Nowadays, every erstwhile punchline seems to end up as policy
In recent years, the only thing conservative about neoconservatives has been their support of a strong military. Well, that's over, too. At Commentary magazine, influential neocon Max Boot has now come out for coeds in combat. And with the gleichschaltung that now reigns among neocons, that means they'll all he coming out of the closet any day now.
While this may come as news to Boot, military leaders determined approximately 10 gazillion years ago that women are physically inferior to men, and cannot function as warriors.
This newest milestone in progressive social policy means that America will soon have the most overpriced, incompetent military on the face of the earth. Already with the queering of the military, in spite of the depression, lifers had been counseling real warriors to get out. This may just be the last straw. We will soon have armed forces ruled by a junta of incompetent blacks, Hispanics, Asians (but not the brainiac types) and homosexuals, some of them having had taxpayer-paid sexual butchery done to them. The diverse ranks will devote their time to sex orgies and crime, while the diverse officer's corps will devote itself to frivolous "discrimination" lawsuits.
They'll even decimate the last bastions of military excellence, special operations units, via affirmative action.
When Harry Truman racially integrated the Armed Forces in 1948, it resulted in a radical lowering of intellectual and moral standards for black servicemen.
When a series of presidents sexually integrated boot camp, beginning with Jimmy Carter in 1977 (the Air Force), and followed by George H.W. Bush in 1992 (the Navy) and Bill Clinton in ’94 (Army), it required a radical lowering of standards for female servicemen.
The dictator calling himself “Barack Obama” queered the services in 2011.
Now he is imposing the sexual integration of combat units.
Capocon Max Boot assures his feminist, socialist, and communist readers,
The endurance test is no anachronistic remnant of a sexist culture—it is the closest approximation possible in training conditions of the kind of stress and challenges that infantry marines will encounter in battle. Those who cannot pass the test in training should not be allowed to lead marines in battle: lowering the standards endangers lives on the battlefield.Lifting the ban on women in combat makes sense only if it does not result in a distortion of the hard standards that combat soldiers must pass. If women can make the grade, by all means let them in—but the standard must be the same for men and women because the battlefield does not discriminate based on gender.
At this point, the only “con” in neocon is con game.
* * *
Commentary BlogSecretary of Defense Leon Panetta’s decision, on his way out the door, to lift the ban on women serving in combat units has engendered much consternation among traditionalists both in and out of uniform. On a recent visit to Quantico, the base near Washington where Marine Corps University is located, I got an earful from combat veterans who fretted that standards would be lowered to allow women to serve in combat units. The concern is especially acute when it comes to infantry units, because infantrymen have a particularly arduous and important specialty, one that has long accounted for the majority of casualties suffered in America’s wars. I supported Panetta’s decision to lift the ban but I have to acknowledge that the concerns are valid. How they are addressed will determine whether lifting the ban is a success or not.
A New York Times reporter who was allowed to observe the Infantry Officer School at Quantico found out why two recent female candidates washed out—and why future female candidates are likely to face steep barriers. Literally. As James Dao notes: “It all begins with the Combat Endurance Test, a slog through rolling forests that requires physical strength, endurance, military knowledge and willpower. Students must swim, assemble weapons from jumbled parts, navigate from point to point and carry weight over distances.”
The endurance test is no anachronistic remnant of a sexist culture—it is the closest approximation possible in training conditions of the kind of stress and challenges that infantry marines will encounter in battle. Those who cannot pass the test in training should not be allowed to lead marines in battle: lowering the standards endangers lives on the battlefield.
Lifting the ban on women in combat makes sense only if it does not result in a distortion of the hard standards that combat soldiers must pass. If women can make the grade, by all means let them in—but the standard must be the same for men and women because the battlefield does not discriminate based on gender. The odds are that, if standards are maintained, few if any women will be able to qualify for the infantry—but they will still be able to serve on the battlefield, as they do today, in a variety of billets from military police to intelligence to pilots.
The fact that Chuck Hagel has served in battle as an enlisted man gives him perspective unique for a secretary of defense in making the crucial decision about whether to redefine the standards or not. If he maintains current standards, he can still offer opportunities to women without endangering the combat performance of the armed forces. But if he knuckles under to pressure to change the standards, he will be doing serious damage to the forces that he once served in and now leads.
[Although Commentary’s editor-in-chief, John Podhoretz, permits no comments on Web-posted magazine articles, he does permit some comments on blog items. So far, two have made it through on Boot’s piece.]
gitarfanman 111p • 10 hours ago
You're kidding, right? He will do what Obama tells him to do and my money is on lower standards to keep it 'fair'.
Reply
+3 Vote up Vote down
Darryl_Harb 66p • 6 hours ago
Even Max Boot couldn't write a post this addled. Who are you, really?
