Let’s face it. The sole reason that women are now “approved” for possible service in combat units is career service, i.e. getting promoted. In other words, we want to jeopardize our nation’s security just so some woman in the military can feel good about herself. What a crock of horseshit!

The danger that this poses is ably described over at HotAir by a former female soldier who goes by the handle, SENTRY. Note, once you read the full piece, you will notice that she is making some of the points I previously emphasized:

I’m a female veteran. I deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.

We’re not just talking about watering down the standards to include the politically correct number of women into the unit. This isn’t an issue of “if a woman can meet the male standard, she should be able to go into combat.” The number of women that can meet the male standard will be miniscule–I’d have a decent shot according to my PFTs, but dragging a 190-pound man in full gear for 100 yards would DESTROY me–and that miniscule number that can physically make the grade AND has the desire to go into combat will be facing an impossible situation that will ruin the combat effectiveness of the unit. First, the close quarters of combat units make for a complete lack of privacy and EVERYTHING is exposed, to include intimate details of bodily functions. Second, until we succeed in completely reprogramming every man in the military to treat women just like men, those men are going to protect a woman at the expense of the mission. Third, women have physical limitations that no amount of training or conditioning can overcome. Fourth, until the media in this country is ready to treat a captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier just like a man, women will be targeted by the enemy without fail and without mercy.

I saw the male combat units when I was in Iraq. They go outside the wire for days at a time. They eat, sleep, urinate and defecate in front of each other and often while on the move. There’s no potty break on the side of the road outside the wire. They urinate into bottles and defecate into MRE bags. I would like to hear a suggestion as to how a woman is going to urinate successfully into a bottle while cramped into a humvee wearing full body armor. And she gets to accomplish this feat with the male members of her combat unit twenty inches away. Volunteers to do that job? Do the men really want to see it? Should they be forced to?

I encourage you to read the rest. Ms. Sentry knows her subject matter and, more importantly, understands the broader strategic issues at risk. Too bad those clowns–Obama, Panetta and General Dempsey–who backed this new policy don’t have the common sense of Sentry.

Previous articleThe Keystone Pipeline Project (open thread)
Next articleMarco Rubio, Lightweight Poser
Larry C. Johnson is a former analyst at the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency, who moved subsequently in 1989 to the U.S. Department of State, where he served four years as the deputy director for transportation security, antiterrorism assistance training, and special operations in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. He left government service in October 1993 and set up a consulting business. He currently is the co-owner and CEO of BERG Associates, LLC (Business Exposure Reduction Group) and is an expert in the fields of terrorism, aviation security, and crisis and risk management, and money laundering investigations. Johnson is the founder and main author of No Quarter, a weblog that addresses issues of terrorism and intelligence and politics. NoQuarterUSA was nominated as Best Political Blog of 2008.
  • Judith Wright

    Tell this woman she cannot be a combat solider because of her personal hygiene, personal matters and physical strength. She just might blow your friggin head off.

    • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

      You are so full of shit. You have no experience whatsoever. Women should not be frontline combat infantry. They lack the physical strength and their sexual differences cannot be accommodated.

    • Tongabonga

      A picture of a woman in combats is not a woman in combat.

    • Kevin Trillo

      haha yeah there are no pictures in combat especially stand at the business end of the rifle, unless of course you’re the enemy and im guessing if the enemy is that close she wouldn’t be looking down her sights

  • Judith Wright

    Yeah.. women cannot meet the physical standard. My ass… Check it out. These women could run circles around Larry Johnson with a fellow solider in a “fireman carry”.


    These women could run circles around Larry Johnson with a fellow solider in a “fireman carry”.

  • shelldoll2




    may not have to worry about women in combat. Marines to cut over 20,000 combat forces over the next few years

  • JohnnyTwoDog

    HelenK2 – Thanks for the link to this. I needed the good laugh.

    • HELENK2

      you are welcome

  • JohnnyTwoDog

    It can’t be better stated than that.
    There are many places where women can excel in the military. Combat infantry is not one of them.

  • MG6
  • Retired_from_SPOnaj

    Regarding troll feeding, trolls are in it to attract the attention that they cannot attract in real life, at least not without getting their asses physically whipped. Their method for doing this is to antagonize. The more that they are answered (i.e., paid attention to), the more it feeds their need for attention, and the more that they will respond with answers designed to inflame emotion. Trolls live to attract attention by pissing people off, not to have rational dialog. If you want to be overrun by ants, you pour out some sugar at the first sign of an ant. Same with trolls.

  • Hokma

    One thought about women in combat, what about separate units? There are women who can meet current standards although of course not in the same percentage as men. But if issues like personal hygiene or other personal matters are of a concern, then why not have separate units? Just a thought.

    • Retired_from_SPOnaj

      The Marines tried it, it didn’t work. Female units became typecast as nonhackers, just as black fighter squadrons initially were in WWII until they were actually put into real combat and allowed to show their mettle. Equal must be equal, and if you are up to the task, great. If not, gear must be packed.

      • Hokma

        I just hope we don’t have any more wars to “test” this experiment out.

    • Judith Wright

      “issues like personal hygiene or other personal matters”

      That is a funny statement. Those are big issues for women in combat? Really? Says who? Do women say that?

      • Hokma

        Read the article LJ refers to dimwit.

        • Guest


        • Judith Wright

          Why are you a jew-hater and so anti-Isreal and anti-IDF?

          • Hokma

            1. I am Jewish

            2. I am very pro-Israel

            3. You are a Nazi jew hating bastard who does not have the guts to come out from behind your fakes names and meet in person. Do you scottymac?

            Drop dead and I mean that in a literal sense.

            • Guest

              Wow, talk about a creepy stalker, you’re off your rocker you neo-Zionist scumbag!

              • Hokma

                Ask you parents what an internet forensic investigator is? You and I will be meeting soon. Keep in touch.

                • Guest

                  The only thing you’ll be meeting is a fresh pair of handcuffs lunatic stalker.

                  • Hokma

                    I don’t think so. He is a formal Justice Department federal investigator rufus. But we will be able to expose who you actually are. Keep in touch (and keep that thread fresh).



    It is starting. clinton backers launch ready for hillary super pac.

    not this time for me. This was a lady like many democrats that I
    wanted to be president. I made the phone calls and contributed to her campaign. I even could understand when she went to work for backtrack. I did not like it, but could understand it. The lying and the cover up of Benghazi was the last straw for me. It does make a difference

    • Hokma

      Hillary is counting on the public not finally recognizing that Obama is a failure and that is not likely to happen. I think for her it is “what if” and she may likely at 68 not opt to go for it if the political climate is not favorable.

      I will say this about her. She has Obama around her finger. There is no love loss between the Clintons and the Obamas. Every time during the inaugural when Barack and Bill met up, Bill was all smiles and Obama had a frown and glare.

      This Benghazi affair was all political and the shots were called by the political consultants in order to preserve the campaign narrative. I will bet that Hillary saw the memos asking for more security and it was Obama who said “no.” I will bet that Hillary and Panetta wanted to save these people and it was Obama who said “no.” I will bet that it was not Hillary’s idea for the cover up (why she refused to go on the Sunday talk shows). And I will bet that Hillary sold her silence on the entire affair in exchange for Obama essentially endorsing her candidacy starting with that 60 Minutes segment.

      Unfortunately for Hillary, there are too many people involved in this for it to hold together for much longer. But she is cunningly good.

      • getfitnow

        People may like her at State. At least they were swooning when she took the job. But her record as top diplomat has been a disaster. Anyone considering voting for her should really wonder about her ability to govern. Seriously, this country needs a real chief executive. I’m sick of the idealogues.

        • Hokma

          Oh I am certain she will not win if she decides to run. I am just enjoying how she played Obama which has to be bothering the hell out of him.

      • stodghie

        hokma i can no longer agree that hillary is cunningly good. i have found her to be nothing more than a dismal failuare. the fact s

        • Hokma

          Cunningly good at being a devious power player is what I meant. Her record at State is at best mediocre..

          • stodghie

            thanks hokma

        • HELENK2


          picture says a lot about Hilary at state dept

          • Lemuel Vargas

            Think the dems will be stabbing Hillary in the back again if she ever contemplates running in 2016 if they could find a suitable candidate which is just like they did in 2008. Methinks the dems stabbed her in the back then.
            And because we are on the off topic of viable female candidates, has anyone of you ever considered Sarah Palin as a candidate?
            And pls. do not go tell a Big Lie that she is dumb because by the fact that she became Governor of Alaska would preclude that fact.
            Also this other Big Lie that she is just in this for the money has been burst by the fact that she resigned her position at the Alaska Oil Commission which has a cushy $122, 400 as Salary. And she just recently declined to renew her contract with Fox as a political commentator.

    • nickoury

      I find it hard to believe it took you until January 2013 to reach that conclusion.

    • Hokma

      Obama has zero clout in Israel or anywhere. Wait till Bibi creates this new coalition with moderates. Then Obama will have nowhere to go.

      Obama should focus more on Iran because as Iran goes so goes.a Palestinian state.


    U.S. Air Force confirms contact lost with Italy-based F-16 fighter jet, status of pilot “unknown.” #BREAKING

    are we flying them over Syria or Mali??


    off topic


    backtrack bunch repositioning homeland security ammunition containers .
    lets take guns and ammo from citizens and we will have the guns and ammo to control them??????

  • Judith Wright

    “For the women who did sign up and ended up fighting in Afghanistan, many found the experience rewarding. As part of a two-person, heavy machine-gun team, Infantry Cpl. Katie Hodges regularly carried 80 pounds of equipment, including 220 rounds of ammunition, and sometimes went out on patrol for up to four days in a stretch. “It was great,” she said.”

    “Canadian commanders have said women fighters perform as well as their male counterparts.”


    “The few women that are attracted by the infantry and cavalry do a great job in the Norwegian Army,” says Col. Ingrid Gjerde, an infantry officer in the Norwegian military for 25 years.

    “I have to be clear: You have to meet the physical standards, because the job is still the same. It works very well as long as women hold the standards,” added Colonel Gjerde, who was the commander of Norwegian forces in Afghanistan in 2012. “It’s not a big deal because women who go into these fields know the standards, and it’s not that hard for women to train up to the standards if they really want.”

    No different than being a female firefighter. The problems are not with the women, but with the male soldiers and guys like you.

    “A study on the integration of female combatants in the IDF between 2002 and 2005 found that women often exhibit “superior skills” in discipline, motivation, and shooting abilities, yet still face prejudicial treatment stemming from “a perceived threat to the historical male combat identity.””

    • stodghie

      the problem lies with unrealistic people like you who are not in touch with reality and think name calling takes the place of common sense

      • Judith Wright

        Where exactly is the name calling? A funny response from a regular on NQ.

        • stodghie

          “You are so full of shit.” here is a comment you made judith to someone here at nq. you are attempting to indicate there is no issue with women in combat. jmo i don’t think you are in touch with reality on this issue. so you cut and paste what others say instead of marshalling your own views. i can step back and see the issues for women in combat. it endangers them and the men beside them in ways that are not necessary. it is not a rational idea. to put lives in danger for false idealogical mindsets says stupid to me.

          • Judith Wright

            That is not name calling. That is telling someone they do not know what they are talking about. Not sure if you get the difference.

            “you are attempting to indicate there is no issue with women in combat”

            There are issues with both males and females in combat. There is plenty of evidence around the world the women can be very effective combat troops, even in the infantry, and can at times be more effective than male combat troops. So very interesting watching all you NQ regulars just fall in line behind Larry Johnson.

            “instead of marshalling your own views.”

            That is funny. I am not expressing my own views? Really? I thought you just said my view was that “you are attempting to indicate there is no issue with women in combat”.

            “it endangers them and the men beside them in ways that are not necessary.”

            There is no actual proof of that. Can you present some other than Larry Johnson’s superficial comments. Same argument people make about gays in the military, which is completely BS.

            • Hokma

              You are too lazy to get the right facts about the IDF, so don’t pretend you know anything.

            • stodghie

              boring! i find people who release a lot of hot air and no smarts boring! next!

            • JohnnyTwoDog

              From the same article:
              “But the country’s efforts for combat-zone equality have hit other obstacles. For years, Canada has found it difficult to fill combat roles with women in the first place. Women account for about 14% of all military positions in the Canadian Forces but just 2.4% of combat jobs, according to government data.”

              In Canada, or at least this WSJ piece, it is not about being able to perform. It is about Affirmative Action.

              I truly doubt that 2.4% of women are equal to the physical tasks that men are in combat infantry. It is likely far less than 1%.

              If women were physically equal to the men’s physical game they would already be doing it in college and especially Pro Sports.

              The few outstanding women that have tried have not been physically up to the task. Show me some female pro running backs or line backers, or even a db or qb or wr, baseball player or pro golfer that compete evenly on the same field as men. If women could excel, or even hold their own someone would already be paying them and making a profit from it.

              As for gays in the military, I knew some dudes who were more than capable. They may have been gay but they still had the testosterone.

              • Judith Wright

                Physical strength is only one attribute to being a good and effective combat solider as the Israeli IDF study points out. Sure there are not many women that are as strong as men, but that is not the only thing that matters.

                Your comparisons to football athelets is puzzling. So all male soldiers have the physical attributes of college or pro football players? Ridiculous. Have you seen many average male combat soliders? Many are not what I would call prime physical specimens.

                “As for gays in the military, I knew some dudes who were more than capable. They may have been gay but they still had the testosterone.”
                You have a warped sense of gay people and human beings. Gays are no different than anyone else. You seem to be implying they can be physically different.

                • JohnnyTwoDog

                  “Gays are no different than anyone else.”

                  Very true. Some are flamers, effeminate, idiots, and assholes. And some I would have no problem covering my back (or ass) on the battlefield. Or anywhere else.

    • HARP2

      The Canadian Forces recognizes that because men’s and women’s physical
      strengths are different, they should be tested to different standards.


      • Judith Wright

        What is your point? Does that make them worst combat soliders? According to Canadian commanders women combat soldiers have performed just as well as male combat soliders.

        • HARP2

          You are giving dim wits a good name.
          Let me give you a choice. Your child needs brain surgery to save her life.
          You have a choice between one doctor that is considered the best in that field or you can have this other one that got their license with lesser test standards.

          Take your time answering…..I`ll wait.

          • marvgoux1

            But Judith would feel better picking the affirmative action doctor and that’s what counts!

            • Judith Wright

              If a woman can meet the physical standard she should be entitled to be a combat trooper. Sorry if people like yourself have a problem with strong women.

              • marvgoux1

                And if a woman can meet the physical standards she can play for the NBA, MLB or NFL. I wonder why that hasn’t happened?

          • Judith Wright

            So all male combat soldiers are considered the best in their field and are better then all female combat soliders. You need your own brain examined. Your logic makes no sense.

        • stodghie

          canada hasn’t been in a war situaiton since women were put in combat mode. duh

          • Judith Wright

            Where do you get your information? Canada has done some of the heaviest fighting in Afghanistan where women combat troops have died and Canada as a whole has had a higher per capita casaulty rate than any other country (including the U.S. and the U.K.). Canadian woman combat soliders have also been involved in combat roles in many peace keeping missions like Bosnia since women could be in combat roles starting in 1989. Duh..

            • stodghie

              look above dumbo!

              • shelldoll2

                Oh come on stoghie! It’s all or none. My grandmother taught me that’s crap. All or none people are dangerous. If life were that simple we all would get what we wanted. Life is series of choices. Some you want to make. There are others you wish you didn’t have to. Those who think they have all of the answers are the most dangerous of all.

                See: All men are like______ (fill in the blank).
                All women are like_____(fill in the blank)
                All of those people are like_______(fill in the ethnic group)

                Looking at the facts and gaining knowledge is dangerous to some.. Looking at what is? That’s the betterment of the human condition. Working for what’s better? Useful. Ideological blindness? That’s just sad.

                • stodghie

                  well shell sarcasm looks pathetic on you. you are the sad one. i feel pity for anyone who uses idealogical blindness. next

                • stodghie

                  women serve in combat related jobs for the most part that are labeled combat troops. i have looked at this very carefully and i find your views bizarre and stupid coupled with a strong desire to impose your view of who and what women should be on us which most of us reject. get over yourself. women are not capable of serving along side the majority of troops and it will, never be an even steven stiuation utopia as you dream in your far left nightmares.

                  women aren’t big enough and have other issues being women who can be raped, have periods and get pregnant. so deal with reality and stop showing your backside. you are boring and have done a poor job representing women. many of us are feminists and know the good and bad about being women in this society.

                  this was my comment shell i told judith to look at. sorry you think it is just sad.

    • Hokma

      The IDF have had women in combat for years but not in all roles. They recognize that their enemy may either not have a copy of the Geneva Convention or possibly has not read it. Whatever the case their concern is that if a female combatant is captured that she could be subjected to sexual assault and rape. So they do not allow women to be in those roles.

      • Judith Wright

        What roles does the IDF not let women in? Do you even know or are you just making that up?

        • Hokma

          Find out for yourself wiseguy. There have been articles written on it. Not hard to find.

          • Judith Wright

            Just as I thought. As usual you got zero. Crickets…! You brought it up, so why don’t you tell us which roles in the IDF are not open to women? Don’t you get tired of constantly being taken to the woodshed.

            • Hokma

              You know you are a friggin moron and lazy. Get lost idiot. This isn’t a game show moron. Or better yet go practice you google searching or Wiking off in the basement.

              • Guest

                We are gonna take screen shots and tell on you for your stalking.

        • HARP2

          92% of positions in the IDF are available for female soldiers

        • http://noquarterusa.net Larry Johnson

          Women are not allowed to command frontline combat infantry and armor units. Next.

          • Judith Wright

            So it is only command? Kind of ruins your argument if they are allowed to be all other combat roles, particularly if your only argument is that women do not have the physical ability to be combat troops. Women have commanded frontline combat infantry units in other armies (like Norway in Afghanistan) to great effect.

            • stodghie

              New Zealand lifted all restrictions on women serving in the military — including infantry units — in January 2000. But spokeswoman Kirsty Taylor-Doig said no woman has ever passed the rigorous selection criteria to join the elite special operations service, which performed with distinction in Afghanistan

              Canada considers itself a pioneer in opening military ranks to women, allowing female soldiers to serve in combat jobs in 1989. Nearly a generation later, women hold about 14 percent of all active duty positions in the Canadian military but only 2.4 percent of the combat slots. At least three Canadian women soldiers have been killed in Afghanistan, two by roadside bombs and one in a firefight.

    • NellieS


      The issues regarding combat for women as a generic group are worrisome, and the arguments outlined bear careful consideration.

      More than that, there are the condition of our men under stress in combat zones. Many of them if you read the military blogs, get through hair raising scenarios by thinking of wives and children back home. Putting woman beside these same men in combat is asking them to have more self restraint than some DAMN saint.

      So unless you’re the “male half” of a gay couple, then I strongly believe you should be front and center volunteering YOUR own hide, and let us know how its going after say 6 months in a combat zone. If your not willing to put your own life on the line for your precious distorted social engineeriing beliefs, you have no DAMNED business demanding like some 10 year old brat that others do it for you.

      • Judith Wright

        So women cannot serve in combat roles because their male counter-parts think about their loved ones back home? A lot of thin arguments here, including those made by Larry Johnson.

        • shelldoll2

          I am retired military. Also a female. You have no idea what it’s like. There is nothing I would not do to back up (and I have) My female or male counterparts.

          Bottom line. We can get pregnant. Males can’t. Female reporters and females in combat have been raped in combat situations. Does it never happen to males? No. But we females are a high risk group. Imagine how a group/squad/battalion of males would feel heard their female counterparts captured and repeatedly attacked? Would they do nothing? Hell no.

          There are situations where gender makes a difference. BTW who has the body parts that bless us to give birth? Females.Those who point to the IDF don’t know what happens to those women when captured. We ain’t askin’ and the IDF ain’t telling

          In a perfect world and a fair world we would not even have to question. But the world ain’t perfect and it ain’t always fair.

          Women are not weaker. We give birth both to both genders. But neither are we invincible. Especially in combat or capture. We are human just as the rest of our species. Do not imbue us with superpowers. Being female doesn’t stop a bullet, an IED, or torture.

          We are the mothers, grandmothers, sisters, and aunts that provide the life and birth to future generations. That’s the deal and I rejoice in it.

          • Judith Wright

            Pregnant? So they take a leave of absence. No problem. Or don’t get pregnant while you are on the job. That is not an issue. No different than any other job or role in society.

            Rape? That applies to all military roles, whether they be combat or non-combat roles. Are you suggesting that women should not be in the miliary at all because they might get raped by their fellow soldiers? Bullshit. How about get rid of the threat of rape, which is against the law, so women in all parts of the military have nothing to fear. That is a very weak argument why women should not be in combat roles.

            Body parts? If a female or male is captured by the wrong enemy they are equally at risk of physical harm. Doesn’t matter what body parts they have. Another extremely weak argument.

            You seem very dismissive of our courageous and strong women who can be as good a combat solider as their male counterparts. Not all women like not all men are ideal for combat. However, there are plenty of women who could probably do a better job than their male counterparts. And they do in various militaries across the world. There is absolutely no evidence that females cannot perform in combat as well as their male counter parts. Just a lot of weak arguments by dead-enders like Larry Johnson who cannot stand that fact that we can equally have female warriors. I would expect more from you ShellDoll. It is ok to disagree with LJ. Get out of the NQ bubble.

            • Cody

              You’re arguements are so weak. Do you understand that when a woman gets pregnant before she is about to go on tour for 6-12 months, that platoon she is in loses a valuable role. Lets see you have 5 woman in a platoon 2 get pregnant. Infantry unlike most “Regular” jobs can not be in combat until they are about ready to pop. Most other jobs a woman can work until a day before her due date. Secondly What about your platoon? What do they do, assuming they can get past having a woman in their platoon in the first place. One thing about the training before you deploy is to build a trust and a bond with each other. Now you don’t have that throughout the whole platoon.

              With the Rape, how will the American public handle that? It will be completely blown out of proportion the dumb asses on the major networks, honestly if that happened i would not be surprised one bit that after that first death or rape of a female they will just stop allowing woman into infantry roles.

              Body Parts, doesn’t matter if you’re captured you are most likely dead either way. The problem with Female body parts is the convenience. Is the whole Squad just suppose to stop moving every time a woman has to take a piss so she doesn’t get left behind?

              Combat is extremely stressful as is, many men would not feel comftorable when the only thing keeping them from being killed is a woman with a gun or without a gun. Much of the combat today is close combat. I don’t even want to hear any bullshit about a woman being able to fend for themselves when they have to rely on hand to hand fighting.

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVntKk_QSUs Phaerisee

    On the lighter side of it, they could probably have a new military version of Maury and many Baby Daddy situations.

  • bbf

    Common Dreams article for me..says it best!!


    Why Serving In Combat Does Not Serve Women (Or Anyone Else) Well

    It is also hugely ironic that Panetta’s announcement came the same day that Congress was holding yet another hearing on the intractable problem of sexual assault in the military. The truth is that women are more likely to be attacked by other members of our military than by any enemy. The New York Times’ Gail Collins makes the unfortunate suggestion that having more women rise in the ranks might, make things better because it will mean more women at the top
    of the military, and that, inevitably, will mean more attention
    to women’s issues.

    Sexual assault in the military is not a woman’s issue.
    It is an epidemic and a national disgrace that is a direct
    result of the misguided notion of militarism that posits that
    strength comes from asserting power over others.
    Militarism has never been good for women because, among other reasons, it places them in harms way by armies that rape and assault women as a de facto military strategy and because women are more likely to become refugees, unable to support themselves or take care of their families and placing them in further danger of physical and sexual attack.

    If the purpose of the military was truly to defend the citizens
    of this country and make it strong, they would be protecting women from violence in their own ranks and in every city in this country. They would be building up our shorelines to protect us from the inevitable further flooding of climate change. They would be re-building our tattered roads and utilities and installing solar panels so that we do not depend on non-renewable resources (of which incidentally they are one of the biggest users).

    But instead, our military serves as the global bully, taking
    swings at whomever we don’t like at at any particular moment, with little heed to the negative impact that has on us all. And every time there is a war, civilian women who live where the war is being fought are victimized. And here at home more money is poured into the military while social services, education and health care are desperately underfunded and for poor women and women of color we perpetuate the cycle that propels them to join the military for reasons such as getting an education and job training.

  • getfitnow

    What she said about height is basic. I worked for the airlines for many years. There is a height requirement. Most emergency equipment is stowed in upper level compartments.

  • DianaLC


    Thanks for passing this letter from Sentry along.

    First, as a mother of boys, I thank you and her for speaking up about this issue. My two sons are now past the age of military service. But my grandson is not. So I speak for the grandmothers and mothers of boys who may someday be asked to serve in the infantry with young women. (And it’s more than likely that mothers and grandmothers of young girls are also thanking people like you and Sentry for speaking up.) Though, while growing up in a farming community, I knew some girls who could beat the snot out of many of the boys on the playground, we fool ourselves if we think that is the same thing as fighting in an infantry during an actual war.

    Secondly, we need to understand that this whole move is about avoiding the issue of the economy. It IS about career service because many women have recently chosen to join the military because they need to make a living somehow in a terrible economy. Now they want to stay and retire. The O administration just wants to avoid that topic so finds these politically correct ways to avoid it and to continue to have the support of those dippy women who do support him.

    Give those women a chance to make a good living a different way, and I believe many will choose something other than the military. Rosie the Riveter could indeed do what she was called upon to do (as did O’s grandmother) but she was provided a factory restroom and was not having to push her body to a point that was impossible for her to manage.
    Finally, I know the problems that a draft caused in the Vietnam undeclared war–e.g., the fragging of oficers by young men who did not want to be there, etc., the burned draft cards, and so on and so forth. But if they decide really to put young women into these sorts of positions, then bring back the draft. We’ll see how long that decision stands.

    • getfitnow

      The O administration just wants to avoid that topic so finds these
      politically correct ways to avoid it and to continue to have the support
      of those dippy women who do support him.
      But if he had a son, he probably wouldn’t want him to play football.

      • foxyladi14


        • getfitnow

          I should have added “that looks like Treyvon.”‘/s

  • KenoshaMarge

    I am amazed at the type of mind that promotes sending women into combat yet take umbrage when a female, excuse me, when a liberal female politician is asked tough questions.

    Sentry, it seems to me, knows more about the subject than all the talking heads and hyperbolic libs who insist on pushing an opinion made from ideology not common sense or facts.

    The military is there to protect this country not provide a “career” for anyone. Have men used it for just that? Absolutely! Does that make it right? Waddayathink?

    When the first female soldier is found raped and mutilated I hope that these idiots are punished for running their mouths while their brains remain disengaged.

    • getfitnow

      If you live long enough–hear and see enough, it’s amazing with who you agree. I speak for myself here, of course.

      “Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder” – Michael Savage.

      • KenoshaMarge

        I am often amazed these days to find myself in agreement with people whom I once regarded with loathing.

        And loathing people I once thought were worth while human beings.

      • foxyladi14

        really, really sad

  • Lemuel Vargas

    Yes. and her concern about a “captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier ” is a real possibllity. Such a dumb move just for political correctness..

    • getfitnow

      Ideology trumps everything as far as these fools are concerned.

    • sowsear1

      a “captured/raped/tortured/mutilated female soldier ” is a real possibllity.
      Not that I am going for women in the infantry, but all of the above also apply to men who are captured. (Most lately, Benghazi Four)

  • Retired_from_SPOnaj

    Have any of the politicians in favor of this, including those wearing uniforms, made the case that women in combat arms will improve the combat performance of our armed forces? If not, why not?

    • DianaLC

      Again, the only important consideration.

  • buckeyeman

    ‘Sentry’ makes a very compelling argument.

    • getfitnow

      Meeting standards on the drill/training field is a hell of a lot different than being in combat and Sentry knows the difference.

  • HARP2

    Of course these idiots that think this shit up will never be stuck in a Humvee while a woman has to practice feminine hygiene.

    • buzzlatte3

      My thoughts exactly. “Excuse Mr. Enemy, please don’t shoot while I run for the bushes or sand dune.” This whole deal is again a liberal ploy to say, see we’re the party that hands out the rewards. Pppffffftttt!

    • getfitnow

      Or, what happens when females become pregnant and “unfit” for duty?

      What does that do to unit cohesion and staffing levels?

  • binky354

    I sure agree with you, Larry. And if the woman happens to be pregnant? Release her from combat duty? Stupid politicians!