The Pentagon staged a press briefing last week to announce a two-year study to refine combat physical standards and find the best way to install women in the male bastion of infantry, armor and special operations. A decision on which combat roles will be open to women is expected in 2015.
It is the special “ops” group — with its secretive isolation in small teams where physical stamina matters most — that has commandos the most nervous.
“The only option now is to offer reasons why they can’t do it,” said an Army special operations veteran who believes U.S. Special Operations Command will cave to White House demands to include women. “I haven’t heard that anyone has the courage to say they can’t do it, either. Maybe the new [military occupational specialty] can be 18P — Special Forces camp follower. Is that PC enough?”
An ArmySpecial Forces soldier said the qualification course at Fort Bragg, N.C., to earn the Green Beret is so demanding that the Army will have to lower standards for some tasks in able for women to succeed.
I simply cannot fathom the fanatical push by the feminists and the the Administration to integrate combat arms. And worse, GEN Dempsey, who has long sworn that the standards would not be lowered, has, of course, quickly decided that the standards need to be revisited:
Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that if a service wants to keep a job as a male-only occupation because of its high physical demands, the service will have to show why those tests should not be lowered to accommodate women.
An army of mid-grade officers will conduct studies and generate reams of paper that show the existing standards aren’t really the best methodology of choosing warriors. The grueling physical standards will suddenly be unrealistic.
And it will all be a sham, of course.
No soldier has ever come back from battle and said “I was too fit, too strong, had too much endurance.”
These standards are the bare minimum.
And as for the argument about equality…
Service is a privilege, not a right.
If we’re going to go around tossing out standards, why not the standard that says members must be either US citizens, or permanent resident aliens (legitimate green card holders).?
Or why are we excluding from enlistment the mentally handicapped? Persons with cerebral palsy or who are blind? Or deaf?
Not once has anyone put forth a realistic argument that the addition of women to combat arms, let along special operations forces, will increase or enhance to combat capability of those forces. And they never will, because it doesn’t.