Much has been written and commented upon regarding the ‘role’ or suitability of women in the combat arms. As it is, nothing will halt the current wheels of change, however, much can be learned from mistakes of this current era in the resulting years forward. Because yes, there is a tomorrow and yes, we should be better prepared for it.
Before answering the question on its face we have to understand the underlying logic. One should inherently question the sanity of a nation which willingly throws its daughters away. But it is not through that lens which those advocating change view the world. Rather, their logic results from Marx and specifically the roots of Feminism: to Marx, a family’s lone purpose was to replicate labor and interpreted in militant terms, more soldiers to serve at the leisure of an empire and on the authority of Capitalist-class Aristocrats. And thus, the liberation of women by undervaluing the role of the mother becomes logical. Why be a mother to your people when you can be anything else?
In Marxist-based social systems, women combatants are perfectly acceptable. The Soviets made use of this, the Spanish Republicans made effective use of female fighters and romanticized in Hemingway’s “For Whom the Bell Tolls”, and most recently the Kurdish YPG with their all-women’s units. But there’s the rub. The units are segregated and not accidentally so. Hemingway made a central plot device of the friction between the guerrilla band, Maria, and proto-AntiFa hero academic Robert Jordan. The Soviets only utilized women fighters in sheer desperation and post-WWII, quickly abandoned the concept. For all their lunacy on their face, the Marxists do indeed have long memories, and in spite of themselves also recognize human nature. Integrated units between women and men don’t work so well. Never have, never will.
I recall my days as a young soldier hitting the bars spreading toxic masculinity. Came up on a very good looking girl, obviously an athlete, and struck up a conversation. It quickly turned from a playful whiskey-filled banter into a contest for her to prove she was a better soldier than I was, which ended in a yawn and me moving on to the next brunette wearing cowboy boots. She was as little over-eager to be right and I was a little too bored with her to care. No CIB on the bedpost for you tonight, sister. A paper pusher who can score 340 on a PT test is fine, but throw a ruck on that back and walk 12 miles for time…and, it is what it is. She hadn’t done a 12 miler for time, literally ever. Physiology takes over. And this is a fact that cannot be denied, lest one be a science-denier. No matter how many prestigious schools you ram the top .25% of female applicants through, they’ll still physically underperform all of the other men, 100% of the time. In a line of work that hinges on one’s physical ability, this is a non-starter to anyone invested in saving their own skin.
But the physical issues are not reason for the proliferation of women in these roles. Not hardly. Back when the question was openly gay soldiers serving, many conversations were had among us (among a broad range of other issues as well…it was the Obama years) about the real agenda. The US Army, and in particular, the Combat Arms and Special Operations, at that time was made of a rough lot. Guys you wouldn’t want in a spit and polish Garrison Army but were pure hell overseas. Most who had to be waivered in just to enlist and you loved them for it. Every night in the barracks was like a real-life Trailer Park Boys episode. These are the people you want as a nation’s killers. The problem was what happens when its no longer favorable for them to be killers- and when your nation is taken over by people no longer concerned with winning, those people have no place.
Thus, the zero tolerance policies. One DUI? Well stud, you’re RFS’d. Drug or alcohol problems? Same. And don’t ask for help, either. That’s weakness. And we punish the weak. But we also punish the over-masculine, too. Expect female soldiers to live up to their standard? Oh no…no, punish them, or even talk to them, the same way you would a male who can’t perform and now you’re branded a toxic leader. And this person’s (can’t say this man’s, anymore) Army won’t tolerate it. Its unprofessional and your subordinates can march right down to the political compliance officer (Equal Opportunity) and file a complaint, ensuring your career now comes to a halt. Or better yet, they don’t even have to do that today- they can take to social media and cry about it even after your chain of command deemed the complaints unwarranted. We used to call this conduct unbecoming and discrediting the service, but the UCMJ is an archaic institution obviously needing an overhaul. To be more reflective of the current realities and challenges, you know. In an era where all accusers must be believed, this does wonders for military readiness. After all, its time for this all-men’s club to be broken up. They’ve got a monopoly on on all the blingy cool-person badges.
Our lessons yet to be learned are those already documented elsewhere. That’s not the point. Long being the goal of the Left since at least 1946 has been the undermining of the US military. The American Marxists have understood that America’s strength and pride in nation hinges upon its military might, reflective of its Capitalist strength and ability to project force. But in the post-Cold War era where the Marxist in public view could safely be re-branded as a populist Democrat, military readiness has taken a backseat to social experimentation. After all, political liability is greatly mitigated by the drone strike murder strategy. It limits the bad optics of American spilt blood and makes the military industrial complex happy. Until the day it doesn’t. But in the era of the normalization of insanity, the goal of admitting women into the elite institutions of the US military wholesale is a standalone effort to emasculate and deter those same hard men from service. That is the real goal. And as one who saw the writing on the wall early on, many of us who came to that conclusion left, taking our skills with us.
Those rough men standing ready to do violence are newly minted, not-so-civil civilians these days. We took our knowledge and skills with us and the desire is still there, embittered by a nation openly murdered and willingly sold out by its own military leadership. Dwell on that one.
We do. And we ain’t a happy lot.
The United States has an Army that cannot fight, beleaguered by those unfit for their roles pressed into positions they neither are qualified for nor deserve. So be it. You couldn’t defeat Afghanistan with the best, you won’t put down the insurrection with the rest.