« British Army to number only 82,000 soon | Main | A Threat to the US from North Korea. »

24 January 2013


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Another one lol



I have not seen this mentioned anywhere in the MSM, while the paid for shills bleat on about how great this is.

Of course they weren't going to be able to hump a ruck! The law of thirds has been around since the Romans for a reason. But still they will bleat at you "we are all equal".

Bill H

I effectively did what you regret not doing. I voted for Rocky Anderson. Mostly because I knew he would not win. Hope you can follow my convoluted logic there.

Jim Ticehurst

I Agree with all The Valid Arguments an Experienced Combat Soldier and Officer like Col. Lang has made on the Poor Thinking.. Planning..Logic and Logistics..of allowing women to serve in Field Combat Roles...along with Men..What kind of Additional Expense and Burden is going to put on our Military..??They dont need this Political Nightmare dumped on them..Its absurd..and Illogical..

If the Regime thinks they need to keep this up..Then I agree with a Statement I read today another Army Officer....Lt.General William G. Boyton, Retired..who said..that "If the United States Lifts its Restrictions on women serving on the Front Lines of Combat, then it MUST Have all Female Units commanded by a Female General..Dont mix the sexe's for all the host of Reasons that I think we are all aware of,and I think the Protective Nature of Man is one of those Reasons.."

Alba Etie

Thank you Tyler .


With apologies to Sir Winston Churchill: Seldom has so much been said by so may about so little. I am reasonably sure that the Republic and its armed forces will survive and even thrive. The at the time radical ideas promoted, by among others Thomas Jefferson, continue to be implemented.

This is a matter of moving "de facto" to "de jure".

Neil Richardson

"With apologies to Sir Winston Churchill: Seldom has so much been said by so may about so little. I am reasonably sure that the Republic and its armed forces will survive and even thrive. "

Well, if the current trend of copying the practices of the US military holds among various competitor states' armed forces, perhaps the PLA and GFRF will also allow women in infantry and armor (Well the Soviets already tried that back in 1943). Maybe the next time we have a general war, perhaps we could field our female maneuver battalions against their counterparts in the spirit of "sportsmanship" and good will.

"The at the time radical ideas promoted, by among others Thomas Jefferson, continue to be implemented."

Are you sure you want to go there? Thomas Jefferson who wanted a very small federal army (or none at all) also said, "None but an armed nation can dispense with a standing army."

"This is a matter of moving "de facto" to "de jure".

This is wrong. At the very least they could've tried out a few testbed units among armor and infantry to see if this would be viable or even worth it.



Unless you have been hiding something about yourself, you have no idea what you are talkng about and neither do any of the loudmouths in the media. The one exception would be Jack Jacobs. His pronouncements surprise me. There is no question that women soldiers can do many things, but the roles they have had up until now in our ground armed forces have been support roles of one kind or another. Do they fight in those roles? Yes, when it is necessary to do so in self defense. Are they in danger in their support jobs? Yes, but that is not the same thing as being an integral part of a fighting unit of infantry, armor, etc. in such units civilized behavior disappears and the rawest kind of human savagery is not an aberration. It IS the mission. the mission is to kill and destroy. Are we now to have the feminine viewpoint with regard to close combat? Is consideration for others now to be the rule that guides operational planning? And then there is the matter of sheer physical strength. Are there women who can do the sheer muscle power jobs that are part of ordinary life for junior people in the combat arms? Yes, but how many women will it generally take to erect a wet General Purpose Medium tent. The answer is - a helluva lot more than with men. That means that in a mixed unit, the men will be doing a disproportionate share of hard physical tasks. Oh, yes, this change will be a great deal for women officers who aspire to be senior generals, but not so much for everyone else. Dempsey said yesterday that standards must be maintained in the physical capability area. This is a fine sentiment but it will not be the case. The armed services generally do not now hold women to the same physical standards. the service academies, WP, etc. changed their standards to accomodate women. The WH has directed this change because it fits their political agenda. Why should we not think that the WH will direct "success" for the women in the program? Obama is a lucky fellow. Peace of a kind is approaching. That may disguise the result of his social engineering. pl


Lars, your insipid insistence on the blank slate theory continues to show that you have no idea how the real world where people live and die based off of things such as upper body strength, which you and yours consider a "social construct".


Apparently drone warfare makes the infantry obsolete according to leading generals.

I'm certain I've heard this before - history doesn't repeat, but it rhymes.


History has always been unkind to those who fail to move with it. I still find this action to be more symbolic than anything else and not really as revolutionary as some seem to do. The much bigger issue will be how, when and where to draw down the armed forces, which for many reasons now has become imperative.



One of the saddest of delusions is the notion that history is something like a river with polarity, a current and a direction of flow. None of that is true. As a European you should certainly understand that. The primitive European political movements of the 20th Century were part of the march of history toward "progress?" Soviet communist insistence that they armies of socialism only march forward was "progress?" pl


History has to do with time and it does indeed move forward and not all of it is necessarily progress but plenty of it is. If it was not for the Internet, it is doubtful that any of these conversations here would take place. Or me being able to watch rockets launches to outer space from my balcony.

Those socialists eventually found out that there was a ceiling that impeded further movement that it could not overcome. They did not realize that they had built that ceiling themselves.


Yes it is. And reading is clearly not comprehension.

If the only criteria you can use to describe an appropriate soldier is their sex, I would suggest you are not forwarding a sensible opinion but rather a banal prejudice. Are you ok with little weak men in the infantry? How about Gurkhas? - too small for you? Shouldnt be infantry?

The bulldyke in question could definitely kick your ass. She runs faster than you, benches more than you and gets more sex with women than you.

Why exactly would you choose to exclude her from the infantry? Cos shes a widdy biddy lady?


Some may dream of a city on a hill, but that requires ignoring our nature. Our nature is a constant. We will be no better tomorrow then we were today. The Greeks certainly understood that, why we can't - I don't know. Perhaps we're too caught up in our own mythology.


Kind? Unkind? Please. When you control the educational/media organs, you can turn a power grab by northern mercantilists and Hamiltonians into a progressive war to free the slaves by Saint Lincoln.

The world is tiring of liberal/NYC/LA paranoia defining the issues of the day while people are unable to provide for their families. When what's happening in Spain and Greece comes here, woo boy.


I'm still waiting for the gay liberals I know to sign up, or tell me of a signle openly gay person they know who did. Same for the young (under 30) women I know. None of the liberals are joing up, just cheerleading the Obama victory. Fools with too much time in polici. I just hope we don't lose a war over it the next time we go up against a really capable adversary.


The forward observer was killed by a RPG, the other two were by IED. Again, roughly in proportion to the rest of the casualties.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

February 2021

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
  1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Blog powered by Typepad