Posts

Conservatives Have a Plan to Block Women in the Draft

The Senate voted 85-13 Tuesday to advance an annual defense policy bill that would require women to register for the draft. But that doesn’t mean the provision is guaranteed to become law.

Opponents of the draft measure will have an opportunity to kill it when the House and Senate reconcile the differences between their versions of the National Defense Authorization Act in conference.

An annual authorization bill, this year’s $602 billion National Defense Authorization Act sets the budget and outlines spending priorities for defense agencies. The White House has already threatened to veto the legislation.

The time of the conference and the exact number of conferees from the House and Senate has not been determined. But Sen. James Inhofe, R-Okla., who is guaranteed a seat at the negotiation table as the senior member of the Armed Services Committee, already announced he plans to strip out the controversial measure.

Inhofe promised in a statement to try to remove, in conference, “the unnecessary Senate language requiring women to register for the draft.”

That’s only possible because the House already stripped a proposed draft requirement from its version of the bill back in May. That makes conference, a GOP aide tells The Daily Signal, the best time to address the issue.

Senate conservatives are banking on House Republicans bailing them out on the issue. The House version of the legislation passed with bipartisan support, the aide explained, showing that the bill can make it to President Barack Obama’s desk without the draft provision.

In the last few weeks, the draft issue has dominated debate in the Senate. Opponents argue that requiring women to register for the Selective Service System would restrict their freedom. Proponents reply that expanding the draft is about equality.

Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, wrote an amendment that would prohibit the government from compelling women to sign up for Selective Service and would direct the Pentagon to conduct a study into the merits of mandatory military service.

“It’s one thing for women who want to be in combat and have earned it to do that, but forcing women to fight is a totally different matter,” Lee said in an interview with The Daily Signal.

But after pushing his bill in the press, Lee declined to forward the amendment on the Senate floor.

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., opposed Lee’s amendment but supported bringing it to the floor for a vote.

During a floor fight, Lee blocked consideration of McCain’s amendment that would expand visas for Afghan interpreters. The Utah lawmaker was attempting to use his objection as leverage to advance another amendment that would prevent the government from indefinitely detaining American citizens linked to terror.

“At any time, a senator had the opportunity to go to the floor and request a vote on his amendment,” a senate aide told The Daily Signal. “The only reason there was not a vote on Sen. Lee’s amendment was because he did not request a vote on it.”

The Utah senator would only release the measure, an aide from Lee’s office said, if leadership guaranteed that the Senate would vote on both the detention and the draft amendments. Ultimately, neither received a vote.

It’s not clear if Lee’s amendment had the votes necessary to advance. Failure on the floor would have made it more difficult for conservatives to cut out the provision later during conference.

Heritage Action for America opposes the legislation, saying that it would “allow the American military to be a playground for President Obama’s social engineering.”

Only six Republicans—Lee, Mike Crapo and James Risch of Idaho, Ted Cruz of Texas, Rand Paul of Kentucky, and Ben Sasse of Nebraska—voted against the bill. (For more from the author of “Conservatives Have a Plan to Block Women in the Draft” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

Marines, Army Prepare Women for Combat

Photo Credit: Marines / Creative Commons

Photo Credit: Marines / Creative Commons

The military is taking steps to prepare women for combat roles in 2016.

The Marine Corps announced that it would give young female lieutenants who wash out of the grueling Infantry Officer Course a second shot, same as their male counterparts.

The Army is conducting a study to test just how fit a soldier has to be to engage in combat. The study involves 60 women and 100 men.

CBS News reported on both developments last week.

The Marine Corps announcement came after Marine 2nd Lt. Sage Santangelo took the Infantry Officer Court and wrote about her experience last month in an op-ed in The Washington Post. She didn’t make it past the first day and blamed the Marine Corps for a dual standard that sets up women to flunk the course.

Read more from this story HERE.

Special Ops General Concerned with ‘Culture, Social Behavior’ Aspects of Women in Combat

Photo Credit: Fort Wainwright Public Affairs Office

Photo Credit: Fort Wainwright Public Affairs Office

As the Defense Department rolled out its plans today to integrate women into combat roles, a director at U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) expressed the loudest skepticism from military leaders yet that the administration’s Jan. 1, 2016, goal would go off without a hitch.

…Maj. Gen. Bennet Sacolick, director of force management and development at SOCOM, told reporters at the Pentagon today that he’s making no guarantees.

“We have some genuine concerns that must be addressed prior to making an informed recommendation to the secretary of defense, a recommendation which complies with the chairman’s guiding principles of preserving unit readiness, cohesion, and morale,” Sacolick said.

“Of particular concern is our mission set, which predominantly requires our forces to operate in small, self-contained teams, many of which are in austere, geographically isolated, politically sensitive environments for extended periods of time. This complexity requires a unique assessment predicated upon detailed analysis, ultimately providing a single, clear, consistent procedure for execution throughout the SOCOM enterprise”…

“Their concerns are, you know, once again, that you got a 12-men ODA [the primary operational element of a Special Forces company] and an isolated case, how is that — what are the implications there?” he said of the reaction from men in the field. “There’s all those things that we’re concerned about, probably more so than the actual standards in our qualification courses…culture, social behavior. Those aspects of ultimate integration.”

Read more from this story HERE.

Obama’s Unconstitutional and Idiotic ‘Women-in-Combat’ Move

There is a reason why in the Olympics there is women’s competition and men’s competition, why there is a professional men’s basketball leagues and a professional women’s basketball leagues, and why basic military recruit training for men is different from basic military recruit training for women. In weight, stamina, and strength there are major differences between men and women; in the overwhelming number of cases women cannot keep up with men in those areas—-however there may be some unique exceptions.

The action taken by the Secretary of Defense yesterday, bypassing Congress in the decision making process, with the concurrence of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who sat there wide eyed without saying a word, imposed another of Obama’s radical “diversity” agendas upon the US Armed Forces. The radical decision flies in the face of the many studies completed by the US Marine Corps, US Army, and Congress over the last 10 years, those studies resulted in Congress setting rules that prevented women from being drafted and from being assigned to front line infantry ground combat units.

Recently two female enlisted US Marines were allowed to train with male Marines, in order to qualify for assignment to infantry ground combat units; they failed miserably and their video interviews are truly revealing. One of the trainees said they couldn’t keep up with their male counterparts during the sustained and long period of training required to qualify, that their legs gave out from under them, that their stamina was not up to their male counterparts, and that they could no longer carry their heavy back packs; they asked to be relieved (they weren’t under the added pressure of being under an enemy firing weapons in an attempt to kill them).

At a minimum, the House Armed Services Committee and the Senate Armed Services Committee should review the data gathered from that most recent physical endurance test, conduct immediate oversight hearings, and make public the results of the extensive research completed on the study of “Women in Land Combat” gathered by the US Marine Corp last year, in which those two female Marines were involved. The data does not support Panetta’s move to put women into front line ground combat units, and before the radical decision becomes de facto law, Congress and the American people need to know why women in front line ground combat units will not work and how it will degrade the Combat Effectiveness of combat units. Panetta’s announcement is not a “gift” to female military enlisted personnel who have expressed very little interest in being ordered into front line ground combat infantry units.

For four years, the Social Experiments on Diversity has been forced upon a captive US military force whose senior flag leaders have not objected to Obama’s civilian appointees at DOD orders that degrades Combat Effectiveness; each new initiative further damages the unit cohesiveness and moral of the US Armed Forces.

Article I, Section 8, of the US Constitution gives the power to the Congress “To make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and Naval Forces.” There is a legal requirement to notify Congress of changes regarding women in the military in advance of the issuance of the order Panetta signed, including the requirement that the Congress be provided with a report on the impact it would have upon the Selective Service System, but the Republican leadership of Congress has not asked for the report—Congress must act in this case! Panetta was wrong in circumventing Congress, but it’s up to the members of Congress to assert their Constitutional right and duty to provide oversight.

Every study completed on “Women In Combat” has come to the conclusion that women in combat are less likely to survive front line ground combat operations than men. It is extremely dangerous to imbed women in tip of the spear military units like SEAL Teams, the Green Berets, Rangers, Special Forces, Airborne units, the Delta Force, etc. because they will experience difficulty in required stamina and strength that will slow down the units they are assigned to; they will not be able to shoulder the same sized back packs over extended periods of time in combat operation; they don’t have the same strength to meet and overcome an enemy combatant on the ground, face to face; and the unavoidable normal male/female sexual attraction within the units damages unit cohesion/unity (note: a unit’s Combat Effectiveness is degraded when female members become pregnant—this has become a very serious problem for US Navy ships scheduled to depart on 6 month deployments, because so many female crew members become pregnant that the ships can’t be fully manned).

There is absolutely no evidence that putting female military personnel in front line ground infantry units will strengthen the US Armed Forces—that is the trumped up story being promulgated by the Obama Administration which is another outright lie.

It is one thing for a woman to be able to qualify, using the same rigorous qualification criteria as men, in order to be assigned to a front line ground combat infantry unit. After they have successfully completed the same rigorous qualification requirements as men, have been imbedded in front line ground combat infantry units, it will be another thing to be engaged in “sustained” combat operations for many months on end without a break, many times operating in mud without sanitary hygiene facilities during the monthly menstrual cycles. The combat environment is very different from what the majority of Americans understand it to be.

Ask yourself if you would want your daughter or granddaughter to be drafted and then be required to serve in front line ground combat infantry units, during sustained combat operations where men in an enemy force are trying to kill them.

________________________________________________

Captain Joseph R. John, a combat veteran, is a 1962 graduate of the United States Naval Academy who retired from the US Navy after a long and distinguished career. He currently is the President of the Combat Veterans Training Group and is the founder of the Combat Vets for Congress PAC.

War On Women – Literally: Obama Administration to Lift Ban on Women in Combat

Women in all branches of the military soon will have unprecedented opportunities to serve on the front lines of the nation’s wars.

Leon Panetta, in one of his last acts as President Obama’s defense secretary, is preparing to announce the policy change, which would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs after more than a decade at war, the Pentagon confirmed Wednesday.

The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

“This policy change will initiate a process whereby the services will develop plans to implement this decision, which was made by the secretary of defense upon the recommendation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,” a senior defense official told reporters on condition of anonymity.

Some front-line military roles may open to women as soon as this year. Assessments for others, such as special operations forces, including Navy SEALS and the Army’s Delta Force, may take longer.

Read more from this story HERE.

Deceitful Debate Over Women in Combat

Oblivious to important differences between men and women, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is suing the Department of Defense to lift all combat exemptions for women. Not putting women into combat deprives them of their constitutional rights, the ACLU is arguing on behalf of four servicewomen in a complaint filed Tuesday in a federal court in San Francisco.

“It’s harming women in the field now,” said Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with ACLU Northern California, to U.S. News & World Report. “Significant numbers of women have fought alongside their male counterparts in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan and, in fact, are fighting in combat situations.”

Talk about harm. Women are coming home maimed or in body bags. A saner course would be to suggest that the military rethink its decision to put women closer to combat.

In the ACLU’s parallel universe, women are just as aggressive, strong, fast and warlike as men. You know, like in the National Football League, where female linebackers strike terror in the hearts of Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers.

Much of the pressure for this march toward barbarism is coming from career feminist military personnel, who argue that lack of combat experience hurts their chances for advancement. In other words, because a few women want to climb the ladder of rank, all women in the military should be put at risk for combat duty, whether they want it or not…

The military has kept women out of direct ground combat for a moral reason: Deliberately putting women in harm’s way is not right; and for practical reasons: Women are not as physically strong, and they have an impact on the men around them. In a civilized society, men are raised to protect women. Now some of America’s elite warrior units train men to be indifferent to women’s screams. That’s what passes for “progress” in a “progressive” military.

Read more from this story HERE.

Generals continue blind effort to remake military for Obama; now prepping women for combat

Photo credit: US Army

To graduate from boot camp, soldiers must perform 35 pushups and 47 situps and run two miles in at least 16 minutes and 36 seconds — but that’s only for male soldiers.

Female troops are required to do 13 pushups and 43 situps and run two miles in 19 minutes and 42 seconds.

As the Army weighs integrating women into armor and infantry combat positions, the command in charge of soldier training is looking at requiring women to meet the same physical goals as men.

If wartime studies over the past decade are a guide, the Army can expect an increase in injuries and attrition among female soldiers as they seek to match men in strength and endurance.

The Pentagon bans women from direct combat roles, but this year opened 14,000 support jobs that can put female soldiers closer to the front lines on battlefields.

Read more from this story HERE.