Under the heading “Bizarro World,” commentator Gary Bauer mused over the “alternate reality”
that permeates the thinking of some of our leaders right now. In one of his recent updates, Mr.
Bauer wrote: “…the president, who just hailed your daughter’s right to engage in combat, said that
if he had a son, he would be reluctant to let him play football – because he might get hurt.”
Wow…this really is a brave new world!
Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta, on the way out of office, announced we’re tossing out the
exemption for women from serving in combat and in direct combat units. Supposedly, the Joint
Chiefs of Staff came to this decision to make the military a “gender neutral playing field.” No
congressional hearings or votes. It’s done.
Elaine Donnelly, President of the Center for Military Readiness has long battled to retain common
sense standards with regard to both gays and women serving in the U.S. military. She says the
voices demanding “equal opportunity” for women to serve in combat positions alongside men are
ushering in a situation where “women do not have the equal opportunity to survive.” That’s been
the prevailing wisdom — until we entered this “bizarro world.”
Senator John Mc Cain said he supports the decision but that thorny implementation issues have
yet to be addressed. “It is critical, “ he said, “that we maintain the same high standards that have
made the American military the most feared and admired fighting force in the world — particularly
the rigorous physical standards for our elite special forces units.”
Will the military hold to equal strength requirements? A clue comes from a statement by General
Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He told reporters, “If we do decide that a particular
standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back
and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?”
In the world we once occupied, the military was supposed to provide a lethal fighting force to
protect and defend the nation. Now it’s got to adhere to gender-based diversity metrics to provide
equal opportunity for various groups, i.e. homosexuals and women, to have a great career.
Listen, no one is saying women don’t do a stellar job in the United States military. But active duty
women are not asking for this. Female officers, aspiring to three or four star rank, think they
cannot get there without combat experience. Perhaps not, but that is not a reason to weaken the
entire military. The U.S. military is not a jobs program.
One general said, men worrying about female soldiers in tough combat situations will render our
military a “less effective killing machine.” Strong words. But even in a gender-normed alternate
military, it’s maximizing combat efficacy, not politically correct diversity metrics that should
determine our military policy.