Greg Jacob, spokesman for the Service Women’s Action Network, complains:

If women remain restricted to combat service and combat service support specialties, we will not see a woman as Commandant of the Marine Corps, or CENTCOM commander, or Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The military is viewed not as a fighting and killing machine, but as another sandbox for identity-politics skirmishes. Winning wars does not seem to be the chief concern, but rather litigious disputes over what group gets a bigger slice of the pie.

Jena McGregor of the Washington Post assures us that it is necessary to allow females to enter combat roles so we have a military in which “€œtalented women advance,”€ though the male troops will have to make psychological “€œadjustments”€ to this new reality. She is making the usual diversity argument: More diversity will help the military become better somehow, no proof required. What if men in combat who actually risk their lives don”€™t like it? Too bad, because a virtuous journalist has instructed them to adjust.

In corporate America, the odious “€œdiversity”€ argument may sometimes be plausible. It is advisable to have women in an ad agency, for the agency will inevitably need to target a female demographic in an ad campaign.

There are no such practical advantages here. McGregor admits that there are some women who will “€œnot meet the physical demands required of them”€ to be in combat forces. I cannot imagine that many women would meet these demands if the standards are kept equal for men and women. In middle school I came dangerously close to losing a physical fight against a female classmate, but in adulthood it is rare to find a woman stronger than a man.

If the repeal of Don”€™t Ask, Don”€™t Tell is a harbinger of things to come for the military, combat forces will cease to be a brotherhood of prowess and ruthlessness. Instead of trained snipers, we”€™ll have petty sniping.

 



Columnists

Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!

SIGN UP

Daily updates with TM’s latest