 |
| CIC ~ Commander In Chief by NEH |
Women in foxholes by Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, US Army, Retired
Gen. Patrick Brady says putting females in combat poses 'an insane burden on readiness'
For
many Americans, it is hard to believe that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
could top his statement in defense of the administration’s tragic bungling of
the terrorists’ massacre in Benghazi: “(The) basic principle is that you don’t
deploy forces into harm’s way without knowing what’s going on; without having
some real-time information about what’s taking place (The Obama Panetta
Doctrine).” But he did top it.
In
justification of the administration’s policy to put women in foxholes, he
claimed that women in (direct) combat strengthen our military. His statement is
a contradiction of every war we have fought and the ethos of every warrior who
ever fought in those wars. But it does reflect the attitude of the commander in
chief, disastrously over his head in the international arena, a “leader” unable
to make tough decision who is fearful of risk and does not know the difference
between a corps and a corpse. He is more comfortable around homosexuals and
feminists than warriors. Panetta’s statement extolling the readiness multiplier
of women leading bayonet charges is beyond the pale.
Neither
Obama nor Panetta has ever served in combat, nor has most of Congress. But
worse, none of the current military leadership has had any serious combat (in
the trenches) experience, and it is beginning to show.
World
War II was won by combat veterans from World War I. In Korea we had the veterans
of World War II, and in Vietnam the combat veterans of both World War II and
Korea. The Vietnam veteran won Desert Storm. All those warriors and their
leadership are gone, and we see a military with dismal leadership resulting in
unprecedented rates of suicide, PTSD and security breaches. We had one
high-ranking officer lament that the terrorist’s massacre at Fort Hood would
damage his diversity efforts! Leadership relieved the judge in the trial of the
Fort Hood terrorist for enforcing military shaving rules on the terrorist – and
after over three years, he is not tried! And they are calling that obvious
terrorist massacre “workplace violence,” deliberately depriving those killed and
their families of deserved benefits.
Unimaginable
in our past, we have leaders who consider awarding medals for not shooting, and
now a medal for risking carpal tunnel syndrome that outranks the time-honored
Bronze Star for valor. This gaggle actually lost graves of our warriors at
Arlington Cemetery and are attacking the benefits of America’s nobility – our
veterans. I don’t know where the term girlie men came from, but it perfectly
describes many in this administration and their military
leaders.
After
commanding an all-men medical unit in combat, I commanded a medical battalion,
including many women, in peacetime. These units are not direct-combat units but
do spend a lot of time on the battlefield and are exposed to enemy fire and
casualties. But it is nothing like the exposure of the grunts in the mud and
grime for days and weeks at a time.
My
rule in the battalion was standards, not gender-governed, except where they were
already assigned, i.e., medics and mechanics. This was during the ’70s, a tough
time for drugs and discipline in the military. Here is what I found. As a result
of competition, my driver and our color guard, highly contested duty, were
women. The women had less disciplinary problems than the men. In administrative
jobs, they were at least equal to men. But most could not carry their load
physically – loading litters in choppers, carrying wounded to safety, even
lifting tool chests. As a result the men covered for them, often causing us to
use two people when one should have done the job – all of which effected
readiness. They were not good in the field and became less functional when
issues of hygiene, and feminine hygiene, literally knocked them out and we had
to jerry-rig showers, wasting valuable time.
And
they got pregnant, which took out key jobs at critical times. Other sexual
distractions, favoritisms, fraternization and assault are also readiness
disruptions and follow women throughout the military, even in our military
academies. I had serious problems with wives whose husbands shared standby
shacks with women overnight. This would go on for weeks in direct combat units;
think tank crews. Male bonding, immeasurable to success in combat, would be
damaged. All in all, the women pose an insane burden on readiness.
My
conclusion, which I passed to my division commander at his request, was that I
would not want females with me working the battlefield let alone in direct
combat. I told him I would not want my daughters in a unit of half women going
bayonet to bayonet with an enemy unit 100 percent men. Those comments almost
cost me my career because my immediate superior disagreed, which may explain
some of the obsequiousness and cowering of military leaders today on this issue
and a quad-sexual military.
The
move to teach our daughters and mothers to kill is defended using the same
criteria I used in my battalion: standards, not sex-govern. It does not work.
Most men will not treat women as they do other men – thankfully. And there is no
intention to do so despite what we hear. Listen to our top military leader, Gen.
Martin Dempsey: “If we 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?” Those
standards have been set over hundreds of years of combat! We should change them
to satisfy the crazes of the president’s feminist supporters? Imagine how Gen.
George Patton and all the leaders who founded and secured this country would
react to those comments.
I have
said, and many men agree with me, that Adam’s rib was the greatest investment in
human history. Why? Because God then gave man woman, a different creature, who
complemented him. God did it on purpose, and we are privileged to live with the
differences. Feminists et al., get over it. It is not discrimination to
accommodate God’s design; it is acknowledging His will – it is
wisdom.
Despite
“Kill Bill” and other Hollywood visuals of females pummeling men, women for the
most part are not designed to kill. And they will not be good at it. God
designed them to produce life and nurture it, not destroy it. They don’t belong
in the trenches of the NFL or in the octagon in Ultimate Fighting; combat is the
ultimate Ultimate Fighting – and they don’t belong there, either.
It is
difficult to teach some men to kill, but they have no choice. Imagine a draft
and a nation forcing our women into killing units. Visualize what will happen to
women POWs, not to mention homosexuals, captured by our most likely enemies. We
have heard of the man who sent his wife downstairs to check on a possible
burglar (I actually knew such a man). We are becoming a nation like that man, a
girlie nation. There will always be burglars, (international thugs), most of
whom are male, and they should be confronted by males.
Why
these ridiculous changes? No serous person could believe that women in foxholes
will do anything but reduce readiness. Just as devastating is the formation of a
quad-sexual military, which introduces sodomy not only to foxholes but military
communities – and with it serious health and deployment issues. Pregnant females
cannot deploy, and some will get pregnant to avoid it. Homosexuals cannot give
blood and may not be deployable. Every warrior is a walking blood bank – who
would want his son or daughter to receive a blood transfusion from a homosexual?
The NBA stops a basketball game for a drop of blood because of the threat of
infection, the Magic Johnson rule; Johnson had AIDS. The battlefield is full of
blood. Do we think less of our soldiers than the NBA does of its players? What
will be the reaction when a warrior sees his commanding officer dancing and
romancing another man – or if he is hit on by a homosexual? Yet we are told
these changes will improve readiness.
 |
| CIC by NEH |
Sequestration,
designed by President Obama, will, if allowed to kick in, emasculate what is
left of our military. Aside from the cruel impact these budget cuts will have on
military careers and families, they are perfectly suited to Obama’s isolationist
goals. He is a rhetorical celebrity dedicated to social issues, i.e. same-sex
marriage, gun control and government running just about everything. He is also a
man intimidated by crises and the decisions they require. He is a voting-present
leader, and we are learning he was not even present to lead during the massacre
at Benghazi. He apparently hid out during the entire event and tried to blame it
on a video. What would he do during a major 9/11-type crisis? An insignificant
military takes us off the world stage and requires only voting present in future
crises, which perfectly suits our present leadership. We can only pray there
will be no such crises.
While I agree with you about the leadership of the military rising up, I disagree with you on women in the military.
ReplyDeleteI do not believe that women should be in combat. We are not physically able to do the job. (Yes there are exceptions.) But women can be trained to kill and will kill. The human female is the most dangerous animal on the planet. Especially if her young are threatened. And while we should not be in combat, we excel behind the lines. We are excellent analysts (My field), doctors, nurses, administration personal, cooks, etc... In the field of logistics we excel. No military can survive long without the behind lines workers doing their job.
A woman can clear a man for a combat job while taking over his very important position.
Oh, when I was younger (18) I could and did carry injured people by myself. Women can do that too. It's not hard, just a matter of balance.