Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Women at Arms

Women at Arms

Ratings: (0)|Views: 388|Likes:
Published by joe
This shows even more how there is a lack of real leadership in this country.
This shows even more how there is a lack of real leadership in this country.

More info:

Published by: joe on Aug 23, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

08/23/2009

pdf

text

original

 
Women at ArmsPosted byStephen Flurryat 11:59 am on August 16, 2009 Before 2001, America’s military women had rarely seen ground combat, the
New York Times
wrote
. The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, however, have changed that. “The numberof high-ranking women and women who command all-male units has climbed considerably along withtheir status in the military,” the
Times
wrote.[A]s soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, women have done nearly as much in battle as theirmale counterparts: patrolled streets with machine guns, served as gunners on vehicles, disposed of explosives, and driven trucks down bomb-ridden roads. …A small number of women have even conducted raids, engaging the enemy directly in total disregardof existing policies.Over the past several decades, an aggressive group of politicians and lobbyists have been pushing forwomen to fight alongside men in combat. As the
Times
story reveals, that minority has essentiallywon its war. “The Marine Corps, which is overwhelmingly male and designed for combat,” the piececontinues, “recently opened two more categories of intelligence jobs to women, recognizing the valueof their work in Iraq and Afghanistan.” Even
with
these changes, the
Times
informs, the United States is
still 
lagging behind the rest of theworld:In gradually admitting women to combat, the United States will be catching up to the rest of theworld. More than a dozen countries allow women in some or all ground combat occupations. Amongthose pushing boundaries most aggressively is Canada, which has recruited women for the infantryand sent them to Afghanistan.As much as the liberal mindset would love for the U.S. military to “catch up” with Canada’s armedforces, what must America’s
enemies
think about statements like this, as quoted in the
Times
piece: “We literally could not have fought this war without women.” What does it say about American military strength if we can’t win wars without our wives and mothersin combat? And what does it say about our society when, instead of fighting to protect our women, wesend them to the front lines of warfare in order to exchange fire with terrorists?For a refreshingly traditional perspective on this subject, read what we wrote
three years ago.Here is an excerpt:In the “brutish,” non-politically correct world of yesteryear, the strong were obligated to serve theweak. A traditional-thinking male seeks to protect a woman. An honorable man shields a female fromdanger and hurt. This attitude, to the feminist, is contemptible. And in a gender-integrated theater of combat, it introduces a host of complications. A leader is expected to view that woman not as awoman, but simply as a soldier—a grunt whom he must be able to send into harm’s way. In the up-is-down moral climate of today’s military, his reluctance to pitch her into the lion’s den is consideredbackward.

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->