The Specter of Drafting Women; The Foolish Side to Reversing the Rule on Women On the Front Lines

Women serve this nation honorably in the United States Armed Forces.  Now this has always been a voluntary role.  Women have helped our warriors since the War for Independence.  Women are now warriors displaying acts of courage and valor in the War on Terror (OEF and OIF). Today the Pentagon may reverse the long standing prohibition of women in combat.  Today’s combat lines are highly mobile and women do in fact serve in combat through combat support roles.  Certain Infantry roles which require certain physical standards are exempt from having women.  Women’s rights groups have pushed the Administration to remove the protection and it is widely expected to be announced today. Most of the debate has focused on women in combat from a perspective of whether or not it will hurt military efficiency. One overlooked problem is that the Supreme Court rejected the equal protection argument in  on including women in the draft and reversed the lower court on one ground, that women were not eligible for certain combat roles and the purpose of the draft is raise an army and navy to protect the nation.  The composition of that is solely a Congressional function under the Constitution, which empowers Congress to raise an Army and Navy for national defense therefore not subject to judicial review.  Now if women are in all combat roles, that means the one and only legal justification for keeping young moms from being ripped away from their babies is repealed. This action by the Obama Administration is couched as giving women more choices, but in reality, it could be taking away choices from women. Why Rush? It is intriguing that the decision is being made before the results of the field testing of the concept is complete.  One reason that it has not gone as expected is that in the Marines, women do not want the jobs and the few that do haven’t made it yet. Why Not Draft Women? We need to have an open and honest discussion on this subject which is being bypassed currently through executive decree. The reason society does not draft young women is that they are indispensable to the continuation of society in a way young men are not.  Young women can have babies, nurse babies, and continue society.  Older men can make babies.  Europe lost a lot of its young men in World War 1.  Some countries lost a quarter of its young men.  Since older men can produce babies, society moved on.  If a society loses a quarter of its young women, it is in demographic trouble. Another problem that we begin to see today is the issue of war orphans due to the serving of Mom and Dad in the same unit.  We exempt all of the siblings of the same family from such a fate, why not both parents?  The cost to society of taking care of a child so devastated far outweighs the benefits.  Why are we changing our polices without simultaneously addressing this issue?  Why not, because in the extreme feminist world family takes a backseat.  It is viewed as an obstacle to the equality of women not as an important part of the identity of women who choose to have one.  I have had to deal with women who have been distressed about being pulled away from babies 6 months old to prepare for deployment and leave  a 1 year old with relatives.  These women at least made that choice to be soldiers.  Some of them had a hard time making that decision and a few had to be separated from service.  What would happen if you tried to draft a mom with 3 kids under 5?  What would be the economic impact on Dad and his job and a half?  May we have a real conversation on these issues? Congress needs to address the issue of drafting women now, before we are in a national crisis that requires conscription.  We need to consider what we do with potential war orphans and the war displaced kids.  This conversation is long over due.

67 thoughts on “The Specter of Drafting Women; The Foolish Side to Reversing the Rule on Women On the Front Lines”

  1. I’ll say the one thing nobody ever mentions when talking about the heroic stories of women in combat. They aren’t the problem, any reasonable person would want them watching their back 7 days a week.

    The problem is on the other end of the spectrum. Where lowered standards lead to unqualified servicemembers filling roles they aren’t qualified to fill because of political pressure.

    It’s going to happen, the horse has left the barn, but it is a shame.

  2. I will say that Falcor has an excellent understanding of the process. Most of his statements check out with my knowledge and experience. The step is something I have never seen though it would do no violence for short people to have one. Women do a fine and honorable job in the Armed Services and I repeat that I have no issue there. I want that to continue. The only question is should their be certain jobs, a few jobs not covered due to their unique nature and social implications?

    Believe me, we are still flying around the world. Drones are no longer rare. They even fly drug patrols, but they are still not even a percentage of flights and they are not capable of airlifts to supply our troops.

  3. Sorry David, Falcor is either a liar or mindless. Clearly from the beginning the question is whether women are physically capable of doing the job, not about people trained in a speciality. I made it clear from the start that a person might not perform a highly-specialized job they haven’t been traiend for.

    However, it is a lot easier to train someone to drive a tank than fo them to be able to help push a damaged tank out of a ditch. I could fly an airplane or drive a tank. I could not do the phyiscal tasks of strenth and endurance. Specialized training is not the problem.

    IT IS IMPORTANT TO EXPOSE THE LIBERAL DODGEBALL TACTICS AND SCAMS. Falcor is yet another fish flipping on the dock who cannot think straight and flip flops all over the place to avoid the facts and the truth.

    To expose the DODGEBALL tactics, let’s review:

    Jonathon Moseley wrote in #28:

    Dave writes in #22: “Of course you are correct in that women would not (and cannot) perform every role (as per my example SEALs, Delta Force, et al).”

    But you cannot recruit or sign up a military only for narrow specific jobs. The needs of combat are too unpredictable.

    The armed forces on December 6, 1941, did not expect to be at war on December 7, 1941.

    Many of our armed forces had to perform other duties on December 7, 1941 and in teh next few days, when the people assigned to those jobs were dead.

    Dave writes: “Can a woman be a sniper for instance?”

    A woman could aim and pull the trigger. But neither I (until I get back in shape) nor most women could engage in all of the surrounding hardships it takes to GET IN POSITION and wait for hours, maybe days, for that moment when the sniper pulls the trigger. A sniper may have to hike through the mountains, jungle, or woods for days carrying everything he or she needs on his or her back to get into the cat bird’s seat perfect position

    Is Falcor incapble of understanding that we are talking about whether someone is phyically capable of doing the job?

    I couldn’t. Most women couldn’t. Everyone who is honest and can read knows that the topic is physical capability, not specialized training.

    In fact, it is quite the opposite. I could learn to fly an airplane and most women could.

    But my Grandfather burned his hands o the USS Intrepid pushing a burning airplane off the deck into the ocean so that it wouldn’t explode and set the entire flight deck on fire. He was commended but never applied for a purple heart — unlike John Kerry who applied for a scratch — because he was just doing his job.

    A woman could have the expertise to be a Chief Petty Officer for damage control, directing men to do reconstruction work.

    But the job included seeing a problem and leaping to solve it — not just what his assigned job.

    Could a woman hired to direct others in reconsruction work respond to a sudden emergency and push a burning aircraft over the side of the ship?

    NOTE that a fire in an aircraft was what caused one of the worst shipboard disasters on an aircraft carrier in naval history two decades later.

    Dave writes: Could a woman “man” a 50 cal? I’m pretty sure she could do that as well.”

    Again, a woman is capable of pulling the trigger, and maybe even unjamming a jammed gun and manhandling the links of ammunition. But neither I (in my current shape) nor most women could lug the 50 caliber through the jungle for days at a time to get the chance to pull the trigger.

    Furthermore, you cannot have armed forced that can only perform limited duties. The mission can change.

    One minute you may need someone firing the 50 cal. Next minute you may need someone to push a humvee out of ditch stuck in the mud. Combat is too unpredictable.

    So what is that which Falcor cannot understand?

    Answer: Falcor is a liberal. Failure to understand is WHY liberals are liberals.

    Liberals don’t get that way by accident. It is BECAUSE liberals tie their thinking into pretzels that they can believe the unbelievable.


    “I wrote they have to be CAPABLE of doing all jobs”

    And you’re wrong…. The only people who know how to drive a tank are tankers. Drive a track? Trackers. Drive an LAV? LAR guys. Fly a plane? Pilots.

    Falcor, the entire discussion is about physical capability.

    You do an excellent job of illustrating why liberals cannot think. THis is why people belive in liberal policies — the lack of thining ability.

    Quite clearly, from the start of the discussion, the question is whether the military should be staffed with people whoa are not capable of doing

    Sorry, David, Falcor’s statements are beyond stupid.

  4. Remember that the most common liberal “argument”is to completely ignore the argument at hand and sputter about things that are completely irrelevant.

    To cover up the fact that the liberal has no answer for the argument at hand the liberal expands and elaborates on the entirelyIRRELEVANT argument.

    The more irrelvant the argument, the more elaborate and detailed the liberal’s efforts to CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

    So a liberal cannot argue that military personnel might not unexpectedly need to perform tasks they are not physically capable of — which I would not be physically capable of.

    So the liberal has to talk instead about — irrelevant — specialized training, and do so elaborately and in detail, hoping that you won’t notice that the liberal has changed the subject.

  5. “Clearly from the beginning the question is whether women are physically capable of doing the job, not about people trained in a speciality. I made it clear from the start that a person might not perform a highly-specialized job they haven’t been traiend for.”

    I… I just don’t know how to even respond to this post when-

    freaking look at #51

  6. I usually agree with Jon, but this time I have to say that my army experiences line up with Falcor’s marine experiences almost down the line. I understand the theories, but I have had times where I lived it every day. I think women are well suited for 98% of the jobs and should not be excluded because the majority may not be able to do the 2%. Let’s be honest most guys cannot lug a 50-cal around, it does not disqualify them from the armed services or else we would never fill the ranks.

    While you are free to discuss any aspect that you want, I wanted to focus less on the typical can women do it argument and look at what does it mean for society if women do it? If women are just one of the guys, will you stop to help one with a flat just because? Will women be drafted ignoring their role on the homefront to the continuation and continuity of society? Only a certain percentage of women will go for the Army and Marines, I doubt they will ever be more than a third, likely a quarter of the forces in the foreseeable future and much less in the combat roles by the choice of women. The ones who so choose will be assets most of the time. My concern is the politically correct equal application of the law if we get into a crisis. Women in general do not have the mentality or the fitness for front line soldiering. It could be taught and trained, but the 18 year old girl who thinks guns are scary, can’t do 3 push ups, and thinks the only time mud is good is in a facial, but loves to hook up with guys is going to be a liability. In a volunteer force, you don’t have to worry as much. We do not have the experience to deal with it. There is a reason why most warriors in history have been men. Modern technology is an equalizer. A drone pilot can be a man or woman, so can a fighter pilot or a tank operator. Women can drive trucks as well as men. They can work computers and communications equipment, they can do accounting and legal work. They can doctor and pray as well. The role of women in the armed forces is changing rapidly as our technology changes. We will change with it.

    I just want us to also look at the fundamental effect outside of the armed forces.

  7. Women in front line combat roles in the army can be discussed ad nauseum and should be, but in my mind, it is a mixed bag.
    To be politically correct, one must say, “I agree with it completely. Of course it is alright, the Israelis are doing it.”
    Well yes, but the Israelis are doing it out of necessity. They are surrounded on all sides except the Mediterranean Sea by enemies, so it makes sense that everyone in the country would be armed and ready.
    Having served in the military for 7.5 years (non combat) I have seen what serious front line warfare is. I’ve been in the Military Hospital in Japan when front line casualties were brought in from Viet Nam. I think the idea of women in the military is wonderful but front line combat is the most brutal violence in the world.
    The men in individual squads would always feel overprotective of the women in their squads, perhaps taking unnecessary risks, putting the entire operation at risk.
    To not be politically correct, I would say that God made men and women different for a very distinct reason and my answer is: When it comes down to the nitty gritty, I don’t think women should be on the ground in front line combat.

  8. For discussion purposes:

    “For example, it is a common misperception that Israel allows women in combat units. In fact, women have been barred from combat in Israel since 1950, when a review of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War showed how harmful their presence could be. The study revealed that men tried to protect and assist women rather than continue their attack. As a result, they not only put their own lives in greater danger, but also jeopardized the survival of the entire unit. The study further revealed that unit morale was damaged when men saw women killed and maimed on the battlefield,” Luddy said.

    Writes Edward Norton, a reservist in the Israel Defense Forces: “Women have always played an important role in the Israeli military, but they rarely see combat; if they do, it is usually by accident. No one in Israel, including feminists, has any objection to this situation. The fact that the Persian Gulf War has produced calls to allow women on the front lines proves only how atypical that war was and how little Americans really understand combat.”

    “Few serious armies use women in combat roles. Israel, which drafts most of its young women and uses them in all kinds of military work, has learned from experience to take them out of combat zones. Tests show that few women have the upper-body strength required for combat tasks. Keeping combat forces all male would not be discriminatory, as were earlier racial segregation schemes in the military, because men and women are different both physically and psychologically,” said the Feb. 5, 1990, National Review


  9. David
    Thank you for the comment proving my point. I have no objections to women being drafted as long as they’re not on the ground in front line combat.
    We are a republic that needs to be constantly defended and women should do their share.

  10. Women in the Israeli Defense Forces are female soldiers who serve in the Israel Defense Forces. Israel is the only country in the world with a mandatory military service requirement for women.[1][2][3] Women have taken part in Israel’s military before and since the founding of the state in 1948,[4][5] with women currently comprising 33% of all IDF soldiers and 51% of its officers,[6] fulfilling various roles within the Ground, Navy and Air Forces. The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that “The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.”[3] As of now, 88% to 92%[7] of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.[1]
    Formerly women conscripts served in the Women’s Army Corps, commonly known by its Hebrew acronym, Chen. After a five-week period of basic training they served as clerks, drivers, welfare workers, nurses, radio operators, flight controllers, ordnance personnel, and course instructors.[8]

  11. “Women in general do not have the mentality or the fitness for front line soldiering.”

    A stereotype David? Really?

    One can overlook the “fitness” aspect, although you could have stated it as “upper body strength”, but the “mentality?” I’m not sure what you mean by that. I find it interesting when someone who is a member of group that is often stereotyped, actually stereotypes others.

    I think it would be safe to say – many men AND women do not have the mentality and fitness for front line soldiering. From that we can conclude that: them that can does; them that can’t don’t (and will do other things instead). Some women can and deserve the Combat Infantryman Badge (CIB). Others cannot and do not deserve it.

    What women want, indeed what every person wants is the opportunity to be all they can be. And in the end, that’s what this is about.

    My daughter can change a flat tire. She doesn’t want to because it might mess up her nails, but she can. So she uses AAA instead. But I’ll not be the one that says she there are things she can’t do.

  12. I have no problem with women volunteering, but there really is a reason that only one nation in the world drafts women and only allows them to volunteer into combat infantry type roles. Even Israel has about 8 to 10% of jobs not open to women.

    I don’t think women should be drafted. It would be bad for society. There is a standard deviation on the bell curve. A draft ignores that fact and would treat all women like all men. That would be bad for society and national security. Hopefully, we will never need another draft, but we have to discuss this when we do not so we are not scrambling when there is a crisis. Sadly, Washington is not doing so.

    Here is a survey of the few countries that allow women in combat roles, I would add that Serbia and Germany could also be on this list, but it is Wiki so don’t expect perfection.

    Women can serve in combat units or at times in combat, but they currently cannot serve in combat roles in combat units.
    In 1989, a tribunal appointed under the Canadian Human Rights Act ordered full integration of women in the Canadian Armed Forces “with all due speed”, at least within the next ten years. Only submarines were to remain closed to women.[7]
    Female personnel of all three services play an active part in ongoing operations. However, there are certain limitations in ‘direct combat’ duties such as special forces, pilot branch, naval fast attack squadrons.
    The 2000 Equality amendment to the Military Service law states that “The right of women to serve in any role in the IDF is equal to the right of men.”[8] As of now, 88% to 92% of all roles in the IDF are open to female candidates, while women can be found in 69% of all positions.[9][10]
    [edit]New Zealand
    New Zealand has no restrictions on roles for women in its defence force. They are able to serve in the Special Air Service, infantry, armour and artillery. This came into effect in 2001 by subordinate legislation. Though, no woman has ever made it into the Special Air Service.
    In 1995, Norway became the first country to allow women to serve on its submarines. The first female commander of a Norwegian submarine was Solveig Krey in 1995.[11][12

  13. Remember Dave, I said that copy was for discussion, don’t act like I wrote it, it is attributed in quotes with the link below it. I also have given varying points of view.

    My pov was ” I think women are well suited for 98% of the jobs and should not be excluded because the majority may not be able to do the 2%.”

    That was in response to the idea that if women can’t do all jobs that they are not qualified for the ranks.

    As for flats, I call AAA sometimes myself, I had no desire to mess my suit up when I could make a call. If I saw a women out in the rain with a flat, I would be inclined to help not because I thought she couldn’t but because it is about honoring the place of women and mothers in society. That is my point, are we forever losing that and should we?

  14. “If I saw a women out in the rain with a flat, I would be inclined to help not because I thought she couldn’t but because it is about honoring the place of women and mothers in society. That is my point, are we forever losing that and should we?”

    No we shouldn’t lose that. They should be honored and respected (as all people should be really). I also stop to help women – in fact anyone who looks as if the need help. I typically will call AAA though, because AAA doesn’t care if it is my car. All they know is that I am member.

  15. alcor writes in #56: “I… I just don’t know how to even respond to this post when- freaking look at #51

    Falcor, your inability to comprehend is noted.

    #51 is just another example of you changing the subject and being incapable of understanding what has been written.

    So you refer to #51 where you make the same mistake I point out.

    Yes in #51 you are completely confused and don’t understand what is being discussed. How is that a response?

    You disagree with an argument I never made and then offer the same argument I did make as if you were saying something different than I. Total confusion.

  16. This by the way is another liberal rhetorical scam, although a more advanced and rarer variety:

    1) Misrepresent the argument of the conservative, and disagree with one or more things that the the conservative never said.

    2) Then make the same argument the conservative make as if the liberal is disagreeing with the conservative.

Comments are closed.