Saturday, February 11, 2012

No…I Don’t Think Women Belong on the Front Lines in Combat

There is renewed discussion about opening up jobs for women to serve on the front lines in combat.  I am a disabled female veteran who served five years in the US Army.  Based on my experiences, I absolutely don’t think women should be allowed in some combat job fields our military has to offer.

Our country, with liberals at the helm, is getting soft.  The school lunch program was introduced by President Harry S. Truman in 1945 as a measure of national security.  He was informed of a study that revealed many young men were rejected from the WWII draft because of medical conditions related to childhood malnutrition. We’ve now shifted to the polar opposite end of the spectrum.  Experts say if we had to resort to a draft many potential recruits would be rejected due to medical conditions related to childhood obesity.  How does this relate to women on the battlefield?  I’ll get to that in a minute…

I joined the military when I was 21 years old.  I was always involved in sports growing up, and considered myself to be athletic, but to my surprise, I was somewhat of a “Physical Training (PT) stud” in the Army.   I was one of only two women fast enough to run with the “A” group (the fastest distance runners) during morning training, a good number of male recruits didn’t even run in the “A” group.  I also knocked out more push-ups than any other women in my unit.   As far as my other training, I qualified expert in grenades and sharp shooter for my rifle marksmanship.  I was a regular G.I. Jane.  Almost.   During our 12 mile ruck march, I was the very last person to finish.  It was grueling for me.  In basic training, recruits only fill the ruck with a few items:  two uniforms, socks, shirts, shelter half, chemical protection gear, sleeping pad –it doesn’t weigh more than 35 pounds.  But I was also carrying my weapon, my LBE, water, chemical protection mask, ammunition magazines—all which added an additional 30 pounds at least.   At barely five feet tall and weighing 94 pounds—I was carrying 69% of my body weight.   I fell behind, but I wouldn’t stop marching.  Several male recruits offered to carry some of my gear for me, but I refused to let them—they shouldn’t have to pull my weight.

Today, the number of overweight, lazy people is detracting from the combat readiness of our troops.   The military has even relaxed its standards in order to meet recruiting quotas.  It used to be that male recruits younger than 27 had to have a body-fat percentage below 26%---that is still twice the fat one would expect in a healthy young man in peak physical condition.  Now, the military has adjusted the standard to 30%.  This is the body mass index boundary between being overweight and obese!  If I could barely carry my standard issue gear, does anyone think I could carry a wounded obese solider with all his gear off a battlefield?

Of course there are women in the military who are much bigger than I was, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they are more physical fit. Obviously the military is relaxing women’s weight standards as well.  We need to stop relaxing the standards and adjusting expectations to accommodate social engineering and political posturing.  Sure, there women who are bigger and stronger and could carry a male off the battlefield.   But our enemies aren’t going to give women a head start on the battlefield because they are allowed more time to run two miles on the PT test or perform fewer push-ups than men. 

State of the Union

In BO’s campaign speech, I mean State of the Union Address in January, he made another pitch for class warfare under the guise of “fairness.”   If you haven’t read my blog on “equal vs equal”   I strongly urge you to do so.  Why is being successful considered a bad thing?  Isn’t that the dream this country was founded on?

I think we are at a crossroads.  A good portion of this country somehow came to the conclusion that the government needs to provide them with everything.  A good portion of this country wants to live in a nanny state.  A good portion of the country wants to deflect responsibility and blame others for their problems and punish other for success.  How did we get here?  How did a political party who went from a President who asked his fellow Americans to “ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country” turn into a party who thinks the government needs to do everything for them?

The President says we need to make education more affordable.  I agree, but we also need to make education more realistic.  The union and liberal run education system needs to be overhauled.  Colleges force students to take—and pay—for mandatory “core” classes that have nothing to do with their degree program.  How does the geology class I had to take apply to my Psychology degree?  If students weren’t forced to take so many classes that have nothing to do with their degree, that would certainly cut down on tuition costs.
Beyond that, why is BO promoting a notion that everyone needs a college education?   Not all jobs require a college education!  Why don’t we support more people getting technical training and certificates?   An overeducated society without an economy to employ them is a recipe for disaster.  College educated people do not want to “settle” for a manual labor job – yet there are plenty of those jobs which need to be filled.  Tunisia is a great example of what can happen when a nanny state goes wrong—so wrong it sparked a regional revolution that hasn’t yet stopped.  What most Americans don’t know is how it started.   

Tunisia promoted education too.  The young people who graduated from college expected high quality jobs, but there weren’t enough jobs.  The rate of unemployed university graduates grew, and their frustration with the government not providing them a better quality of life grew along with it.  Mohamed Bouazizi was a college graduate who hoped for a quality job. Instead, he was relegated to trying to run a fruit and vegetable cart; then the government took that away from him because he hadn’t obtained a proper permit to have the cart.  On December 17, 2010, he poured gasoline on himself and lit a match.   This was the act that sparked the Arab Spring.

Now we have these “Occupiers” out there who are belly aching that “someone” needs to pay their student loans and give them jobs.   These kids, who probably have degrees in Philosophy or some other useless topic, feel entitled to a six figure salary job.  They aren’t going to “settle” for a manual labor job or running a fruit cart.  Who set them up or failure?  BO and the rest of the liberals who keep saying everyone needs a college degree and educators who insist on people taking classes that will do nothing to make them more employable.