While the debate rages on concerning the lifting of the Don't Ask, Don't Tell ban, another long-held military rule is about to be changed, as well.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41083172/ns/us_news-life/
While it will be a less public debate that will surely draw less fire from radicals from either side, the long-standing rules governing women in combat units will soon be changed to allow for such things as women serving on submarines and women being assigned (as in fully integrated) to artillery, armor, and infantry units.
While I commend the women who serve in the military and certainly hold all of our veterans in high regard, I oppose this disturbing recent trend within the ranks by the civilian leadership of the military of turning our nation's forces into nothing more than a hot-bed for social programs and "diversity" at the cost of lives and combat effectiveness.
The main argument is that women do not have the same chance for advancement as men in the military. With that much, I agree. There is huge division between promotions among men and women in the military. But, has anyone really sat down to figure out just why this is?
The answer is, sorta.
It's a natural occurrence due to the challenges of combat. Naturally, and simply because the military is designed to attack and close on an enemy force using the maximum amount of violence needed to achieve that objective, we have had our men doing the grunt work. Over time, this has not been questioned, mostly because it makes sense, seeing as how most of the combat forces we will encounter will be sending out their big strong men against us.
More men in the fight, more men in top positions where they were needed. Obviously, this created a force where more men than woman were getting the higher paid jobs within the military. It's a no-brainer.
In recent years, there came a call for balance, and in my opinion, a legitimate look at how women could better be integrated into the fighting force. I think in some cases it was justified, but in certain cases, a boundary was crossed where the impact of simply having women in certain environments could and would potentially cause serious issues relating to the combat effectiveness of the units affected by the integration of women into it's ranks.
In the past, the debate surrounded around the physical make up of the average woman soldier, the emotional trials of a combat role, and other legitimate issues which needed to be studied before making sweeping changes. Like it or not, there had to be some kind of indication that women could handle some of the roles which men have handled since the inception of our military.
Over the past 9 years or so, it's been good to see that, for the most part, the women who have served in these expanded military specialties have preformed brilliantly and beyond all expectations, further legitimizing their inclusion into the newer roles. With that, there have also been serious indications where the presence of women in certain units have also caused problems, less reported, but seriously impeding some units from accomplishing their missions. One example would be unexpected pregnancies which then created a hole in the ranks that had to either be filled or left open indefinitely.
But up until January 14th, the debate has usually centered around the ability of women to preform the duties assigned to them in newer roles. For the most part, they have passed this test with flying colors.
Now, a whole new argument is now at hand. No longer is it "can they preform in these roles", now it has become "we need to get them into these combat roles so they can get promoted"
Yes, promotion and diversity concerns are the main arguments for the newly proposed expansions, which send women deeper and closer to the front lines. Yes, I know women have been on the front lines since the Revolutionary War, but they have been used in limited capacities and only on the front lines when that front line happened to be moved right to that unit's door. Other than that, it's been this nation's policy not to have women intentionally serving on the front lines.
This new direction taken by the military's chief "diversity" panel is what concerns me. No longer are people taking on the responsibility of actually studying the impact of their decisions. Diversity has now become the number one priority, thereby trumping all others in it's wake. This is what worries me the worst. The military no longer cares about what is most effective on the battlefield, it only cares that whatever is out there is diverse enough to keep them from having to face the media in a negative light.
Silly and ignorant isn't enough anymore. Now this fantasy of creating an effective military force that mirrors a corporate board from Bath and Body Works is outright dangerous.
When "diversity" becomes the number one priority when it comes to studying what makes up the most effective fighting force on the modern battlefield, we have truly given up any chance of ever winning another war again. Personally, I feel that if an all black army, or an all female army, or an all gay army were the absolute best we could put into a fight, I would go with that, so please save the accusations of racism and sexism I'm sure will come my way.
If me being an Italian-German-Japanese-Islander American had in any way became the deciding factor in my future consideration for promotion and placement in a military role rather than my individual combat effectiveness, I would be highly insulted and would seriously be concerned as to the military's leadership's ability to effectively make the right decisions in any case.
It's not about race or gender or sexual preference- it's about combat effectiveness!
Sadly, combat effectiveness has now become an after thought, regulated to the back row in any meeting while diversity considerations now take up the gavel and decide military policy virtually on it's own.
Again, I'm no racist or sexist, nor hold any bigotry toward gay people. If white American males were the cause of our nation's losing wars, I would take them off of teh battlefield so that we could drive on and win the fight. My concerns are not that someone happens to be a different color, nor a different sexual persuasion. My concerns are that the military has now tossed out any semblance of showing signs of being competent and stable enough to make the decisions needed to win the wars we engage in.
Instead, our nation's military leaders only care about how things look, not how they fight. In my career, I've never had any issue with taking orders from people different than me. You learn to rise above that kind of thing early on. What I do have a problem with, however, is that when the people who are giving me orders are only there as a result of some idiotic social programming designed to promote based on diversity rather than competence, you have no choice but to question the legitimacy of such a commander.
Again, I'm so glad I'm retired now and don't have to deal with this stuff on a personal basis. I've witnessed people being placed in positions who were not qualified enough to tie their shoes, yet had to deal with their incompetence none the less. Today, that exception is now the rule. It won't matter who someone is. As long as placing them there balances out some diversity check list kept up in the PAC office, all other considerations will be swept away.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41083172/ns/us_news-life/
While it will be a less public debate that will surely draw less fire from radicals from either side, the long-standing rules governing women in combat units will soon be changed to allow for such things as women serving on submarines and women being assigned (as in fully integrated) to artillery, armor, and infantry units.
While I commend the women who serve in the military and certainly hold all of our veterans in high regard, I oppose this disturbing recent trend within the ranks by the civilian leadership of the military of turning our nation's forces into nothing more than a hot-bed for social programs and "diversity" at the cost of lives and combat effectiveness.
The main argument is that women do not have the same chance for advancement as men in the military. With that much, I agree. There is huge division between promotions among men and women in the military. But, has anyone really sat down to figure out just why this is?
The answer is, sorta.
It's a natural occurrence due to the challenges of combat. Naturally, and simply because the military is designed to attack and close on an enemy force using the maximum amount of violence needed to achieve that objective, we have had our men doing the grunt work. Over time, this has not been questioned, mostly because it makes sense, seeing as how most of the combat forces we will encounter will be sending out their big strong men against us.
More men in the fight, more men in top positions where they were needed. Obviously, this created a force where more men than woman were getting the higher paid jobs within the military. It's a no-brainer.
In recent years, there came a call for balance, and in my opinion, a legitimate look at how women could better be integrated into the fighting force. I think in some cases it was justified, but in certain cases, a boundary was crossed where the impact of simply having women in certain environments could and would potentially cause serious issues relating to the combat effectiveness of the units affected by the integration of women into it's ranks.
In the past, the debate surrounded around the physical make up of the average woman soldier, the emotional trials of a combat role, and other legitimate issues which needed to be studied before making sweeping changes. Like it or not, there had to be some kind of indication that women could handle some of the roles which men have handled since the inception of our military.
Over the past 9 years or so, it's been good to see that, for the most part, the women who have served in these expanded military specialties have preformed brilliantly and beyond all expectations, further legitimizing their inclusion into the newer roles. With that, there have also been serious indications where the presence of women in certain units have also caused problems, less reported, but seriously impeding some units from accomplishing their missions. One example would be unexpected pregnancies which then created a hole in the ranks that had to either be filled or left open indefinitely.
But up until January 14th, the debate has usually centered around the ability of women to preform the duties assigned to them in newer roles. For the most part, they have passed this test with flying colors.
Now, a whole new argument is now at hand. No longer is it "can they preform in these roles", now it has become "we need to get them into these combat roles so they can get promoted"
Yes, promotion and diversity concerns are the main arguments for the newly proposed expansions, which send women deeper and closer to the front lines. Yes, I know women have been on the front lines since the Revolutionary War, but they have been used in limited capacities and only on the front lines when that front line happened to be moved right to that unit's door. Other than that, it's been this nation's policy not to have women intentionally serving on the front lines.
This new direction taken by the military's chief "diversity" panel is what concerns me. No longer are people taking on the responsibility of actually studying the impact of their decisions. Diversity has now become the number one priority, thereby trumping all others in it's wake. This is what worries me the worst. The military no longer cares about what is most effective on the battlefield, it only cares that whatever is out there is diverse enough to keep them from having to face the media in a negative light.
Silly and ignorant isn't enough anymore. Now this fantasy of creating an effective military force that mirrors a corporate board from Bath and Body Works is outright dangerous.
When "diversity" becomes the number one priority when it comes to studying what makes up the most effective fighting force on the modern battlefield, we have truly given up any chance of ever winning another war again. Personally, I feel that if an all black army, or an all female army, or an all gay army were the absolute best we could put into a fight, I would go with that, so please save the accusations of racism and sexism I'm sure will come my way.
If me being an Italian-German-Japanese-Islander American had in any way became the deciding factor in my future consideration for promotion and placement in a military role rather than my individual combat effectiveness, I would be highly insulted and would seriously be concerned as to the military's leadership's ability to effectively make the right decisions in any case.
It's not about race or gender or sexual preference- it's about combat effectiveness!
Sadly, combat effectiveness has now become an after thought, regulated to the back row in any meeting while diversity considerations now take up the gavel and decide military policy virtually on it's own.
Again, I'm no racist or sexist, nor hold any bigotry toward gay people. If white American males were the cause of our nation's losing wars, I would take them off of teh battlefield so that we could drive on and win the fight. My concerns are not that someone happens to be a different color, nor a different sexual persuasion. My concerns are that the military has now tossed out any semblance of showing signs of being competent and stable enough to make the decisions needed to win the wars we engage in.
Instead, our nation's military leaders only care about how things look, not how they fight. In my career, I've never had any issue with taking orders from people different than me. You learn to rise above that kind of thing early on. What I do have a problem with, however, is that when the people who are giving me orders are only there as a result of some idiotic social programming designed to promote based on diversity rather than competence, you have no choice but to question the legitimacy of such a commander.
Again, I'm so glad I'm retired now and don't have to deal with this stuff on a personal basis. I've witnessed people being placed in positions who were not qualified enough to tie their shoes, yet had to deal with their incompetence none the less. Today, that exception is now the rule. It won't matter who someone is. As long as placing them there balances out some diversity check list kept up in the PAC office, all other considerations will be swept away.
