Feb 9, 2016 by Jessie Jane Duff
I served 20 years on active duty in the U.S. Marine Corps, and retired as Gunnery Sergeant. Along with multiple overseas deployments and combat-related exercises, I provided logistics and training support to combat arms and wing units. Believe me, I’ve been there. Which is why what I heard at the last GOP debate absolutely shocked me.
At one point during the debate, I wondered if everyone had morphed into a liberal Democrat. Suddenly, three candidates proclaimed they supported women signing up for selective service, aka, the draft. I was extremely disappointed to hear Governor Christie say that women should not be discriminated against from selective service. Rubio felt selective service should be opened up for women and Bush agreed.
I was stunned – did any of these candidates understand the question and the reason behind it? The combat exclusion for women has been lifted. This means women can fight on the front lines now. Yes. That means they now can’t be discriminated from hand-to-hand combat with male ISIS fighters who are high on methamphetamines or brutal combat against Taliban. This means extended field operations outside of the wire, vulnerable to the most violent fighting in the world.
The three Republican candidates apparently bought into the left’s argument that this is an equal opportunity issue. No, this is a combat readiness issue. Period.Women in combat isn’t a feel good argument about “if she wants to do it” or “it’s her choice.” We’re talking about the difference between living or dying, and living means crushing an enemy whose only way to survive is by killing his opponent.
None of the candidates stated they researched the issue, or that they spoke to any of the military leaders who have requested exemption for infantry and commando units. So to me, many jumped on board the narrative to appeal to female voters. Before any candidate supports the draft, he or she needs to take a closer look to understand what it really means. It doesn’t mean women will be assigned to desk jobs to “Free a man to fight” like during WWII. It means women can and will be involuntarily assigned to combat and infantry units.
Be straight to the voters. Women in combat will cause women to die at a much higher rate then men in the next conflict.
The primary mission of the military is to eliminate the enemy by the quickest and most powerful means possible. When the military experiences any change, it should be to make units more lethal. There is zero evidence women in the infantry, special forces, or combat arms can do this.
The Marine Corps conducted a year-long study on women in integrated infantry units. The results clearly demonstrated women were not as effective as men in combat operations. However, critics shouted that the study was flawed and claimed the strongest and best women weren’t chosen for the study. The women in the study were stunned and insulted when Secretary Mabus “suggested the Marines’ study was flawed due to the caliber and mindset of the volunteer participants.” Several female Marines spoke out that Mabus dismissed their capabilities. Simply put, the Marines felt the Secretary of the Navy threw them under the bus. The Secretary’s argument wasn’t only insulting, it was highly flawed. Just to be a female Marine means you are already above average in fitness compared to most women. Apparently, even to the Secretary, that wasn’t good enough for the study.
The critics of the Marine Corps study actually proved my point: you must be a super woman to do this, and anyone less shouldn’t have been selected for the study. Isn’t that a contradiction to what is already a high standard women meet even to be a Marine?
The military isn’t being honest with women. All data shows that women are injured at twice the rate of men. Yes – TWICE the rate. In Army basic combat training women were injured 114 percent higher rate than men. These statistics are just in present combat support roles, not the combat/infantry units. Is the military disclosing this injury rate to women? Of course not, because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Even as engineers and military police, women have 108 percent higher injury ratings.
Women are not as fast or strong as men. This is not a disputed fact, it’s basic biology. If a woman is able to even get through the training, what are the long term physical hardships they’ll face? Attrition rates are already higher for women than men – so what are the odds of a woman performing in the infantry for 20 years? Probably zero.
Sustained combat operations are physical. Even if a female can meet the standards men currently have in place, she will always be in the bottom percentile physically. Women have less muscle mass and less lung capacity – this is common knowledge. So even the most physically fit women are not going to be competitive with physically fit men. And after serving 20 years in the Marines, I can assure you, Marines are physically fit. One of the greatest areas emphasized by the Corps is physical fitness for the simple reason: to sustain long term combat operations, a Marine must be in top physical shape. Bodies break that can’t maintain the immense stress and physical requirements carrying gear and weapons for long periods of time.
Few women serve in the infantry in any other nation and the reality is, those countries are experiencing difficulties making it work. Israel doesn’t have women on the front lines. There are women in Kurdistan fighting – but much of their training and front line engagement is not revealed. Females in Israel only serve 2 years and don’t serve in units on their front lines. The reality is that both Israel and Kurdistan require all hands on deck, so to speak. It’s imperative for their survival. However, the U.S. is the tip of the spear fighting terrorism and evil dictators that have no hesitation to destroy America or her allies. We can’t modify standards just to give everyone a chance to face ISIS in hand-to-hand combat. It’s imperative we maintain standards and be the most lethal force on the planet.
Let’s break this down very simply: a few of our greatest enemies today are North Korea, ISIS, al-Qaida, Syria, and Iran. None of them put women on the front lines. The U.S. has the second largest Army in the world – second only to China. We have no combat readiness need to have women in offensive tactics against our enemies on the front lines. How can women defend themselves equally if they don’t have an equal chance? This isn’t about equality – it’s about defeating an enemy. Of the top Armies in the world, none put women in the infantry.
In sports, it’s about winning. That’s why women aren’t integrated with men in everything from hockey to football. So why is the left winning the argument that women belong on the front lines?
[Note: This article was written by USMC Gunnery Sergeant (RET) Jessie Jane Duff, also a Senior Fellow with The London Center for Policy Research]
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/female-gunnery-sergeant-has-hardcore-response-to-rubiochristiebush-on-women-in-combat/
——
Obama’s crippling of the military has gone TOO far; here’s how we stop him…
Feb 9, 2016 by Allen West
The preeminent responsibility of the federal government is to provide for the common defense in order to protect the American people and our interests.
However, when you listen to certain individuals debating, it seems they believe the primary role of the federal government is to provide free stuff. They’ve confused providing for the common defense and promoting the general welfare to end up with “providing welfare.”
Is there any wonder why we have an exploding national debt at $19 trillion, expanding poverty and food stamp rolls, while our sailors kneeling in surrender?
Let me be very clear: I do not support the military mission of nation-building. But I also do not believe America should abdicate its role as a global leader capable of building strong alliances and coalitions to deter state and non-state actors, along with their aggressive and belligerent actions.
Many people are talking about the New Hampshire presidential primary contests where individuals are vying to be president of these great United States. And consistent with the primary duty of the federal government is the primary title and responsibility of the president, commander in chief of our armed forces.
However, if you’ve been paying attention to the debates, little more than cursory sound bites and talking points have been dedicated to this vital topic. Considering the challenges facing our nation’s military, we need dedication to this responsibility.
Last week, during testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Commanding General of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, General John Campbell, was asked by Rep. Jim Brindenstine (R-Ok) if he had authority to engage the Taliban. Gen. Campbell responded, no. In plain language, our men and women on the ground in Afghanistan are not allowed to engage the enemy – they are sitting ducks. Don’t forget that in January, we lost Army Special Forces SSG Matthew McClintock during the siege in Marjah where the Taliban surrounded our forces.
We are entering the hearing phase leading up to the development and passage of the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) scheduled for April 2016. We have witnessed a continuing decimation of our U.S. military capability and capacity over these past seven years. We’ve seen the abdication and dismissal of the most important role of our federal government.
Last year, President Barack Obama vetoed the NDAA because he wanted an increase in domestic spending. The spending levels for defense were exactly what President Obama had requested. Yet, he decided to hold our military hostage. He decided not to provide for the common defense, but rather provide more of the welfare nanny-state.
We cannot continue to allow the further devastation of an already-diminished military force to readiness levels that endanger our national security.
Now is the time for the voices of the American people to resound and be heard. The National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) has developed a short list of effective and affordable policy solutions to fund a capable and economically efficient military force to defend our Republic.
These are our five objectives:
1. Build a military ready to deploy, capable of defending American against terrorists and adversarial nation-states. This is a force modeled for the 21st century battlefield, not reminiscent of the Cold War-era forward deployed force, but rather a power projection force ready to support the geographic combatant commands.
2. Reduce the growth of the Department of Defense bureaucracy. The size and scope of the defense administrative bureaucracy has expanded, while we are reducing our force in the field. Some may say this is a reflection of advanced technology, but I can attest, the most highly technical weapon on the battlefield is a well-trained and equipped American warrior.
3. Transform warfighting strategies so they don’t create unnecessary risk for our men and women in combat zones. Knowing our troops on the ground in Afghanistan are in full defense mode against the Taliban is very disconcerting and operationally/tactically unprincipled. Our rules of engagement should not deliver the initiative to the enemy.
4. Reform the military acquisition process so warfighters receive modern weapon systems on time, and most importantly, under budget. Weapon systems requirements for our military should come from our military, and reflect what they need for victory. It should not be based upon any other patronage.
5. Compensate our men and women in the military at a pay rate above the poverty level so service men and women do not have to succumb to “enlisting” for federal government subsistence, such as food stamps. It is a national disgrace how we so poorly compensate those willing to give the last full measure of devotion for our liberty and freedom.
The NCPA is proposing a viable course to achieve a fiscally responsible military that will keep America safe. Join us in this endeavor as we focus on the Fiscal Year 2017 National Defense Authorization Act. Say “No” to further weakening America’s defense by visiting NCPA.org to sign the petition to Provide for the Common Defense Now!
http://www.allenbwest.com/2016/02/its-time-to-make-a-stand-join-me-in-this-call-to-arms/
Tagged: abortion, al-Qaida, “Muslim Mafia, benghazi, Caliphate, Chemical Weapons, Christian, collapse of America, Constitution, dictator, Ebola, foreclosure, Hamas, immigration, IRS, ISIS, Islam, Islamist, Israel, jihad, Muslim Brotherhood, Nazi, NSA, Obama, obamacare, radical Islam, rights, Second Amendment, Syria, Tea Party, Tyrannical Government, voter fraud, White House