Rangel Wants The Military Draft Started……Again

I’d like to weigh in from the woman’s perspective, and as a former Navy wife. I am also the daughter of a WWII veteran and a “rosie riveter”. I’m all for women holding their own when it comes to serving the country.

With the advent of the feminist era… of which I am not, by the way (I *loved* being adored and revered… to become “equal” was a “pay cut”, so to speak… LOL) I can understand the hoopla about having women in combat. Certainly many are physically capable of serving, and perhaps more than equal to men smaller in stature.

But I also listened to my son, nephews, and others of that age (mid to late 30s). All had been raised still to respect and protect a woman. Indeed, it is the instinct of the male (if feminism hasn’t totally eliminated that gene) to protect the female species.

So I think my concern about women on the frontlines … or those exposed to more warfare for service to frontline troops, as is the case with the US military…. is not if they are capable, but what how does their very presence impact their fellow male soldiers? Are the men apt to be more protective of them, and less trusting to divide the frontline tasks equally? When I talk to the soldiers of that age, I still see that instinct to “shield” more than “stand united and equal” with another male warrior.

And it’s an instinct, as a women, I hope never disappears.

So the question is not if the women are capable of frontline or high risk duty. The question is, is it a deterrent to the performance of our military.

One of my favorite military icons was Col. David “Hack” Hackworth (sadly, now deceased). I listened to him often on this subject. He was always concerned in the 90s with this trend to integrate women into frontline combat duty. He was also concerned with the “sensitivity training” men were forced into during boot camp because of it.

Daily we are barraged with media reports about male and female service members being, sent to prison, booted out of the armed forces or investigated for playing footsie with a member of the opposite sex. Those accused have run from four star generals and admirals, to top non-coms, to rank and file grunts.

A lot of energy and a lot of dollars have been devoted to nailing the guilty parties, from a female B-2 pilot to the senior male admiral in the Pacific.

Sensitivity training has just about replaced combat training as the No. 1 priority. A Marine captain reports that his unit was scheduled to spend the day on the range. Instead of practicing their battlefield skills, however, they spent the day learning how male Marines should act around female Marines.

This forced sexual integration of the sexes is ripping apart our military. A cadet at West Point says that if a male cadet looks at a female cadet for “longer than nine seconds” it’s considered sexual harassment. Imagine the tension this creates not only at our gender sensitive service academies, but on every ship, base and battalion in our armed forces!

A full colonel who quit the Army in disgust in spite of an obviously brilliant future says he could never be alone with his female driver because “people would talk” or he would be “vulnerable to charges of sexual harassment.”

A climate of fear — both for males and females — now exists from boot camp to the highest jobs in the Pentagon. A look, an accidental touch, a misunderstood nuance can be read wrong, reported to the ever enthusiastic sexual political commissars, and the most perfect record can go up in flame.

Hack had a saying I used to hear when he did talk radio… “free a soldier to fight”. Have a woman pick up a duty that freed another male soldier to take the more risky duty.

Hack, like many fire departments here domestically, worried about the physical limitations – like packing a buddy in times of transporting wounded under fire. Hang, in the first Gulf War, even the average rucksack could weigh over 80 pounds. Heaven only knows what our soldiers go thru if carrying extra gear for chem/bio attacks, and done in the summer desert heat.

Add to that the NATO study about the anthropometric differences between men and women soldiers that needed to be addressed. Realities such as women’s different physical structure – even given equal weight and height – for such simple things as ejection seats and parachutes. Or that male soldiers demonstrated 50-80% more strength than the woman soldiers. Their nutritional differences… with women being far more susceptible to iron deficiency and anemia than their male counterparts.

I’m sure there are physical exceptions to the rule. I’m not speaking in absolutes. But we aren’t talking about the exceptional… but creating a new “norm”.

We must also consider the different psychological toll… i.e PSTD. Last I knew, the Pentagon was doing a PSTD in 2006. We certainly hear stories about soldiers that can’t manage to return to a more normal life after experiencing such brutal war. But we certainly hear even more of them about the women who seem paralyzed to regain a normal life.

Take, for example, the May 2006 Pamela Burke story in the Women’s E News, Female Vets Come Home to Second War on Trauma.

Women make up almost 15 percent of all active duty U. S. military personnel.

Women are excluded by the Pentagon from front-line combat units, but improvised explosive devices, roadside bombs, and small arms fire have struck them and their vehicles from all sides.

~~~

The Department of Veterans Affairs is currently spending $5 million for what it calls the largest clinical trial ever on psychotherapy for PTSD and the first to focus exclusively on female veterans with the disorder. Researchers recruited 284 women with current or past military experience and symptoms of the condition and tested two kinds of psychotherapy on them.

A Pentagon study published in March on the mental health of soldiers returning from deployment to Iraq and Afghanistan found that more than one- third of U.S. soldiers received psychological counseling. A statistic buried in the study: 23.6 percent of women reported a mental health concern compared with 18.6 percent of men.

There is no doubt that women are more susceptible to the PSTD than men as well… especially considering their small percentage of the fighting force.

I’ll stick with Hack’s “free a soldier to fight” mentality myself, siding with those that prefer to keep women further from the front line battles for these reasons. But in this new age, where efforts to erase gender (until it’s convenient for victim/lawsuit status, that is) are constant, I suspect I am part of a dying breed.

And BTW, wingless? Caught a few of your posts now… I think I’m in cyber-infactuation! LOL As Missy said, welcome to FA. Hope to see more of you.

Gaffa, there was absolutely nothing in my reasoning that applies to gay men. It may apply to lesbians. I spoke of anthropometric differences, which has nothing to do with sexual preferences.

First you brought up women. Now you bring up gays and lesbians. Because the next comment may then bring in transsexual/transvestites and those that are bisexual, let’s just throw them in the mix now and get it over with, eh? :0)

Again, all my reasoning was based on the male instinct to shield a female, combined with the other details in nutritions, equipment, body strength, etal. You will also not that I did not say women should not serve. Just that I believe women should be kept further from the front lines.

I don’t hold any opinion contrary to anyone serving in the US military merely because of sexual preferences. According to a study released in 2004 on Gay Men and Lesbians in the US Military, about 2.5% of active personnel were gay/lesbian (estimated 36,000). Add in the Guard and Reservers, and that number shot up to 65,000, or 2.8% of all personnel.

Obviously, any one that wishes to serve, can. Since Clinton’s compromise of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell in 1993, the military has stopped asking the question for entry. Those that decide to openly flaunt their sexual preferences can be released from service. Frankly I agree with that because I don’t believe the ranks or uniforms of our active military is the place for political statements and antics. Nor should it be used as a backdrop for political statements.

And it is the very Clinton law that gives them the ability to use the military as a backdrop. Repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, and the ability to abuse the uniform for an agenda goes away.

Psychologically, I haven’t asked my young military personnel friends and relatives how they feel about serving with a gay man at his side. I suspect there could be much ribbing and taunts since so many are college age – basically military frat boys. Could a gay soldier endure worse than the hazing on college campuses today? I doubt it. In fact I think if similar hazing happened in barracks, they’d be hell to pay.

But if I were to wager a guess, I’d say a soldier depends on his unit members to perform in times of warfare… to have his back. And if another could do that… despite he prefers pleasure with men instead of women… I don’t think they’d complain. And I’m quite sure they can hold their own against any unwanted attentions.

Just so you know, there was a CNN article last Nov on this Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell.

Retired Adm. Charles Larson, the former Naval Academy superintendent, tops the list of 104 retired general and admirals who want the government to repeal the policy, the Palm Center at the University of California, Santa Barbara, announced Monday.

~~~

The center points out that Larson, a four-star admiral who supported the measure in 1993, has changed his view on the policy. “There were a lot of witch hunts and a lot of people were turned out on that basis,” he is quoted as saying in a Palm Center release.

In July, a House panel weighed overturning the military’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy — the first time Congress had considered the rule since it was implemented 15 years ago.

~~~

The Palm Center’s release comes just four months after a study conducted by a group of senior retired military officers recommended ditching the military’s “don’t ask-don’t tell” policy.

The group reported they found no evidence that the primary rationale for imposing the policy — that openly gay or lesbian service members pose “an unacceptable risk” to morale and unit cohesion — remains valid.

“While this may have been true in 1993, there are indications that this may no longer be the case,” the report said.

~~~

The statement signed by Larson and other top brass reads:

“We — the undersigned — respectfully call for the repeal of the ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’ policy. Those of us endorsing this letter have dedicated our lives to defending the rights of our citizens to believe whatever they wish. Scholarly data shows there are approximately 1 million gay and lesbian veterans in the United States today as well as 65,000 gays and lesbians currently serving in our armed forces. They have served our nation honorably. We support the recent comments of former chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. John Shalikashvili, who has concluded that repealing the ‘don’t ask-don’t tell’ policy would not harm and would indeed help our armed forces. As is the case with Great Britain, Israel and other nations that allow gays and lesbians to serve openly, our service members are professionals who are able to work together effectively despite differences in race, gender, religion and sexuality. Such collaboration reflects the strength and the best traditions of our democracy.”

Obama is likely to repeal the Clinton legislation. This does not mean they are going back to and prohibitive policy for gay/lesbian inductees. All will be allowed to serve if they meet physical and educations requirements…. like anyone else. Evidently the problem of gays in the military is only a problem for those who want to continue to agitate via the media.

Well, 11B40, first I can say much of my “writing” skill… in the above post… is cut/paste from the original article. LOL

But, I would defer on the should gays serve or not issue to those serving now. As I said, I took what Hack… a man who never “left anyone behind” in mind and issue… very seriously. He most certainly stayed in touch with the troops. Yes, he was an officer. But he placed his concern on the enlisted population.

I personally have no comment on whether gays/lesbians should serve. We have many now that do not seem to affect our military’s performance. I suspect that any individual opinion will matter not. Perhaps those in the recruitment/boot camp will. But since I personally am not a military member, I totally defer any more educated comment… other than what I have presented… to you as an active service member.

But, brace yourself for a repeal, and open application regardless of sexual preference in the future. A President Obama will go that route, I am sure.