Second chance?: An important debate on the future of the D.C. school voucher program begins 
Click to Print
Include Comments
At “the point of the spear”
Are you ready for women registering for the military draft and being assigned close-combat roles, a.k.a. “the point of the spear”? Barack Obama has made it clear that if he becomes commander in chief, the U.S. military would become more of an equal-opportunity employer, but would that be in our country’s best interests?
WORLD’s Lynn Vincent reports on this issue that has slipped quietly under the radar.
Topic: Issues, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top45 Comments to “At “the point of the spear””
Already effectively happening in Iraq. The lack of clear “battle lines” mean that all personnel are effectively on the front lines.
And this will be true of pretty much any insurgent warefare.
Report comment to moderator
However, I suggest that a draft for military service is probable under a McCain administration and unlikely under an Obama administration.
Report comment to moderator
We seem determined in this country to ignore all scientific evidence of the differences between men and woman and past history which has shown that putting women in combat is going to weaken our defense. Not only are there differences in physical strength, but in the brains of men and women. This is an area just starting to be explored, but there has been scientic research on it. Also, the ancecdotal evidence is there for people to see.
Putting young men and woman together in close quarters 24/7 for long periods of time seems a no-brainer. Of course, tensions will rise. There has been evidence of this also.
How many lives will be lost if we continue to not acknowledge these differences?
Women who volunteer should be used where they will best serve the military as should men.
Report comment to moderator
Take your pick, a guy who’s willing to stay in Iraq for 50 years in order to achieve “victory” or one who has committed to get out expeditiously.
Actually, the only reason our current administration has gotten away with this occupation so far is by NOT drafting anybody. There’s not a chance in h___ that any administration is going to get authority to draft folks for that war.
This is just more Republican scare-mongering.
Report comment to moderator
You have GOT to be KIDDING, Mickey!
Women have been in de facto combat roles all throughout our occupation of Iraq — i.e., under President Bush, who, as a professing believer, should know better.
And now you try pitching this fear ball about Obama?
Too funny.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.bible-researcher.com/women/women-in-combat.html
There’s enough there to keep you busy all day.
So where have my fellow Bible-thumpers been (re. women in combat roles/front-line posts) for the last five+ years?
Is it just okay because they were serving under a Christian POTUS? What?
Report comment to moderator
Easy now, Frank (6). If you check out the series of WMB posts a few months ago (the diary of the USMC officer candidate) you will see quite a few of us voicing our objections.
As for the Lynn Vincent article:
“Women are already serving in combat [in Iraq and Afghanistan], and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground,” Obama spokeswoman Wendy Morigi told the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on Oct. 13. “Barack Obama would consult with military commanders to review the constraints that remain.”
I thought this statement sufficiently ambiguous that few safe conclusions can be drawn from it about Obama’s policies as president. It’s pretty thin for an article, actually, Lynn.
As for posts 1 and 2, Musing continues to a-muse. Right about the lack of clear battle lines (a point I and others made in the above discussion) but McCain and the draft? What evidence, please?
Sounds a lot like 4 years ago when the Dems also did a lot of unwarranted fearmongering about the draft.
Report comment to moderator
Unlikely under an Obama administration? Obama is the one planning to invade Pakistan, remember? He’s the one who’s planning to go to Darfur, etc.
I always wanted to join the Navy, but when I learned I couldn’t have a ship of a my own, the fun went out of it. I also suffered from migraines for decades, so I don’t know how well I would have performed in the field (not to mention why I had the migraines). The thought that someone else’s life would have been dependent on me is scary. I think I’m with Frank in Spokane on this one, though there are plenty of non-combat jobs that women could do here in the US.
Report comment to moderator
It’s another national shame that the lines between masculine and feminine are being further blurred, this time in the military, which is not a place where you can choose your bedfellows.
It was wrong for the Bush administration to deploy women into harm’s way.
It is foolish and wrong-headed to “equalize” men and women in field where women are clearly at a physical and emotional disadvantage. They will be at the mercy not only of any captors, but also their fellow soldiers.
While most male soldiers will be tempted to be “over-protective” of the women, thus potentially compromising the mission, a few will be abusive. Even at military academies, without the stress of combat, some women have been raped by fellow soldiers. Once deployed, a woman’s options for protection will be severely limited.
It is good and right for men to fight to protect the women and children. It is madness to order women to suit up and protect the men.
America seems determined to blur every role that God ordains. It’s sheer rebellion against the Creator. Feminism is a destroyer.
Report comment to moderator
Yeah, Lynn talks about what “feminists” want the military to do, but her for her own ignorance that word will always be in quotes. She can’t tell you who wants this, or what “feminist establishment” is supporting this view, because Lynn has NOT read anything written out of the feminist movement EVER!
She is completely ignorant and seemingly proud of it, everything Harrison would hate is a student.
It might just be possible that for as many “feminists” that want to have women serve equally in the military there are an equal number of feminists who don’t want anyone to serve in the military, or an equal number of feminists who have LONG since rejected the war against sexual difference and don’t see a problem with the current military.
But that’s all an unknown unknown to resident yellow journalist and misogynist Vincent, because she doesn’t care. Feminism is not an object of study for her, and it certainly isn’t for her ignorant core readers. So why should she care about being able to speak credibly about it? She certainly has no incentive to read a BOOK about it, or maybe an article! She’ll just continue doing what Lynn does, regard everything she doesn’t agree with as an object of diversion to be thrown to the dogs to make them howl and groan.
And yes, in this metaphor you are all the dogs.
Now Obama is a man amazingly committed to what the research shows. He’s a massive pragmatist and I believe that when he says he is going to talk with military commanders about the restraints that remain, he means just that. He has not made any policy commitments to any restructure of the military that I am aware of (and I realize now that I have to include DADT in that, though I assume he will sign a law abolishing it because the research shows it’s harming our military).
I don’t have time now, but later I will try to find a variety of feminist responses to the subject of women and the draft. I realize this is mostly for HRW’s benefit since the bulk of you won’t even consider reading them, but it you really ought to consider it.
Report comment to moderator
Musing,
Only Democrats have called for a draft of any kind. The right is for an all voluteer force of men on the front lines. You are quite mistaken on this issue as usual.
Report comment to moderator
This will be fine until an entire squad gets wiped out because they had to slow down to wait on the female members, or until the military relaxes physical standards so that women pass the PT tests at acceptable levels. Of course that’s what Obama wants: a weak military and lots of carnage to show on TV so that he has an excuse never to go to war.
Report comment to moderator
Mickey, I’ve been to Iraq TWICE. The folks above me are correct. Women in the military are daily living out the Helen Reddy fantasy.
Bill Clinton and Les Aspin (”Mr Mogadishu” may he rest in peace) pushed thru “reforms” that must have been under your radar. Jobs once deemed to close to combat (and therefore off limits to women) were opened up to the gals. Gals intent on making a career of the services saw the restrictions accurately as being unfair to women careerists. If a man got promotion preference for certain assignmts a woman was forbidden to take, you can see the women’s rationale.
Oddly, neither Rumsfeld nor the President saw any urgency about re-imposing the previous limitations which would have meant you and the rest of the nation would’ve never heard of Jessica Lynch or her dead single-mom squad member Lori Piestewa.
Odd, when Piestewa the vehicle mechanic was killed while deploying into Iraq with the initial invasion force I DO NOT RECALL an outcry about women in combat. And it was no great concern to Bush/Rumsfeld then or now.
Report comment to moderator
And among the women we send into combat, we should give priority to sending young mothers into battle. Their kids won’t need them. It’s no problem since we will have a nanny state back at home to raise the children (by “children” I mean all dependants on the gov’t) for us.
Report comment to moderator
As a Sailor who began his service where women were not allowed on combatant ships and ended his career where women were serving on aircraft carriers, political correctness is ignoring the elephant in the middle of living room. That elephant is human nature. When the Eisenhower deployed the 1st time with men and women on board, 1/3 of the women got pregnant while deployed and had to be shipped out. This left the crew compliment depleted and not ready for battle. My last ship was a repair ship. The same thing happened on that ship. From a practical standpoint, I feel that men and women should not serve together on ships. If the Navy is serious about having women serve on combatant ships, then there should be ships with a full complement of women to take those ships to sea and serve their full deployment as the men must do. I cannot speak for the other branches just as a former Chief Petty Officer looking back on what happened and still happens on ships with women serving with men.
Report comment to moderator
NJLawyer post 8,
but working to pull us out of Iraq.
Obama has repeatedly discussed how the Bush adinistration has over extended our military and this needs to be reversed to ensure a strong national security posture.
McCain want to stick it out in Iraq AND arguably take on Iran.
Yup – the policy differences here are very clear!
Report comment to moderator
llama post 11,
Obama has called for a draft?
References please!
Report comment to moderator
I suggest the problem is actually deeper than we are examining.
We are and probalby will continue to be under a volunteer military.
But we have been stretching our military to the limits, and the rational response is to examine what other personnel resoureces are available.
Women are in the service, in many cases perform quite well, and are available.
The behavior is straight forward to understand.
As a basic general model we need to stop stretching our military so thin. We either have to pull back on our commitments OR we need to expand our forces dramatically. And if we expand our forces it will most probably need to be through a draft.
Report comment to moderator
Obama hasn’t called for a draft. Neither has McCain. The very few politicians who’ve suggested in the past several years have been Democrats — Rangel more than once, and Kerry in his early platform. So to say that McCain is more likely to institute a draft than Obama (Musing #2) is just making stuff up that has no basis in recent political history (data).
Report comment to moderator
RR (7): Easy now, Frank (6). If you check out the series of WMB posts a few months ago (the diary of the USMC officer candidate) you will see quite a few of us voicing our objections.
FRANK: I’m aware of that.
My primary beef with this post is Mickey’s “fear smear” against Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Bear in mind that both men and women must register for compulsory military service in Israel, and they are often regarded as the best trained military force in the world. Your objections are not rooted in reality.
I’m still waiting for “don’t ask, don’t tell” to be repealed. That day is coming very soon.
Report comment to moderator
srious george post 19,
actually the lead into the discussion made stuff up by assuming a draft.
McCain wants to stretch our military further than Obama. We do not have enough forces for our present commitments today. McCain has not and apparetly will not explain where he will get the forces, but the draft is the approach traditionally taken in the past.
Report comment to moderator
#17 Musing,
Learn to read and undersatand. It is not difficult. I didn’t say Obama. I said the left. You can find your own examples – I don’t do work for lefties that they can easilly do themsleves if they had any willingneess to do anything. You see, llamas are not mindless slaves for anyone like …..eeeerrrrr…..some are.
Report comment to moderator
So, now Israel is realistic? Interesting. Are we Israelis now? Where’s Nick today?
I’m just glad I wasn’t drafted. My number during Vietnam was #26 and it was called. I wouldn’t have survived boot camp.
Report comment to moderator
Speculation and conjecture don’t stand up well against the facts, including a military who through and through don’t want a draft and haven’t asked for more personnel. It was a silly claim, made up stuff that depends on making more stuff up. But if you want to continue amusing the folks here, please continue making it.
Report comment to moderator
Luke: Over the years, Lynn has shown extreme patience with your vitriol, sometimes even joking with you about it. However, she has also warned you several times about name calling. Your comment at No. 10 on this thread crossed the line for the final time.
Because you cannot observe our simple rules of civility and mutual respect, you are no longer welcome on this blog. Your commenting privileges on this blog have been removed.
Report comment to moderator
Mom of 5 at #9–well said, and agreed!
Report comment to moderator
serious george post 25/llama post 23,
then the facts are that there is no draft and the discussion is as posed moot.
Report comment to moderator
Was its mootness relevant when you were participating in the discussion, or only after you didn’t get away with fiction? {:~)
Report comment to moderator
serious george post 29,
if we are to assume that a draft will be invoked if either are elected, an apparent assumption of the discussion, then it is fair to ask whose policies would most likely require a draft: this was the premise of post 2.
If you insist that neither has suggested imposing a draft then the discussion as posed by Mickey would seem moot, and it would seem that your complaint is with him!
Report comment to moderator
“Are you ready for women registering for the military draft and being assigned close-combat roles, a.k.a. “the point of the spear”?”
Are you ready for the Palin-McCain Supreme Court to force women to have rapists’ babies, and sexually abused children to have their daddy’s baby?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, come on, RPN–
Abused women and children don’t become LESS abused if pressured to murder their own child, regardless of how that little life originated.
My best friend in HS was raped, and then late. We wrestled with the possibility that she might be pregnant, and she concluded that the baby was innocent and had not harmed her, and didn’t deserve to die. The rapist was the one who deserved punishment.
I was so proud of her! Turns out she wasn’t pregnant after all, but I’m very familiar with the emotional pain and fear that rape brings.
Then I met my college roommate, who HAD aborted a baby after being raped. She dealt with a lot of guilt after she got past the paralyzing fear. Encouraging abortion doesn’t free the assaulted woman. It adds guilt and remorse to her regrettable burden.
The compassionate answer is to stand by a victim and help her.
Report comment to moderator
The military of Israel has been designed from the beginning with the idea that men and women would serve together, while the United States military has been designed only for men.
The place this really cost the United States was not in the military itself, but in the moon missions carried out by NASA. Since getting every pound into space was outrageously expensive, the first requirement for astronauts should have been that they be less than five feet tall. But six foot astronauts looked better, so in effect NASA chose to send one man into space rather than two women. In a mission in which physical strength rarely made any difference, it is hard to say that was a smart idea.
The same probably applies to submarine duty in the Navy. Women take up less space, and psychologists say they suffer less stress from being crammed together. But the United States chose to staff submarines with men, probably in case they had to repel boarders. For fighting off assailants with clubs, rather than using firearms like sensible people, men certainly do a better job.
Report comment to moderator
Richard Everitt post 33,
some wonderful observations!!
Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
Momof5 -
I take it you think women having rapists and sexual abuser’s babies is the right thing to do. President Obama would continue to allow you to do just as you wish, but he would not have activist judges force you to do so.
Report comment to moderator
As a former Marine and a woman, I have always been opposed to combat roles for women. I had all the requisite training long before the Corps starting sending women in harm’s way. Now, we have lost women Marines in Iraq, along with other female service members. It’s a travesty, as far as I am concerned. What has been set in motion is not likely to be retracted. The illuminati elites already finished this social experiment (they made the Army the tip of the spear) and have gone on to others, like gays openly serving.
Report comment to moderator
No Musing.
It is you that is moot. See the difference?
Report comment to moderator
There are precious few jobs left in the military not open for women, mainly the elite combat jobs (Rangers, Special Forces, etc.), simply because women are everywhere else. For the most part, women are doing just fine. In my military career thus far, I’ve met and worked with many great female soldiers (officers and enlisted).
Some will make the case biblically that this is a bad thing for a country. If we were biblical Israel, I’d agree. Scripture makes the consistent case that when men fail to lead, women will step in, and this is the scenario virtually every time in the Old Testament when women are serving in military roles. So we COULD say that the U.S. is in trouble, except on the scale of sins we’re guilty of in the Bible’s eyes, women in the military is very, very low on the list. Social justice, poverty, treatment of the poor, and racism are much higher on the sin index, as well as abortion and homosexuality.
As others have said, the big ol’ pink elephant nobody wants to talk about when it comes to women in the military is the reality that sexual tensions are just under the surface, and will inevitably be dealt with somehow. I recall how while deployed to Bosnia, a number of women serving had to redeploy back to Germany because of pregnancy. In the middle east, it can be far, far worse, especially if we were to have multiple female POWs, and if in involved sexual assault.
At the beginning of the Iraq War, we got lucky with Pvt. Lynch (remember her?) NOT being raped (as far as anyone knows).
One of the biggest destroyers of military morale is of female soldiers being threatened, harmed, etc., since obviously, short of torture and death, there are few things that can be done to men. Not so for women.
This is something that needs to figured out, and dealt with, sooner rather than later, before it becomes a hugely big “front page headline” deal.
Report comment to moderator
llama post 37,
from you the charge of moot is a true honor indeed!
You of course can immediately see the self-negating aspect to your post.
Report comment to moderator
KENNETHOS (38) … we COULD say that the U.S. is in trouble, except on the scale of sins we’re guilty of in the Bible’s eyes, women in the military is very, very low on the list. Social justice, poverty, treatment of the poor, and racism are much higher on the sin index, as well as abortion and homosexuality.
FRANK: Homosexuality ? permitting women to serve in combat.
On the other hand, they are both symptoms of the denying of God’s creation order, “Male and female created He them.” A.k.a. feminism. “There are no differences between men and women.”
Report comment to moderator
(That should read “Homosexuality ['does-not-equal' sign] permitting women to serve in combat.” It displayed just fine in the preview … )
Report comment to moderator
Preview has been doing some weird stuff today….
Report comment to moderator
Frank (41):
Mind you, I’m not trying to compare sins here, of course. Just noting that the stuff we normally go ballistic over (depending on ideology) may be “higher” or “lower” on God’s list of Stuff He Really Hates (if He views it as such) than what we think of.
I would agree that women serving in combat is a symptom of denying the order of creation, definitely. Having said that, I’m also in the position of supporting and counseling female soldiers around me. Most can do their jobs and soldier along just fine. But again, most are Rangers or SF folks, either. (’Course, a lot of men aren’t either, so…)
Until the military no longer suffers from being a social-experiment place for civilian society, dealing with the effects of PC et al., this is what we’ll have to deal with.
Report comment to moderator
Frank (40):
Yup, I’d agree with the article as well. That part sucketh too….
It ain’t easy dealing with the gender issues.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!