by: Bob Unruh
It seems that the old military song “The Army Goes Rolling Along” may need some revisions. Especially where it says, “We’ll fight with all our might, as the Army keeps rolling along.”
That’s because of the military’s new move to open up previously closed job assignments, such as infantry, to women, according to the nonpartisan Center for Military Readiness.
The move was launched in February when Defense Department officials Vee Penrod and Army Maj. Gen. Gary Patton eliminated some rules regarding women soldiers. They promised at the time that assignments for women in or near direct ground combat would be “only the beginning,” the organization noted.
The move was affirmed yesterday when Chief of Staff of the Army Gen. Raymond Odierno spoke with reporters.
“This is a progressive way forward,” he said. ” … We’re opening up the occupational specialties that currently women serve in, down to infantry and armor battalions. And we will run this for several months. And my guess is, based on my experience in Iraq and what I’ve seen in Afghanistan, we’ll then move forward with a more permanent solution inside of the Army probably sometime this fall.”
The CRM statement released by its director, Elaine Donnelly, explained the situation this way: “The National Football League does not pursue ‘diversity’ by training female players for non-lethal combat on the gridiron. Even the best female athletes would not survive the grueling training and punishing clashes against aggressive male opponents. Social experiments that override recognition of individual merit are not acceptable in pro football. Every team wants to win the Super Bowl.”
But in the case of the U.S. military, women now are being invited “to train for infantry battalions that engage in lethal ground combat – violent conflicts in which lives and missions are at risk. The stated motive is not to improve combat readiness, it is ‘diversity’ and ‘equal opportunities for women to excel.’”
Odierno said just this week “more than 200 women began reporting to the maneuver battalions in nine of our brigade combat teams, selected to participate in the exception to the direct ground combat assignment rule.”
He said other rules were rescinded to open up “six military occupational specialties and 80 units, more than 13,000 positions to women, opening up new opportunities to our female soldiers.”
But a report posted by the National Health Institute cites studies showing that women are “approximately 52 percent and 66 percent as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass.”
So where are the military benefits to having someone physically less strong being put in a position of carrying an injured soldier, hefting a 70-plus pound pack and fighting a pitched firefight at the end of a days-long trek?
CMR has said the Pentagon’s policy “is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.”
“Instead of putting the needs of the military first, the Defense Department is taking incremental steps to implement the deeply flawed recommendations of the Military Diversity Leadership Commission,” CMR said.
Its report, “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century,” comes not from battle-scarred veterans but from “civilian military ‘equal opportunity’ professionals who assign priority to ‘diversity,’ not military effectiveness,” CMR said.
The recommendations concede “diversity” is not about “treating everyone the same,” but instead its focus is on “inclusion.”
read more: http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/army-letting-diversity-trump-winning-wars/
It seems that the old military song “The Army Goes Rolling Along” may need some revisions. Especially where it says, “We’ll fight with all our might, as the Army keeps rolling along.”
That’s because of the military’s new move to open up previously closed job assignments, such as infantry, to women, according to the nonpartisan Center for Military Readiness.
The move was launched in February when Defense Department officials Vee Penrod and Army Maj. Gen. Gary Patton eliminated some rules regarding women soldiers. They promised at the time that assignments for women in or near direct ground combat would be “only the beginning,” the organization noted.
“This is a progressive way forward,” he said. ” … We’re opening up the occupational specialties that currently women serve in, down to infantry and armor battalions. And we will run this for several months. And my guess is, based on my experience in Iraq and what I’ve seen in Afghanistan, we’ll then move forward with a more permanent solution inside of the Army probably sometime this fall.”
The CRM statement released by its director, Elaine Donnelly, explained the situation this way: “The National Football League does not pursue ‘diversity’ by training female players for non-lethal combat on the gridiron. Even the best female athletes would not survive the grueling training and punishing clashes against aggressive male opponents. Social experiments that override recognition of individual merit are not acceptable in pro football. Every team wants to win the Super Bowl.”
But in the case of the U.S. military, women now are being invited “to train for infantry battalions that engage in lethal ground combat – violent conflicts in which lives and missions are at risk. The stated motive is not to improve combat readiness, it is ‘diversity’ and ‘equal opportunities for women to excel.’”
Odierno said just this week “more than 200 women began reporting to the maneuver battalions in nine of our brigade combat teams, selected to participate in the exception to the direct ground combat assignment rule.”
He said other rules were rescinded to open up “six military occupational specialties and 80 units, more than 13,000 positions to women, opening up new opportunities to our female soldiers.”
But a report posted by the National Health Institute cites studies showing that women are “approximately 52 percent and 66 percent as strong as the men in the upper and lower body respectively. The men were also stronger relative to lean body mass.”
So where are the military benefits to having someone physically less strong being put in a position of carrying an injured soldier, hefting a 70-plus pound pack and fighting a pitched firefight at the end of a days-long trek?
CMR has said the Pentagon’s policy “is doing the wrong thing for the wrong reasons.”
“Instead of putting the needs of the military first, the Defense Department is taking incremental steps to implement the deeply flawed recommendations of the Military Diversity Leadership Commission,” CMR said.
Its report, “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century,” comes not from battle-scarred veterans but from “civilian military ‘equal opportunity’ professionals who assign priority to ‘diversity,’ not military effectiveness,” CMR said.
The recommendations concede “diversity” is not about “treating everyone the same,” but instead its focus is on “inclusion.”
read more: http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/army-letting-diversity-trump-winning-wars/
No comments:
Post a Comment