I didn't retire to insult General Officers, it seems to be a perk of the status though, and this is the dumbest thing I have EVER heard any General say:
Earlier this year, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey said the sexual assaults might be linked to the longstanding ban on women serving in combat because the disparity between the roles of men and women creates separate classes of personnel — male "warriors" versus the rest of the force.
So you think they will be sexually assaulted LESS OFTEN if we train them to be Army Rangers and Navy SEALS and forward deploy them? FFS! Is there no one in on his staff that has the sense or courage to tell him what an asinine thing to say that is? Or even have the courage to tell the nation and the Administration what an asinine idea this is.
Women may be able to start training as Army Rangers by mid-2015 and as Navy SEALs a year later under plans set to be announced by the Pentagon that would slowly bring women into thousands of combat jobs, including those in elite special operations forces
I am going to try to keep this as PG as possible, but this is what we are talking about.
Evidently, they are going to start with SWCC teams, soon. If you want to see what your best friends daughter or the babysitter you hired this summer are going to have to make it through if they decide that they truly are warriors at heart, have a look here and see what that looks like and make your own judgement if you think adding women to this career field is going to be a combat multiplier for America's Navy.
I bet Froggy and Uncle Jimbo would have much to say about this, having logged much seat time in the SOF world.
And this is not something that is just going to involve a time/date stamp and a signature, it involves real world issues:
The military services are also working to determine the cost of opening certain jobs to women, particularly aboard a variety of Navy ships, including certain submarines, frigates, mine warfare and other smaller warships. Dozens of ships do not have adequate berthing or facilities for women to meet privacy needs, and would require design and construction changes
So now we have to build ships and subs around the needs of one gender over another. Great. Awesome. Anyone else hear a cash register just ringing and ringing? How "private" do these people think a camoflaged hole in the ground holding 2 SF soldiers on a deep recon mission overlooking a terrorist hideout is going to be? Or a Firebase in the Korengal? How about a Patrol Base in the Shah-E-Kot?
You can call me a misogynist, a chauvinist pig, a he-man woman hater or any other name, but here is the deal: Infantry Battle and Close Combat is not the realm of women and it never really will be. If it was, all the other nations of the world, great and small, throughout time would be doing this. The fact that no nation anywhere on Earth does this should be validation of that statement by itself.
Now some are going to counter with "Deebow, the ladies are flying Apaches and F-16s and dropping bombs on bad guys." The sarcastic buttmonkey in me says "but yeah, so are drones flown from an air conditioned trailer in Nevada." The warrior in me can say that there has never been a sweeter sound than a fighter pilot whose call sign was Viper 26 talking to me about gun runs in sweet dulcet tones that pleased the ear. I have seen both sides.
But we aren't talking about reflexes, hand & eye coordination and good eyesight. We are talking about getting down and dirty with our enemies at bad breath distance where lead, steel, muscle, and bone are going to collide with terminal force after living in the mud for weeks and huddlling together to stay warm and talking about their girlfriend's sexual appetites trying to stay awake while protecting their sleeping friends.
This idea that we can reshape our force by allowing women to be snake eating Navy SEALS and make us more combat effective is the pinnacle of Libturd thinking. General Dempsey believes that the US Army can make standards in these unique career fields "gender neutral." Well General, they already are. You have to be able to demonstrate for the Blackhats that you can do the buddy-run carrying the man next to you until they say "ENDEX" and not end up with stress fractures in your hips and shoulders. You have to be able to do as much as the man next to you in your boat crew, for as long as the Navy SEAL screaming at you from the top of the berm tells you to do it. You have to be able to carry your battle rattle, and maybe that of your wounded buddy, for miles and not completely destroy your body doing it. The battlefield is an unforgiving place and you don't get safety stand downs when you get hot and tired and the fighting doesn't stop just because your needs aren't being met.
So if this is the wave of the future, let's take some more laps around Socially Retarded Park. I want the NFL, NBA, and NHL to be co-ed and I want the college versions of that co-ed as well. I want to see what happens when female fullbacks in the NFL crash into Ray Lewis to lead block for a male halfback. I want the MMA co-ed as well. I mean, why can't a 135 pound Bantamweight men fight a 135 pound Bantamweight woman?
Equality in opportunity doesn't make us better warriors. The 5'4" 150 pound 18 year old high school volleyball player who decides to be an Infantrywoman is never going to be the same caliber of soldier that the 5'10" 180 pound high school football player is. That ain't me talking fat crap out my bunghole, that is undeniable observed fact from my quarter century of military service.
Let me tell you how this plays out on the battlefield: Because little Suzie Infantry isn't physically strong enough to overpower the Taliban man and stab him in the guts while wearing 70 pounds of equipment, the MAN next to her now has to fight one more enemy combatant. Because Little Suzie Weapons Sergeant will have to carry the same amount of ammunition as the MAN next to her, the entire ODA will move slower (and get shot more) in battle. Because Little Suzie SWCC operator will be wearing half her body weight in equipment instead of a quarter of her body weight in equipment like the MAN next to her, she will swim slower to rescue the MAN next to her.
In all of this debate about the roles of women in our armed forces, not one person in power from either party, nor any person who is making decisions on policy has explained to me, or any of my comrades, or the nation for that matter; how putting women in these positions ENHANCES or MULTIPLIES our nation's combat power.
I am not afraid to say it: I value what women provide to our society more than I value their equality in opportunity to face our nation's enemies in close mortal combat. If that makes me a misogynist, I am OK with that.
General Dempsey's dumbass theory aside (but not too far aside; it is still f'ing dumb), this is the most dangerous and backwards thinking and implementation of an idea in human history and is going to cost the lives of many of our young men and women before being assigned to the ash heap of history.