First Female Combat Engineer Enlists, First Female Infantryman Next?

I hope that one day we can shift our thinking about war. I hope that war will one day cease to affect our nation’s children, our brothers and sisters. I hope that one day we unite through linguistics for basic rights. I know this will probably never occur in my lifetime, at least not globally, but until someone brings a fight to my door, for now I choose peace. Preparedness however is a different issue. We have over 300 million people in our country and up until recently only a little less than half could volunteer to fight in a combat capacity.

Oregon, a state which has been one of the first to adapt a counter culture which bolsters their own rights, has now been the first to enlist a woman into a combat arms MOS. In this regard they are the tip of the spear. This is huge. Essentially, the Oregon National Guard has just contributed to history with regard to a subject that most people disagree upon. Who knows if this will work out, but the implications are huge. The days of women being unable to serve in combat openly are over. Eighteen year old Mackenzie Clark of Damascus, Oregon changed all that. She is the first of her kind. She is the first female combat engineer.

via First Female Combat Engineer Enlists, First Female Infantryman Next?.

Best wishes to Private Clark.

Combat Engineer, MOS 12B is the only MOS outside of the 11 series that has a mandate to be prepared to fight as infantry should the need arise.  That’s a legacy, a holdover, from the days of World War II where large numbers of Engineer regiments were essentially unskilled labor.

Of course, the smart combined arms commander usually has a shortage of engineer assets, and more than enough work for them to do, and so avoids using them as infantry.

Whether enlisting women in MOS 12B is a good idea is, however, an open question.  We’ve simply decided to not ask, and instead plunge ahead.

10 thoughts on “First Female Combat Engineer Enlists, First Female Infantryman Next?”

  1. If she can carry an equal load, more power to her. I hope that you keep an eye on this for those of us too lazy to do it ourselves.


  2. It’s a question that cannot be answered until it is attempted.

    Frankly, I think the question of whether women on the front lines is a good idea is the wrong question. The question should be is having Mackenzie Clark on the front lines a good idea.

      1. A yes. An answer arrived at unencumbered by evidence or logic. There’s not way that’s not correct. Exactly what I expected from you.

    1. Few, if any women carry their load in military organizations when the going get’s physical. I give the answer that actual experience has yielded, Jeff. I’m not at all emotional about it.

      From a philosophical standpoint, however, any country that intentionally places women at risk in combat is worthy of defense. Such a country has simply descended to barbarism.

  3. Sure, let’s completely re-arrange the way combat units are organized. I mean, c’mon, what could go wrong? Just order everyone to be professional and there will be no problems (I actually had someone say that in response to my doubts. Unreal….)

  4. Since SCOTUS ruled this week that if a test does not produce satisfactory numbers of certain demographic groups that it must be biased, I worry severely about the impact on our military. Can you imagine if Ranger School was deemed sexually biased because no females passed the test, and it was decided to revise it so that they could pass in equal numbers? That terrifies me.

    1. As we have already seen from DADT, and other entryist nonsense, the only thing that matters is PC outcomes. The country will pay a very large price for its stupidity. The kweer marriage “ruling” compounds the spiritual problem and will open the flood gates of judgment on this country.

  5. “Whether enlisting women in MOS 12B is a good idea is, however, an open question”

    In my humble opinion, the only reason this is an open question is because those is favor of women serving in combat ignore the real physical limitations of women and the real problems of SEX in an environment where men and women eat, sleep, work, etc. in close physical proximity..

Comments are closed.