Leon Panetta: Women to Serve on Front Lines

Leon Panetta: Women to Serve on Front Lines

 

-By Warner Todd Huston

For 230 some years, the nation’s military has maintained that only men can serve on the front lines in times of war. Now Obama’s Secretary of Defense may soon announce that he will reverse that long standing policy and allow America’s women to join her men in combat.

Reports came today that Leon Panetta will soon remove the long standing ban on women in combat.

Oddly, the new rule seems to be saying that woman can request combat roles. It doesn’t seem as if the change will allow commanders to order individual women into combat.


One wonders how this can be fair? If women can refuse to join the front lines, why are men refused that option?

Dan Foster over at NRO has pinpointed well what must be the next logical step for the Obama administration. If women are to be allowed in combat, why should they be excused wholesale from registering for Selective Service? Shouldn’t Obama reverse that rule, too?

Of course, we’ve already had many women killed in combat and not just in recent actions. But in the past women were killed in battle only by accident, as it were. Women were in support roles, not in combat roles.

Currently, women comprise 14 percent of the 1.4 million active military personnel.

 
  • piglett

    Remember the case of the aircraft carrier that was getting deployed after women were “allowed” to serve in the Navy ships. Worked for a while until in the late 80′s or 90′s the ship was going into harms way and all of a sudden something like 15 of the women got “accidentally” pregnant”. Can you imagine in a time of war or conflict, all the commanders and supervisors haveing to make “reasonable accomodation” for soldiers pregnant” This is just since the 1989 Disability Act and the Military has progressively been politically forced to follow all the civil liability laws of the civilian police forces. Heres the bottom line for the women who are politicing for this monstrosity. The college campus’s and lawyers don’t want anyone forced into the military, they don’t even like the cops and law enforcement officers role in enforcing anything. So knowing that nothing stays static and war is always a possibility, selective service registration should be the mandatory r?equirement of every girl and boy of a certain age. Now, women should ask themselves if they want their sons to go into the military and if they say no but its the law and we will deal with it if it arises (encourage them to flee to Canada, draft dodge etc as Viet Nam), then say Ok, now do you want your daugter to register and have to face that chooice also. Parents know their children best, and I would bet that most mothers and fathers would now even question their daughters ability, depending upon their emotional, physical and mental desires and abilities, to compete for one day in a Draft or war boot camp. So, is this law change the equal rights you want for both your sons and daughters (with kids maybe, or to be searched for as in the Ryan brothers etc) in a time of national emergency? How about do women really think it is “fair” for the military commanders to have to deal with all the excuses, physical inabilities and disabilities and family parental responsibilities of women and men, in a time of war?
    This is pure BS, for Panetta or any President to cave to a partial solution because women say they can’t be promoted without combat experience. How come their are so many women of rank, just since the 80′s? This is putting the cart before the horse and totally political. Just say no! We are in denial if we don’t believe that a draft or a full blown war will ever break out here or around the world again. Todays hearings with Clinton, were the best proof that we have a bunch of idiots appointed to positions of so called leadership, with no experience in either management or military planning, organizing, disciplining, budgeting, controlling or communication. The management principles are the same, but the civilians and appointees to cabinet and leadership postions, have no experience and no job discription of what defense and ssecurity are all about.
    You don’t worry about security after everyone is dead. You plan for defense and security before going into a foreign country or bad neighborhood. Clintons and Democrats are aganst defense spending and nation building, until they are leading the charge. Then it takes them four years to figure, hey it takes money for payroll for employees (military)so congress should let us transfer funds to payroll for guards, from the construction and buildings fund. Really? Then they are aganst going into Iraq for oil, but hey today Libya was “important to us for oil”. Mali, Eguipt etc “we really need to be there and convince them of our values”. Democrats, please, you can’t even convince the American people that you share our values, or identify what they are. You are aganst Colonialism, oil, and pre prior planning security for state department employees who you knew were crying out for more military, contractors or anything that looked like American protection from a out of control area. Yet, “I never knew or saw the cables”? What kind of manager goes into a large corp or agency, without researching the history of privious attacks and reports on security and sets up good communication with the people who you delegate too? Yet, for all your meetings where you said for months these things were “discussed”, you can only put your top people on administrative leave, and set up committees and new departments to study the issues?
    Its complicated yes, but someone who has management experience and knowledge before taking one of these cabinet level jobs, should know that for every law or action or exception that is made, there is a reaction and a multitude of problems for the people who have to deal with the same laws that protect the employees and the citizens and often tie the hands of the managers who should be primarily concerned with good management and the security of the nation. Panetta is not leading, he is politically pandering to a special interest group, just as with the reversal of “don’t ask, don’t tell”. At the expense and detriment of American security and defense preparedness. Unfortunately, like leaders who don’t communicate or manage the likes of Bengazi, its not after the fact that you plan and provide security, it is before the draft or selective service registration is needed to protect. I don’t see alot of women playing in the NFL, so I don’t see why our military has to be forced into a mindset of numbers and affirmative action fears, that the lawyers and feminists shove down our throats. Stop the insanity! As a female police officer, I speak from experience and and as a mother of two daughters. I believe in equal rights but with boundaries and common sense.
    This is doing away with factual boundaries and established military traditions based upon facts. Look at the number of sexual assault cases now in the military courts. Predicted but ignored and now time consuming and morale depleting he said, she said investigations that take away from what should be the primary considerations of security, at the time we keep expanding our so called “soft imprint”, ie nation building and manpower stretching in a area, that neither respects us nor values us, except as providers of weapons and training. Its like Chamberlin giving Checkeslovakia and Poland to Hitler. The manpower only gets used aganst you, once you have provided the dictators with the appeasement. Quit appeasing the civil rights lawyers and feminists with no experience in either management or security.