« Clinton CNN poll results - 4 December 2015 | Main | The MSM are ignorant about Islam »

05 December 2015


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

Chris Chuba

"Your skepticism is, to put it mildly, warranted. But I think in the longer term, technology will settle the issue in favor of feministas."

This is a fallacy. I am not a military guy just someone who enjoys studying history. The one thing I noticed and probably read but was reinforced as I continued to study, was that when I looked at armor from the Alexander the Great days up to the present time the average weight carried by the infantry basically remains the same. What changes is the type of stuff they carry. In every description of armor, be it medieval or the Greek armor they always tried to manage the weight vs. protection. So now the infantry has lighter weight body armor but they carry machine gun ammo, communications equipment, etc. So with future technology they will use the soldiers strength to carry the same weight but better stuff. Col. Lang can call me out on my BS if I am wrong since again I have not served, I only know what I have read.

The Twisted Genius

David Habakkuk,

Your dog walking buddy is right. One fights for one's squaddies, especially in the heat of battle. I believe there have been formal studies that support that notion. I would add that one can fight just as hard for those in one's immediate care on the battlefield. I can vouch for that. I doubt if the presence of gays disrupts this battlefield comradeship. Sexual thoughts and preferences recede in combat. There's just too much else to occupy the mind. A gay man can hump a ruck and carry a wounded comrade just as well as a straight man. This is not the case with female squaddies. They may even be thought of as someone in one's immediate care rather than as a squaddie.

As for fighting for the woman back home goes, I don't think that enters into one's battlefield thoughts unless your fighting on the outskirts of your village. (I think women squaddies would be acceptable in that case.) In combat one may even forget one's responsibility to return home and care for the wife and children and take unreasonable risks. I can vouch for that as well.

Ah yes, the "Sharpe" series. I loved it.


It is certainly a loaded issue that most aspiring Commanders-in-Chief will avoid. I imagine Trump will bloviate about it at some point, as he is likely to do with any topic that crosses his mind.

mistah charley, ph.d.

The soldiers in battle fight for their comrades; the not-yet-soldiers and the "thank you for your service" civilians are told that the purpose of the war is "to set the country free." War is occasionally necessary, but most of the time it is a crime. In my opinion.


“This means that, as long as they qualify and meet the standards,...."
Which they won't.
The current Obama ass kising flag ranks have already made that possible.
The total lack of honor among the flags (initiated by the politician in uniform Dempsey) made this possible


They've been raised in a culture that devalues men and a school "system" that is female-dominated.
The millennials - the newest asexual generation.
PS: men and women ARE physically different,another fact apparently unknown to the fact-free millennials.


I included this video just to emphasize how long the push for women in combat has lasted. This testimony from general Robert H. Barrow covered a lot of the material discussed here, but added a few other reasons for his opinion to oppose this politically correct endeavor. This was July 1991.



Apologies. The comment I thought I prematurely sent apparently vanished rather than sending. Rinse n repeat less nuanced version:

No. Never in infantry or military. If you think that means I should not venture an opinion on this issue because I can't adequately grasp what it's like out there, I understand your position & will happily shut up after this post. Family in marines and navy, none of them infantry (all of whom told me emphatically never to join any branch and if by some chance I must, never volunteer for anything). Friends and coworkers in or formerly in marines/navy/army, some of them infantry. Among people currently or formerly in infantry from whom I've heard a definitive opinion, I have heard everything from "yes if they can cut it let them" (granted usually with a certain amount of skepticism as to the likelihood of this) to "Hell no!" The "Hell no!" outnumbered the "sure let them" but it is far from unanimous and the reasons for the "no" often boiled down to male stupidity. Of the two friends who recently got out, both were in the "if they can meet the standards, let them" camp, albeit with reservations about the way some of the men might react (very strong reservations in one case).

I have known some of the marine women who will be very pleased by this decision, and imo if they want to do this and can do this, the fact that a bunch of guys might be idiots or evil should not stop them. It's up to the men to judge them by how they perform, not preconceived prejudice. (that said, if enough women meet the standard, I would feel better if they had separate units to prove themselves instead of starting with one or two lumped with a bunch of guys who might be mostly hostile) Most women won't want to (I also know current and former women in the military who would agree with your take on this as opposed to mine); not all who want to will meet the standard. Maybe those who do will have trouble over a prolonged time, and they and I are wrong. But they deserve the chance, and in some cases have demonstrated to the satisfaction of people who might be serving with them that they could cut it.


I happen to know some women who would have very much liked infantry for their MOS, who strike me as sufficiently capable and who I certainly think deserved the chance. I didn't really expect this to be a popular opinion but they aren't here so am speaking for them as best I can. As I said below, I understand if you think I don't know or can't know what I'm talking about not and you may be right but I have spoken with people who have served as grunts about this issue and while your opinion is the majority,it's not unanimous. I think the women who meet the standard should have the chance to prove you wrong.

Ranger Ray


Great link to a superb testimony by a great Marine. His comments ring true. What a travesty that he was ignored.

Where are the flag officers of his intestinal fortitude today?


Spartans were bisexual by modern standards, but applying modern standards to Greek sexual traditions and pederasty in particular is wrong.


Tidewater to J.M.Gavin and Turcopolier,

That there is a driving intent among our Masters to bring back conscription, and a conscription, at that, which would include both men and women, seems to me to be one of the most interesting bits of (unpublished) news that I have heard recently. I have wondered about that possibility for a long time. It would seem to me that this is an very important topic to be explored in depth on SST.

Is it possible that conscription would be one of the most dangerous things to internal stability that the American leadership could try to pull off?

Could conscription for a war overseas in South Asia lead to another mutiny? Will the American public be willing to pay the "blood tax?"

Isn't that a complete repudiation of the post-Vietnam social contract? Part of that agreement being that it is unacceptable that any but volunteers be used to provide cannon fodder for continuing misbegotten overseas imperial adventures?

Another clause in the agreement being no new taxes?

That the reason the American is so quiet about the continuing carnage and evident failure overseas is because it is not the American's problem?

As is said these days for "you're welcome", NO PROBLEM.

For those want it, you got it. War, or whatever. All yours.

Make it ours, that ES PROBLEMA.

Because can a non-citizen be drafted?

And if a US citizen goes off to Central Asia or Ukraine for a couple of deployments, will there be a job waiting for him or her when they get back?

Or will there have been be a large increase in illegals and Europeans/ Asians to pick up the slack?

Though there just might be one happy group. Thousands of Islamic men and women who want sharia for themselves in a region of their own?

It's an interesting subject.


On the subject of the Amazonians, nomadic steppe tribes like the Scythians were well aware of the fact female warriors would not be able to match up well strength wise with males in the arms profession. Therefore, their training was tailored to focus more on various technical skills and proficiency with certain weapons.

Additionally, female warriors of the steppe nomad lineage did not resemble butch or overly muscular females. They tended to look like female track athletes or MMA fighters.

The fighting style of steppe nomads would be more favorable to the use of women in combat as well IMO.

To sum it all up, the steppe nomads had a better grip on women in combat than the US political establishment does. That is, unless the US political establishment knows better and is deliberately trying to screw the military.

Patrick Bahzad

Well I happen to have served with women on various theatres of operation, and have trained members of the military (including a number of women).
What you seem to believe, is that infantry work is a bit like a college sports training camp taking place in a foreign country. That is a fundamentally misguided view and it is a shame people like you are spreading the misconception.
I don't know which grunts you talked to, but if we are talking 'real action' here, on this topic, I'm only prepared to take into consideration guys who've served on a FOB in shit-hole Afghanistan as a benchmark, together with Special Forces type of units (not talking 'Special Ops', that is still a bit different) .
If they say 'fine', then so be it, but I would be very surprized if they said what you allege they did.

Patrick Bahzad

Being against opening up all positions in the military is equal to male stupidity ?? Man, your family is right, never join the military, you'd be at serious risk of a friendly fire incident ...

How about being against this may also be related to having serious first hand experience about the requirements of infantry duty, from 20 odd years of service !

Can't reason with people like you, you know better because you talked to people ... wonderful.

Patrick Bahzad

Thx for posting this.

Didn't know Barrow had made that statement, and what a statement it is. Should be food for thought for a lot of people !



Basic question. Are you a man or a woman? My question as to whether or not you had infantry service was intended to learn if you actually knew what you were talking about rather than just preaching feminism to us. pl


Short answer, no, I don't believe anyone wants the draft reinstated. I don't think anyone in power knows enough or cares enough to concern themselves with issues future politicians will face as a result of current actions. Kicking the can down the road has become the American way.

Chris Chuba

"In 1941, they suffered 6M killed or captured. "
Correction: make that 3M in 1941 and 3M more in 1942, I misread my notes. I scribbled a note that the 1941 number was double the rate of 1942 if you factor in that the war started in June. In any case, my larger point was that the Soviets maintained a field army of 5M plus while today we have a standing army of about 500,000 and with a larger population. Therefore, we in the U.S. should be able to be able to be more selective about the physical requirements for our infantry.


A healthy society does not send its women to be raped and killed in combat.

We are not a healthy society.

Whatever though. This new military ain't going to be the GAR or Army of the Tennessee, so that should make what comes afterwards simpler this time around.


Mojavewolf; I think you are engaged in justifying your opinion which seems to be that "a woman can do anything a man can do".

When someone objects to this statement your response is that the speaker is either stupid or biased.

The facts of the matter are that infantry work will take men to and then past their absolute physical an∂ mental limits. This is not the same as the highly structured one dimensional physical and mental stress tests at which some women can sometimes excel.

The male armour against this combat stress in Australia is called "mateship" you never let a mate down. Women, no matter who or what they are, are never ever your "mates".

Translation into politically correct speech you might understand: "small unit cohesion will suffer", in fact it will be shot to shit.

Then again, you make the assumption that all women in the military are saints. This is a foolish belief. The evil ones who slip through the system will use their sex for their advancement, and that will mess up big, not small unit cohesion when it is inevitably detected by the mass of serving men.


I am apparently expressing myself poorly (in part because I keep making what I wrote go away forever and then having to rewrite it; the rewrites aren't as well expressed; you're about to see another example here), with the result that you are misinterpreting practically everything I say. One more try at clarification on a couple of things:

I don't think everyone opposed to opening up all slots to women is stupid. I don't think all the arguments as to why this should not happen come down to "male stupidity." The people making the argument that the women might be unsafe or that their presence would cause some of the men to act in a less-than-efficient manner, at least until they got used to the women's presence, they make good points. I am not arguing with this. I would call the latter problem "male stupidity". The former is a wee bit worse than stupidity shading into pure evil. But in both cases, the problem is with the men, not the women.

I do think that even most men who don't think women can cut it or who just plain don't want to serve with women will come around if they see women out there next to them pulling their weight. This is not about sports teams this applies to pretty much every aspect of life. Some will not come around but then they are the problem.

If you think these opinions make me an idiot, so be it.

I am spending plenty of time reading and considering your and others opinions on this, and taking your experience into account. I do not see any harm in expressing an alternate viewpoint. Given that I have absolutely no impact on this entire process, the fact that I am doing so may be a good argument that I am an idiot.

The family members who advised me never to join the military did so not because they thought I would do poorly but because they did not particularly love the way things were done and this was their advice to everyone. Both volunteered during wartime, in WWII (Marines, because believed in cause and wanted to fight) and Vietnam (Navy because thought offered best chance of avoiding a fight and payed for college) and left afterward. Another family member joined in peacetime, stayed in for four years, and advised everyone to do it because it turned his life around etc. I actually think I would do poorly but not for the reason you implied. For the last few years, most of my real life social circle outside of my immediate household consists of current or former military and we get on quite well even when our opinions differ. I'm pretty confident none of them would be inclined to shoot me in the back even if I said something they thought was stupid, or was actually stupid. Mostly they are exactly who I would want at my back in a fight, even when we have differing opinions (which is common).


"When someone objects to this statement your response is that the speaker is either stupid or biased."

I really was not meaning to say that, and apologize if it seemed like I was saying that. I am not arguing at all with the unit cohesion issue as a temporary thing, I just disagree that it will be permanent. (explained in more detail above). Two people can disagree on something without either of them being stupid.

I am not arguing there is no difference between men and women with regard to physical ability. Most women won't want to; most won't be able to. But for those women who both want to and can do it, it strikes me as wrong not to let them because the men are going to look at them sidewise. (as for long term durability, you could be right, I could be wrong, but how to find out without letting someone try?)

And I don't think hardly anyone is a saint. But I would ask you to consider the type of woman who first joins the military, then picks out the most physically demanding part to try and succeed in, and whether such a person is likely to try and use sex for advancement.



You did not answer my question about your gender. In my experience many, many women in the US military use sex to advance themselves, even if they do not actually "put out." pl

Babak Makkinejad

Acting coy, must be a woman.

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