think I have ever heard of one rape or rape epidemic... not on the news or in any of my criminal justice courses... Gay men also flaunt it a bit more...
no1tovote4 said:Recently on CSI, they had a girl that was in Prison talking about being made into a lesbian sex slave traded for cigarettes by her cellmate.
Of course lesbians can and sometimes do rape women, they can use hands or even implements. They can also use weapons to force the weaker woman to do what they wish to them as well.
Gem said:My problem with women in the military has nothing to do with whether or not they are capable, they are. It has nothing to do with whether or not they would be treated more harshly by captors, they would be, and women who volunteered for combat duty would have to be made aware of that fact and given proper training in how to deal with the mental anguish and stress of sexual torture (put that on the training roster and see how many women say, "No thanks.")
Additionally women would have to do something about that interestesting little statistic of the surprisingly high number of women turn up pregnant right before being sent overseas!!! It would be a travesty to allow women to serve in combat missions, spend all the money on their training and equipment, only to have 40% of them get pregnant so they don't have to go to Iraq.
