Redstate

I've personally (as opposed to my namesake) have never liked having women serve in combat, though the Athenians apparently did it.

But then again, they're all dead.

--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.

What was that Chesterson quote about tradition?

The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC.

but can you recollect when or where Athenian women went to war?
A friendly question but a society that had separate apartments for their wives would seem to be unlikely to place them in the line with hoplites, separate apts in the same house, just to clarify. Again, just curious.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

I appear to have conflated Plato's musings about the ideal state in e.g., The Republic with the combat role of women in Sparta, which itself may be more legend than fact.

So perhaps I should better reference this to salvage some measure of dignity.

Words ... mmm, yummy.

--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.

* Webb stated that women should not be allowed command positions because they cannot be trusted and that women who join the military 'have problems with their sexuality'.

* The words from Helprin that you quote imply (to me) that he doesn't think women should be drafted.

* You seem to be saying that women should not be allowed to serve in the front line even if they volunteer for such duties, and show the requisite skills and aptitudes.

Those are three utterly distinct positions to take. (Position two, which allows but would not compel women to serve is a distinct position, even if I am wrong attributing it to Helprin).

While I respectfully disagree with your position, I do not feel obliged to show the same respect to Webb's.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I think, if I recall the context properly, Helprin's position was broader that opposition to a female draft. For my part, I can hardly think of something more horrible than a female draft. A government which undertook one would be, in my view, quite unworthy of the loyalty of its citizens.

If it's the intransigence and crudity of Webb's statements that we're arguing about, then I have little to add; but it seems to me that the condemnation attached to more than the form of his arguments.

_______________
And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

That women have no place outside the home then?

Equal Rights Equal Responsibilities.

And there is nothing physically or psychologically preventing women from serving in the same roles as men in the military right now. So long as they can meet the same physical requirements (which tells you that I am opposed to the different PT scales), let them serve and let them be drafted.

If you can't let them do that, then don't let them have Any of the rights or positions that have "...been largely reserved for men since time immemorial..."

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

I understand Webbs position. I don't agree with it but it is valid and doesn't just represent a personal prejudice the way its being portrayed here.

1. Any officer in the U.S. Millitary is in a position where they may be called on to make life and death decisions. This is not a trivial matter.

2. In purely economic positions, promoting people because they are members of groups that scream well isn't a good idea but can be fixed or at least have the damage ameliorated. Once someone dies because of a bad command decision there is no remedy.

As you point out the physical requirements for men and women are different. This holds true through all kinds of positions that have a phyical requirement and the courts have ruled this discriminatory. The funny thing is no one has informed Fires, Criminals, Trees or the enemy of this.

So you are in Mr. Webbs position you are being fed a load of hooey from upstairs that you know is garbage. Your academy has a tradition you feel pride and connection to and you see it cheapened because a group can whine. Whats more you see them getting a pass on aspects of the academy no one else gets a pass on.

Yes Mr. Webb is taking a negative combative position that makes female middies life more difficult. You can justly argue its compensatory. A more difficult mental challenge to make up for the reduced physical challenge.

Bottom line is a naval officer needs to be able shrug off name calling be they male or female

And his approach was wrong. He apparently believed that the military was no place for women. Andhis method of presenting that opinion was horribly flawed and extremely inflammatory.

Had he taken the position that "Sure, any female who can meet the exact same requirements of the male applicants can be accepted to the Academy," then we wouldn't be having this argument.

As to your particular points:

1. Any officer in the U.S. Millitary is in a position where they may be called on to make life and death decisions. This is not a trivial matter.
What does this have to do with being male or female? This is part of the job description and Anyone incapable of making those decisions, be they male or female, is not qualified for the position.

2. In purely economic positions, promoting people because they are members of groups that scream well isn't a good idea but can be fixed or at least have the damage ameliorated. Once someone dies because of a bad command decision there is no remedy.
While this affected when females were first permitted into the Academy, it has nothing to do with the position Webb took. Furthermore, it is not the basis upon which military promotions are predicated (that's done from how well you kiss A@@). So, again, your point has bearing on this thread.

Webb took the position that women are inherently untrustworthy, for whatever reason, and that women who have a desire to serve their nation are more motivated by their sexuality than a sense of duty. This is raw prejudice and unbecoming of a person with his position in the military. Period.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

"...has No bearing..."

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

When I read the article, I get the impression of a man who resents something that was shoved down his throat. You take away something else.

As to my points you are misinterperting them. An officer berth in the millitary is not a position where you can fix bad decisions, you have to bury them. If you are going to graduate people from the academy just because they are politicaly connected that will be bad for our millitary.

and if he were running against Senator Warner, I'd probably vote for him. Since it's Allen he's running against, I just can't...
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

It is only hypocrisy to condemn Webb for his silliness if you believe the same thing yourself. Has it occurred to you that
a) maybe Allen does not believe the same things as Webb
b) maybe Allen believes some of things Webb has said but finds the manner of expression offensive?

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

. . . there are tens of thousands of women (including a favorite aunt and a cousin of your truly) who have served and are serving honorably in our military. We wouldn’t tolerate such disrespectful comments made about “our boys” in the armed services. It seems to me that “our girls” deserve at least as much courtesy.

Let's get one thing straight, the only reason you are conscious right now is because Jack Bauer does not feel like carrying you.

After the combat that has been seen by mixed sex units already (can anyone say "Convoy ambush"?) questioning the effect of having women in combat next to men is as legitimate as questioning what the effect mixing Races might be in a combat situation.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

that mixed sex units are fine. I just don't think it is offensive to discuss the issue.

I question the wisdom of women in combat -- as does the military itself, as the practice is banned -- and I question the wisdom of women in the military at all. I am equal to a racist, then?

And the Lord upon the Golden Horn is laughing in the sun.

..."questioning the effect of having women in combat next to men is as legitimate as questioning what the effect mixing Races might be in a combat situation."

That has to be one of the most absurd, thoroughly leftwing ideas I've ever seen posted at this site. You think that the ambush of convoys and the resulting participation of a few women in combat situations means that the frontline infantry units of the Army and Marines should be opened to women? What about special forces? If your vision of the future military is one where such changes must be accepted, no questions asked, then we should all fear for the future.

And you should be careful in use of language so that its clear you are making the 'exception' case for women in combat; i.e. that the few women who actually could meet physical requirements should be able to join combat units. Otherwise, it almost sounds as if you are making the ludicrous argument that women, in general, are as capable and fit for combat roles as men. And no one in their right mind would make that argument.

It is about whether people have the aptitude, enthusiasm and physical capacity for the work. Only a minority of men qualify (and, if we are talking about special forces, a small minority). In both cases the number of women who qualify is even smaller.

But you do not seem to be saying that women who can and wish to perform in the role should be sent away for lack of a penis.

So what is the point of the discussion? To take the most obvious and clearly measurable instance, if a job required someone to be over six foot tall, it is fairly clear that the recruiting base would be mostly, but not entirely, male. But we wouldn't follow this with an angry discussion about whether women can be over six foot tall or not.

Furthermore, note that Webb has said women are unsuitable for command. That goes much wider than talking only about combat situations. I hope someone asks Hillary Clinton about this if she visits Virginia. If women are incapable of command, then no woman can ever be commander in chief.

It is well established that people who lack the physical capacity to serve in the military can still command. Ronald Reagan failed the physical because of his eyesight. FDR, pretty obviously, could never have been a frontline soldier.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

I'm not saying anything about command positions, at least the big one of Commander-in-Chief.

My main points in all of this are as follows; (1) If opposition to women in ground combat units has become unacceptable, then the conservative movement is pretty much bankrupt. I'm not saying that Allen holds this position -- in fact I'd be very surprised if he supports women in ground combat units -- but the sanctimonious tone of the attack on Webb certainly could lead one to think he does. (2) As to the question of women in combat itself; well, I defer to the experts, and I think they should be able to set policy free of political considerations and with no fear of their career being hurt for holding firm against the PC line.

I didn't serve, but I certainly have great respect for those who have and who do now -- men and women -- but my fear would be that if ground combat units were opened up for women, then it would ultimately prove impossible to limit to just the very few women who actually could meet the physical requirements. I think eventually that standard would either be lowered, or ignored. And even for those women who can, I wonder about how far it goes. I mean, just imagine a situation where one soldier is wounded and is unable to move. Would you want the soldier trying to drag or carry him to safety to be a man or woman? Marksmanship won't matter so much then, but pure, brute, physical strength would.

>>I'm not saying anything about command positions,at least the big one of Commander-in-Chief.

Maybe not, but Jim Webb IS. And Allen is right to attack him on it. I stand by my point that we should press him on how this applies to Commander-in-Chief. If Hillary goes to Virginia to raise funds for him, let's ask her if she endorses his position.

I don't see why attacking Jim Webb for saying things that you and I and George Allen (and presumably Hillary Clinton) all disagree with is a bad thing.

>>but my fear would be that if ground combat units were opened up for women, then it would ultimately prove impossible to limit to just the very few women who actually could meet the physical requirements.

I see no basis for your fears. It should be perfectly simple to apply the same tests to all people.

Furthermore, you may be surprised at how many women can meet the requirements. Male and female muscle is distributed differently. The difference is substantial in the arms and shoulders, but not elsewhere. (I agree that for a great many tests, arms & shoulders are critical, by the way.) The area of overlap - as for height - is huge. The fact that there is a difference in the average tells you nothing, of itself, about the distribution.

I should mention that I have not served either, and I therefore don't know what they physical requirements are. I will say that my wife - a professional dancer - stands more chance of meeting them than I do.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

You said:
"I see no basis for your fears. It should be perfectly simple to apply the same tests to all people."

For the same reasons that almost no employers really enforce Bona fide Occupational Qualifications (BFOQs) in the private and public sectors, the military isn't able to either.

First, it is extraordinarily expensive to validate BFOQs; there's always the very strong small person or the very fit but overweight person.

Second, if a discrimination claim goes to EEOC or to trial, it becomes a duel of expert witnesses, each paid to testify convincingly to their proponent's position. Then a trier of fact or a jury, knowing "jack" about the science, gets to decide which one told the best story.

The military just like the rest of the country will hire anybody who can meet the minimum qualifications and fog a mirror and hope for the best to avoid the political and legal fallout. The military moreso than most employers does have pretty objective tests to get from one level of endeavor to the next and people fall out based on not meeting those objective standards, but they'd have the same problems as any employer if the EEOC and Justice had a "celebrate diversity" point of view.

In Vino Veritas

And I would think that in the military it is often difficult to anticipate the issues that are likely to arise. Many jobs are much more predictable.

I just don't see how this is helped by *adding* an additional and irrelevant criterion: as well as having X strength, Y endurance, etc., you must also have a penis.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

to put women in combat. Now I know well how "old fashioned" or worse that sounds, but, dammit, we go to war for our hearths and homes, and I don't know why we risk the keeper of the hearth and home to do so. We've had about a half-century run of trying to repeal biology and history, but men and women remain very different creatures. I just see fightin' as "mans'work."

Now as troglodytic as that all sounded, I've spent my whole professional life working for and with women. In my later incarnations, I usually chose to hire women rather than men in a very stressful and contentious line of work; they worked harder and didn't have the delicate egos that the men usually evidenced. That said, I was sending them into contests where the only thing that could be damaged was the state treasury and their ego, not where they could be raped or killed.

I make no pretense of having much of a rational argument on this subject; I just rest on "it ain't right."

In Vino Veritas

1. I understand.
2. I disagree.
3. This pretty much exhausts the discussion, as the matter is not really open to rational debate on either side.

Quentin Langley
Editor of http://www.quentinlangley.net

"If they attack us, it means we're winning." - Rush Limbaugh

Poland's GROM special forces does accept women as did Soviet Spetsnaz.

If anything I have much less of a problem with women in Delta than I do with women in a rifle platoon.

Women in combat present problems. The most obvious are strength issues. While there are some women who can match and surpass some males in physical combat ability, the problem with the current adjusted APFT (physical tests) is the political correctness that adjusts womens score to be more "fair". Other issues exist too, like pregnancy, the disorder of romantic relationships in combat, and even a medic trying to ignore the screams of a woman patient while he tries to fight to a wounded male he has triaged as more imperative.

But I agree even more so with your comment on Delta (or select other spec ops units). Delta in particular uses operators in non traditional military roles that border more on intell and espionage at times. They can also be more selective than combat units as a whole. The professionalism and maturity of these operators to deal with issues listed in the first paragraph also assist your point. Thus the use of female Delta operators makes sense to me.

"Greater is an army of sheep led by a lion, than an army of lions led by a sheep" - Defoe

Personally responsible for driving the best and the brightest of his era out of the Navy as soon as they got command positions.
The man was a Wonder in every other facet of his career, but the moment he took over the job of ensuring the "safety" of our nuclear Navy, he went insane. He was Right, unfortunately, but Way over the top.

You maybe should spend some time around currently serving females. Many of them are Itching for combat positions these days. As a recruiter, I am constantly fending off questions about why women can'tbe infantry and what they can do instead that will be similar.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

Are you a Navy recruiter?

My Daughter got a medical discharge from the USAF after 4 full years of service for injuries to her spine suffered at the air base in Qatar during the 1st phase of the gulf war. She didn't much care for front line or rear echelon duty in a combat zone.

Sure there are women who want to be in the infantry. They should join the Marines.

Many more applicants have no idea what life in the infantry is like. I did 2 of my years as a Corpsman with Marine infantry, and though the experience was the defining one of my life, it was physically exhausting and extrememly painful,the exposure to the elements was unbelieveable, and at times plain terrifying. NO WAY would I want my daughter or grand-daughter in the infantry. (BTW I'm an Eagle Scout, and have loved being in the "toolies" all of my life.

Perhaps I'm just old school, but I don't see any place for women on combatant vessels, or commanding troops in the field, or being a troop in the field. God made us different from women, and there IS a reason for that.

I've read many of the articles and books on Rickover. When he verbally pinned my tail to the wall on that sub (I was only 21), I became enamored with this little man who carved his niche in the Navy. It's no small trick, and damn few have.

You're right about him though---He micromanaged the programs and personnel under his control like nobody every before or since. But if you were right, he'd back you to the President if necessary.

When the Officer I cussed out found the XO in the Sail, he was so pissed that he never even noticed Rickover there--as as small a man physically as he was, it was easy to do.

He explained to the XO what I'd done, and Rickover stepped in.
"I'm Admiral Rickover,Son"--he called everyone "son"--at at age 78 I guess he was entitled. Rickover knew what was wrong with the health records, and was one of the reasons he was on the boat.

He told the commander "you heard the man, get your ass off this G-D Boat, and I'll send you a letter telling you when you can come back and check those records". The Commander realized then I wouldn't be getting a Court Martial, but the experience of getting my butt chewed out by Rickover was one of the highlights of my career.

Even though he was known throughout the submarine community as a complete bastard, he could be quite charismatic. Probably why he, like Clinton, got away with the things he did.

the "Starship Troopers" scenario of co-ed personnel serving and showering together is something many of us aren't ready for. I guess I don't care if it happens because I'll be well past the age of eligibility when it does.

Hiring for any position really ought to be based on talent. "GI Jane" may or may not manifest as a real person in the SEALs or other special ops positions but there will always be plenty of capacities suitable women can serve in.

Some male cadets next time. you'll find similar conflicts with them. The particular female in question is most likely bucking for a Chaplaincy. Male soldiers who are often say the same thing.

"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself

The young woman we spoke to was interested in a religious order, not a chaplaincy. An anecdote I realize, but related to the overall reluctance of most, not all, women to participate in combat.

I think history speaks for itself, the lessons are there if one wishes to use them. Therefore I would place emphasis on the rest of the post if you find the anecdote unconvincing.

"a man's admiration for absolute government is proportinate to the contempt he feels for those around him". Tocqueville

The problem isn't how he feels about women or folks of other skin colors; it's how those thoughts connect to his most fervent supporters, and their policy preferences.

Just a thought.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

That people vote in ways contrary to their stated policy preferences isn't, either. Finally, settling for half a loaf, or even crumbs from the master's table, isn't unheard of either. Feminists carried the sexual-harrasser-in-chief's water for eight years, after all, and social conservatives provide money and votes for a GOP that then turns around and makes women in combat - a position it opposed when Clinton was in office - a litmus test of acceptability. Surely, we need not mention See Specter or Chaffee, either. This is just so much cynical game-playing, though I must admit to some dismay at seeing a Republican running to the left of a Democrat on an issue where the Democrat's stance is most likely the more popular.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

make that little to no* substance

let me just turn this around by asking...

do you find the thought of a young american man dying in combat to be any less horrible?

i'm all for forcing women to meet the same physical requirements as men, but there are plenty of women that are willing and able to join the military and do the job just as well as a man. all the comments in this thread that boil down to "protecting" women is just as condescending as the "racism of lowered expectations" that conservatives are always griping about.

to think of men dying in war than to think of young women fighting and being slain.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone who claims that globalization is a conservative process is either a liar or a fool. - James Kurth

do you find the thought of a young american man dying in combat to be any less horrible?

Yes. Women are more valuable back home, protected, and prized.

i'm all for forcing women to meet the same physical requirements as men, but there are plenty of women that are willing and able to join the military and do the job just as well as a man. all the comments in this thread that boil down to "protecting" women is just as condescending as the "racism of lowered expectations" that conservatives are always griping about.

No. (Pepper the following with "in general" and "on average":) Women are weaker, slower, and less predatory than men. They just are. Their brains are well-suited (better suited than men's) for certain tasks involving integration of feeling and logic, such as air traffic control, communications, teaching, and cooking. By the same token, jobs that require separation of emotion and reason are better for men, and in fact may be deadly for women to undertake.

Is there overlap, and are some women capable of combat? Probably. But the added overhead in making sure that they are allowed to do so is ludicrous for the miniscule gain it affords.

I think women are suited to command, but not to the infantry.

Charging "racism!" is very sloppy. There are physical differences between the sexes that are much deeper than the color of skin. It is just plain stupid to ignore those for the sole purpose of bowing to the idol of political correctness.

--
The Presidency is a position more easily critiqued than attained.

might be a good guide for where women ought to be assigned in military roles. They were perfectly happy to have women as pilots, even cosmonauts, anything women could succeed in and demonstrate for the world, but after the women's infantry experience in WWI ended in disaster (supposedly designed by the commanders to shame men into fighting better, despite the obvious risk they were taking), you never saw them in that role again.

Of course they always wanted to keep as many potential mothers as possible, too, because historically, most Soviet combat deployments were very costly.

...particularly the part about falling captive to Jihadis. The men the Islamakazes will summarily behead. The women, well, I don't want to think about what would happen to them.

And probably for the same reason that, for example, if Rosie O'Donnell called me a "dumb*ss redneck" to my face I'd walk away, whereas if Bill Maher did, one of us'd be gettin' hurt.

Aren't you supposed so run out of arguments first, then wave the "racist" card? Or did you have none to begin with?

"I find your lack of faith disturbing." -- Darth Vader