The Social Justice Armed Forces

Posted in Politics
Mon, Dec 28 - 9:00 am EST | 2 years ago by
Comments: 99
Be Sociable, Share!
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Lines of Departure - Social Justice Armed Forces

    Our Sparkly and Shiny New Social Justice Armed Forces1 (Part I)

    Next time you’re in worship services, if you’re religiously observant, or next time your mind turns to matters divine, even if you are not, do us all a favor and ask the Lord not for forgiveness of our sins; He’ll probably do that anyway. Instead, ask for forgiveness of our stupidities. That’s an unusual request, so maybe He’ll listen.

    On the other hand, maybe He won’t. Maybe He’ll figure we deserve what we’ve wrought and what we’ve allowed to be wrought. For this, let’s take a little exploration, shall we, of the future infantry company in our increasingly and expandingly Social Justice obsessed, where justice means tyranny, LGBTQUERTYUIOP-friendly, if not even actively aroused, gender neutral, except where quotas shall be instituted to erase and reverse existing privilege, Zampolit-dominated2, because, quite correctly, real soldiers cannot be trusted to implement the political pieties of the day, “battle ready,” where ready means completely unready, demoralized, decadent, disgraceful, disgusting, and depraved armed forces. If they’re not quite there yet, have faith; they will be.

    In any case, onward comrades, into the glorious future brought to us by progress and social justice. In other words, let’s go meet the company.

    Top, got a minute? Can you tell us about the company? I mean the real inside scoop.

    “Oh, it’s not so bad, I suppose. Could be worse anyway. I mean, I think maybe it could be worse. It used to be worse, actually, back when the XO – Lieutenant Dainty, our lipstick lesbian – was still pining over the fact that Staff Sergeant Levee wouldn’t return her affections. God, she was the distilled and concentrated essence of PMS for months. But Levee wasn’t attracted to lipstick lesbians, and was too much of a pro to cross the officer-enlisted divide.”

    She’s not still pining?

    “Oh, no, sir; Lieutenant Dainty has gone from pining to active persecution. Unfortunately, Staff Sergeant Levee is the kind of masculine woman – she’s actually one of our better squad leaders, way better than Sergeant Elmpwrist, for example, who is, at least technically, male – who doesn’t appeal very much to Captain von Ruggenmunschen. And, since Dainty is a subbie, too, and since von Ruggenmunschen carries a riding crop…well…the deck’s getting pretty stacked against Levee. Shame, too, she’s almost the only female in the company who won’t instantly drop to her knees at the presentation of an inconvenient duty roster or order to conduct a road march with full load. Even Dainty’s been known to put on the kneepads to get out of pulling holiday staff duty officer, and even, so the sergeant major tells me that the adjutant told him, to pretend she likes it and swallow with a smile.

    “Anyway, let’s look across the hallway, sir.

    “First up, we’ll very quietly open this closed doors with the sign saying “Captain Vimpenscheisse.” Ah, there is the commander of the company. Lemme close the door gently and I’ll explain.

    “No, sir, I didn’t mean the captain behind his desk, with his chair rotated sideways away from the door, and with his trousers down around his ankles. No, I meant the female PFC on her knees. Who’s she? She’s his driver, PFC Dawn Dinkleschlurper, currently – if the sound effects are to be trusted – nom-nom-noming the command schlong. She’s in charge of the company now; the captain just does what she tells him to. Of course, Dawn doesn’t answer to the battalion commander, the way commanders used to. Instead, she answers to Captain Sapho von Ruggenmunschen, the battalion Zampolit, who, with any luck at all, we’ll manage to avoid on our little sojourn.

    “In any case, we’ll be ladies and gentlemen and not interrupt PFC Dinkleschlurper at her very important…err…um…job.”

    Aren’t you afraid you’ll get in trouble showing us all this, Top?

    “Fuck that; I’m retiring in a week, so I don’t really give a Flying Philadelphia Fuck about my future career prospects. But we’re about to hold PT formation, sir; would you care to watch?”

    Sure, Top, lead on. Say, what’s that smaller formation over there to the left? Is that all female?

    “That’s pregnancy formation, sir. Yeah, yeah, I know; pregnancy is incompatible with pretty much any military service, let alone service in the infantry. But we’re stuck with it. I misremember the string of Supreme Court cases that were read off to us at the school house – well, I remember one, the chicken thief vasectomy case, Skinner – but there’s apparently no right more sacred than the right to reproduce, so we have to let the girls get knocked up when they feel like it. Except that there’s no right more sacred than the right to privacy and control over their own bodies, so they can get abortions whenever the reason they got pregnant has passed.

    “‘That’s what makes America great,’ they keep telling me. Funny, though, that I can’t find a single instance where the right to avoid difficult service at a whim ever helped make America great. But what do I know; I only educated, but not so extravagantly credentialed.”

    What about that one on the right of the pregnancy formation as they stand? That’s a male, isn’t it, Top? What’s going on there, one of those sensitivity things where the men have to wear fake pregnancy bumps?

    “No, sir, wish it was only that; that kind of stupidity passes, eventually, and the resentment doesn’t last forever. No, that’s Loretta, he insists we call him ‘Loretta’, pretending to be pregnant. And we have to go along with it or he’ll go to the Zampolit with a complaint of…umm…what did they call it last time? Oh, yes, I remember, “transgender oppression.”

    Did Loretta ever say who got him pregnant, Top?

    “Over there in the female PT uniform, sir, with the red high heels. That’s Notional Private Athenetos, who used to pretend to be a lesbian transgender soldier but is, in fact, a pure civilian cross-dressing male homosexual, pretending to be a female lesbian soldier. Sneaks onto post about twice a week. Ah, what the hell, she, he, or it bought the PT uniform from the Cav Store with her, his, or its own dime, and usually doesn’t fall out of the runs, which is more than I can say for most of the women in the company. And, according to Third Platoon Leader, when Athenetos swallows with a smile, at least the smile is sincere. Besides, the Zampolit calls it ‘good community relations’ because the freak shows up in her office for a caning. It does get awkward when he shows up for routine performance counseling.”

    Holy fuck.

    “Yeah..yeah…well, they call it progress, I hear. But this word they are using? I dunno thin’ it means wha’ they thin’ it means.”

    Aha, another fan of The Princess Bride, I see.

    “Yes, sir, I am. But you know that thing about mostly dead and all the way dead?”

    Sure.

    “I think we’re getting past being just mostly dead. You’ll see. You want to join us for the march to the field, later on? It’ll be quite something.”

    Next week: To the field

    __________

    1 This column is dedicated to Irene Gallo, of TOR books.

    2 Soviet political action officer or deputy for political – which is to say political indoctrination – matters

    Tom Kratman is a retired infantry lieutenant colonel, recovering attorney, and science fiction and military fiction writer. His latest novel, The Rods and the Axe, is available from Amazon.com for $9.99 for the Kindle version, or $25 for the hardback. A political refugee and defector from the People’s Republic of Massachusetts, he makes his home in Blacksburg, Virginia. He holds the non-exclusive military and foreign affairs portfolio for EveryJoe. Tom’s books can be ordered through baen.com.

    Note: If you follow the retail links in this post and make purchases on the site(s), Defy Media may receive a share of the proceeds from your sale through the retailer’s affiliate program.

    Don’t miss Tom Kratman’s other Lines of Departure columns. Click through the gallery below to read more.


    Social Justice

    Don't miss this three-part series on our social justice armed forces.

    Photo by zabelin/Getty Images

    Women in the Military

    Should women be required to register for the draft? Step right up, ladies!

    Photo by Getty Images

    The Kurds

    Tom Kratman sounds off on our gallant allies, the Kurds, and other fairy tales.

    Photo by John Moore/Getty Images

    Sorry Rodney

    Tom Kratman explores Islam and why we just can't get along. Read Part I, II and III of this series.

    Photo by Retrovizor/Getty Images

    Service Guarantees Citizenship

    Read this three-part series from Tom Kratman, inspired by Starship Troopers: Part I, II and III.

    Photo by Marko Marcello/Getty Images

    Immigration

    Tom Kratman explores why immigration doesn't work like it used to.

    Gun-Free Zones

    Tom Kratman discusses military gun-free zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

    Dear Germany

    Read this open letter to Germany regarding the "refugee" crisis.

    Photo by Adam Berry/Getty Images

    Sanctuary Cities

    Tom Kratman explores the real problem with sanctuary cities.

    Gun-Free Zones

    Tom Kratman discusses military "gun-free" zones and the ill-logic of the Left.

    Price in Blood

    Recently President Obama announced that the government would no longer threaten prosecution of those who pay ransom privately for the return of kidnapped loved ones. Read about the possible effects of Obama's ransom order.

    Torture

    Read Kratman's two-part series on torture:

    Jade Helm 15

    Don't miss this three-part series on Jade Helm 15. Is it necessary and should Americans be worried about it? Read: Part I, Part II and Part III.

    Does China Really Want War?

    Read Part I, II and III in Tom Kratman's series about the possibility of war with China.

    Breakup of the United States

    Be sure to read Tom Kratman's five-part series on the breakup of the United States:

    The Bergdahl Case

    If found guilty, should Bowe Bergdahl be sentenced to death?

    U.S. Navy

    No matter what you've read elsewhere, no -- our Navy is not big enough.

    Military Chow

    Read Tom Kratman's three part series on military food:

    The Soldier's Load

    Tom Kratman's series on the average American soldier's load is a must-read. Don't miss:

    The Left and the Military

    Ever wonder why the Left concentrates so closely on using the military to promote social change? Read part 1 and part 2 from Tom Kratman about the Left and the military.

    Defining Terrorism

    Don't miss Col. Kratman's five-part series on terrorism:

    Humanitarian Assistance

    Why does the military – not just ours, everyone’s, or everyone’s that matters – get tapped for disaster relief and humanitarian assistance over and over and over again? Read this column on the military and humanitarian aid to find out.

    Why War Games Fail

    It's another Lieutenant Reilly story. This time, we are talking about war games and why they fail. Read part 1 and part 2 in this series.

    Military Integrity

    Unfortunately dishonesty, fraud and a lack of integrity are sometimes not just accepted in the military, they are expected. Read this poignant piece about military integrity.

    Arab Armies

    Read this Lines of Departure column from Tom Kratman to find out why Arab armies are so generally worthless.

    The Purpose of War

    A military is about more than self-preservation. Security is a principle of war; safety is not. Risk is in the soldier’s job description. Read: The Purpose of War is to Win.
    Use Arrow Keys (← →) to Browse

    Be Sociable, Share!

      Related Posts

      • Ming the Merciless

        If only the Russians would do a Red Dawn invasion across the Bering Strait and liberate us from this insanity. What would stop them? Not the un-military diversity rabble described here.

        • Can Terzioğlu

          Funniest part is USSR itself was free of most symptoms of cultural marxism and then some. African students were very tightly controlled and East Germany’s Cuban migrant workers werent allowed to breed with east german women IIRC.

          Sounds familiar?

          Have you ever considered Cultural Marxism was stopped by USSR and sent as a weapon to USA?

        • Ciarog

          The nukes still work, don’t they?

          Put such a hypothetical “nation” with such a hypothetical “army” into a truly-existential (hypothetical) major war, and the hypothetical commander-in-chief is going to be awful tempted to press the Big Red Button. Would s/he be willing to forgo the incineration of billions if it meant certain defeat and the possibility of being hanged from the nearest lamppost by the conquering army, if not from hir own angry citizens?

          (If nothing else, I do expect the US will reverse it’s stance on the morality of chemical and biological weapons if our infantry becomes as useless as portrayed here.)

        • Ciarog

          And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

        • Ming the Merciless

          Well, who knows if they work or not… been a while since we’ve tested them, let alone used them. No reason to think the strategic forces will be immune to the diversity crazy, so they too might well lapse into worthlessness like the conventional forces. And that’s even if the crazy Left doesn’t ban them because they cause feelbad or something.

        • Ciarog

          Biggest reason for opposing nukes is because they didn’t want them pointed at their friends in the Kremlin. Now that the Kremlin is filled with hateful homophobic cisgendered Christian bullies, I don’t think it’ll be long before they change their tune on that.

          Highly technical and non-combat branches of the military could probably continue shambling along for a generation longer than the guys who are actually getting shot at. Yeltson’s nukes remained slightly more dangerous to a potential enemy than they were to their own launch crews, and if Pakistan can maintain a functioning arsenal I’m afraid that even the SJW’s could do it.

        • Ming the Merciless

          Not convinced that either Russia or Pakistan has a functioning arsenal.

          Not that it bothers me if they don’t…

      • Lawrence F. Greenwood

        The sad part is I have seen some females pull things like this even back in the 90′s. Don’t wanna go on the fun run, the exercise in Korea, pull that detail? Watch them pull out the kneepads.

        • Tom Kratman

          90s? Try 1975, outside the WAC barracks on Ft Campbell. And one rather doubts it began then, either.

        • Lawrence F. Greenwood

          I wan’t in during the 70′s just the 90′s but I know it happened plenty!

      • Jack Withrow

        A lot of people are going to disregard this, claiming it is satire, and not very good satire at that. And then 10-15 years down the road, when the truth behind this is apparent to all, those same people are going to scratch their heads, bemoan what has happened, and then start looking for the folks responsible, never intending to actually do anything about it.

        Meanwhile those who know this crap has been going on for a long time will be ridiculed as racists, bigots, and every other epithet used by the left. Experience means nothing to the left when it gets in the way of their current Social Justice Program. Social Justice means more to them, than the survival of the country. And there is a time coming when the survival of this country will be a stake, and SJW’s will be the reason in the very least for a vast majority of the body bags filled and in the worst case the destruction of the country.

        • Steven Schwartz

          , claiming it is satire

          Well, it *is* satire, regardless of one’s opinion of its quality. :) I don’t think even Mr. Kratman would disagree. Being satire and attempting to be prophetic are not mutually exclusive.

          You are also right in that I don’t think it’s very good satire.

          And, as a further note, no, “Social Justice” doesn’t mean more to me than the survival of the country. It does mean more to me than the survival of outdated traditions on the grounds that “We always did it this way, so we always have to do it this way, because that way (in theory) worked Once Upon A Time, and must therefore be preserved.”

        • Jack Withrow

          Ah. The squalling baby makes it appearance. You and your ilk are already responsible for a number of people coming home in body bags and you will be responsible for far more in the future. Go back to your playpen and leave the conversation to adults. You have absolutely nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

        • Steven Schwartz

          You and your ilk are already responsible for a number of people coming home in body bags

          Considering that “I and my ilk” were against the war in Iraq, for example, saying that *we* are responsible for people in body bags is rather risible, especially considering the number of body bags people like Mr. Kratman want to prep for their exploits and enemies.

          and leave the conversation to adults.

          I’ve seen a couple in this thread, and had reasonable conversations with them — like Mr. Kratman’s recent guest poster, for example.

          You have absolutely nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

          Given that your idea of “intelligent” appears to be random mudslinging against groups you don’t like (with little evidence), I do not consider your definitions or judgments on the subject particularly helpful. You’re free to engage, or not.

        • Jack Withrow

          Still squalling I see. Better go get your momma to change your diaper and give you a pacifier.

        • Tom Kratman

          VI. By the way, other than your complete military ignorance, why can’t you answer simple questions? To repeat:

          “Or in this case, can you come up with an example or two for us to explore of sexually compatible people forming combat effective tactical organizations without being locked into monogamy?”

        • Harry Kitchener

          While I’m appreciative of your courtesy in calling our recent exchanges ‘reasonable’, I’m slightly puzzled at the direction this is taking. Perhaps this might help.

          I wonder how much real-world exposure to the realities of military operations on the ground you’ve had and how much the need for perceived equality of outcome is colouring your approach to the absolute need for military efficiency and effectiveness.

          This discussion pretty much has to centre on combat arms – infantry, artillery, armour, plus Special Forces and anyone whose *primary* role is to engage closely with the enemy.

          The issues are complex, but boil down to a few major threads:

          The ability to generate and maintain cohesion in a combat unit is a major force multiplier.

          Cohesion in a combat unit depends upon a degree of commonality, whether of experience, training or advantage. Generally, that commonality would also include the ability to meet and maintain common standards, which in a combat unit are likely to include many physical standards.

          There may be a strategic advantage, or political decision, to restrict the effectiveness of a military organisation by limiting its scope, its equipment, its training, its doctrine or its composition. We already do this through voluntary adherence to the Geneva Conventions, for example, which quite rightly define and enforce a set of accepted behaviours in wartime (and for the benefit of the frothing faction, they apply to any signatory, whatever the circumstances and fighting a non-signatory or a signatory in breach of them does not allow derogation for them, by the way).

          I am old enough and ugly enough both to remember my trepidation when homosexuality ceased to be a major disciplinary issue in the Army I was serving in at the time and it was a total non-event. Military discipline and culture meant that any in-unit relationships were strongly discouraged and out-of-unit relationships, if they did not affect unit performance, were fine. Note here that in a rifle company, composed of young people with similar physical abilities and endurance, sexual orientation quickly became as relevant and interesting as skin colour or religious allegiance – i.e. not at all.

          Sexual relationships within a unit, whatever their nature, are disruptive and counter-productive (unless you’re the Theban Sacred Band, in which case, news flash, guys, you’re very late) and are quite rightly treated with great severity when they become obvious. This should not change. Generally, in the non-US Western militaries, one or the other partner is offered the opportunity to serve elsewhere if this is admitted to, rather than being discovered.

          After a start in a combat arm, I saw my service out in a combat support function, of a unique nature and with its own challenges and sometimes dangerous circumstances. I was privileged during my long years to serve with some incredibly competent and effective women, including a number under whose command I was perfectly happy to serve, including in conditions of stress and danger and many others upon whom I depended and trusted absolutely as comrades and subordinates.

          I don’t think any of those women could possibly have met even the minimum physical standards for service in the infantry, in terms of strength, endurance or ability to live for extended periods under extremely austere circumstances. A lot of people don’t realise that the last day before entering combat sees the soldier in the best condition he’ll ever be in. Combat – or even extended field operations – degrades fitness and health in a predictable and unpleasant manner.

          There may be women who can meet or exceed the minimum standards for service in the combat arms and there probably isn’t a good reason for excluding them from the opportunity to serve. What isn’t doubtful is that, with the exception of a tiny few, Olympic-standard athletes, the best they well ever perform is going to be in the lowest quartile, physically, of their peer groups and, young people being young people, will suffer for it.

          We won’t even open the can of worms which is the reality of what service in combat arms calls upon those serving to do – or contemplate doing. Taking another’s life is hard, very hard – and if an individual finds it easy, there’s a word for that, too – and if women are to find a role in this, some means must be found to break the (still) sexist social conditioning which has girls for cryin’ and boys for fightin’ as one of your Presidents’ mothers once remarked.

          I really do worry about the use of the military as a social laboratory. No-one would deny that a national military organisations should be at least reflective of the society it protects and that as societies evolve, so must their militaries; this particular argument is about something very much more basic, the physical and biological constraints which define certain military roles.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Thank you for the reasoned and explanatory response.

          My service wasn’t on the ground — and the time I’ve spent that’s shaped the rest of my views wasn’t on the ground either.

          I’ve spent a lot of time in environments where, well, while the environment isn’t trying to kill you, it is utterly and sublimely indifferent to your survival, and you’re a very long way from help — offshore sailboat racing.

          Many of the same team-cohesion issues emerge there, though admittedly not for as long (usually). You’re dependent upon the other people in your crew for your survival as well as your “mission”, as if someone screws up securing, say, a jibsheet, it can become a very dangerous weapon, to say nothing of the “I’m going to be asleep, I’m trusting you folks to keep me alive until I wake up again by not sinking the boat!” ;)

          I have no problem with common standards being set — so long as those common standards are set in order to achieve the military objective, rather than to exclude people.

          Note here that in a rifle company, composed of young people with similar physical abilities and endurance, sexual orientation quickly became as relevant and interesting as skin colour or religious allegiance – i.e. not at all.

          Sadly, the U.S. has a long history of problems with both skin color (if you look back at the 40′s and 50′s, you see many of the same concerns about “unit cohesion” that are being expressed in re: LGBT folks or women being expressed about African-Americans, along with concerns about white soldiers being unwilling to take orders from black commanders) and religion (see the current turmoil around the Air Force Academy, or the ongoing issues documented by the MRFF) being factors.

          Indeed, religious issues are, for example, also a significant issue in the Israeli military.

          some means must be found to break the (still) sexist social conditioning which has girls for cryin’ and boys for fightin’ as one of your Presidents’ mothers once remarked.

          I agree completely; people like the original poster here are doing their level best to *prevent* that from happening, by denigrating the very notion of women in front-line service.

          I don’t think any of those women could possibly have met even the minimum physical standards for service in the infantry, in terms of strength, endurance or ability to live for extended periods under extremely austere circumstances.

          I suspect the first is quite probably true. The latter two? I am highly doubtful, both from personal experience and from research.

          It’s worth noting that our original poster’s main issues of complaint were, well, sexual, rather than physical or endurance-related. He’s made that complaint elsewhere, I gather.

          I really do worry about the use of the military as a social laboratory. No-one would deny that a national military organisations should be at least reflective of the society it protects and that as societies evolve, so must their militaries; this particular argument is about something very much more basic, the physical and biological constraints which define certain military roles.

          Of course, those physical and biological constraints aren’t static; they’re socially determined, save by a different chunk of society. (As was pointed out above, in an otherwise missing-the-point post, by James, the requirements for a coastal submarining crew and a long-term oceangoing boat can differ significantly, psychologically.)

          This is not to say they’re infinitely flexible; merely that we cannot, and should not, consider them graven in stone. For example, we can look back at the Soviet height restrictions on certain tanks — a *maximum* size. This is now gone, as engineering changed.

          I have no problem with discussing the appropriate roles for people in combat; what I object to is the kind of mass stereotyping and concern for “cohesion” that springs out of simple sexism, like the same that once sprang so clearly from racism.

        • Harry Kitchener

          When I suggested that a means needed to be found to break the sexist social conditioning in order to integrate women into combat units, I was proposing that as a precondition and not a desirable one. I’m wholly opposed to women serving in front line combat, for practical reasons – see above for discussion of strength, endurance and ability to sustain operations in conditions of extreme physical discomfort and poor hygiene.

          It doesn’t seem to me that you can draw too many parallels between the experience of persons of other-than-White ethnicity and that of women – although, to be scrupulously fair, the Commonwealth and the French (and, back in the day, a number of other powers) all had significant experience, stretching back hundreds of years, in raising, integrating and employing forces consisting of such persons and it’d be a pretty brave individual who’d suggest to, say, a Sikh, or a Gurkha, or a Hausa, or a Zulu, or a Maori, that they weren’t suitable for front line combat.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I was proposing that as a precondition and not a desirable one.

          Ah, I see; while I find that particular bit of social conditioning to be damaging to everyone involved, and therefore, worthy of being demolished. Denying *anyone* the full range of human experience isn’t good, IMHO.

          see above for discussion of strength, endurance and ability to sustain
          operations in conditions of extreme physical discomfort and poor
          hygiene.

          As I said above, strength is an issue. Endurance — as watchkeepers, women did just fine, and experience in long-distance sailing suggests that they have equal capacity there. “Endurance” is not just “ability to lift large objects long distances”. And the same goes for physical discomfort and hygiene; these are things that we’ve built in the presumption that women can’t handle, while evidence from, say, the third world as well as other sources suggests that that’s simply not true.

          It doesn’t seem to me that you can draw too many parallels between the
          experience of persons of other-than-White ethnicity and that of women

          How shall we put this: When I see people of description (A) using the exact same arguments in case (1) as they did in cases (2) and (3), where (2) and (3) have shown their arguments to be fallacious, it casts considerable doubt upon their veracity, judgment, and usefulness in case (1).

          “But it will disrupt unit cohesion!” has been the complaint of people who don’t want people of group X in their armed forces for a long time.

          and it’d be a pretty brave individual who’d suggest to, say, a Sikh, or a
          Gurkha, or a Hausa, or a Zulu, or a Maori, that they weren’t suitable
          for front line combat.

          But I bet you’d find plenty who argued they weren’t suited for any level of command, for example.

          Here’s the thing: What we have is an argument that group X, for reason Y, is not suited to do a job. Some people argue therefore that all of group X should be excluded. Some people argue that since only a few of group X can do the job, because of Y, we can go ahead and exclude X to avoid any possible negative consequences.

          And some people argue that this is a chance to consider if reason Y is entirely apropos, and is there a way we can adjust/cope with it, for the betterment of all?

          History has shown us that women can be deadly front-line fighters; indeed, several people in this thread have conceded it, with caveats like “when the nation is in danger”, etc.

          Given that *fact*, what do we do about tapping that potential resource, rather than excluding it because the single most important thing (apparently) a soldier can do is carry a specific packload?

        • Harry Kitchener

          I rather think that what history shows us is that women are capable of being deadly front-line fighters when things are very tough and there is no alternative and that every military which has gone the route of employing them has seen it as a clear gesture of desperation and abandoned it as soon as possible.

          We’re not discussing a nation in arms, we’re discussing professional military forces, intended and trained for expeditionary combat operations under widely varying environmental conditions, not a last-ditch battle for the homeland by a volunteer militia.

          You dismiss carrying a specific packload as being of little importance. Actually, it’s one of the key skills and aptitudes required; however whizzy and mechanised your armed forces are, however many IFVs and the like you have, at some point, I will absolutely, positively guarantee you that the key action will be fought, dismounted, at three in the morning, when it’s raining and where four map sheets meet, with your weakest full Corporal as the section commander on the ground and with soldiers who’ve been awake for a week and haven’t been indoors, or dry, for a month. Why would you look to find further disadvantage by gaming the system to pull in folk unsuited for that?

          I suspect you misunderstand the nature and character of just the environment of ground combat, especially as it regards the infantry. On endurance, the sheer physical effort – and the need to sustain it, quite possibly for months, is extraordinary, particularly given the affection our current lords and masters throughout the West have for loading the luckless infantryman with more shite to carry than Marius’ Mules or the 36th Ulster Division at the Somme.

          At the risk of being indelicate, remaining clean and free of infection and disease is considerably easier, for entirely practical reasons, for us fortunate types with the small brains and external genitalia, than it is for the smarter gender. The field environment breeds poor health. I’m not saying it’s impossible to maintain high hygienic standards, it’s just a damn sight more difficult.

          As noted, I’m sure there are women who can meet the minimum standards and continue to meet them while deployed, in the field or even in combat. I’m pretty sure they’ll be allowed to join combat units sooner or later. I think it’s a terrible idea, but there’s an inevitability about it; let’s accept it, but let’s also accept that the standards have to remain *absolute* and *objective* and diluting the quality and capability of your armed forces in order to achieve some sort of fuzzy quasi-political gratification strikes me as silly and a waste of resources.

          You’re clearly better sighted on Commonwealth militaries than I am, if you’re that confident – I can only think of several senior officers of those heritages (with the exception of Zulus, they tend not to leave SA) in the British, Australian and NZ armed forces, with some of whom I had the honour of serving.

        • Steven Schwartz

          that every military which has gone the route of employing them has seen it as a clear gesture of desperation and abandoned it as soon as possible.

          The question is, do they see that because it is true, or because it fits their preconceived notions?

          History is full of things that people did “in extremis” that later became standard operating procedure, or became so until it was banned.

          We’re not discussing a nation in arms, we’re discussing professional military forces, intended and trained for expeditionary combat operations under widely varying environmental conditions, not a last-ditch battle for the homeland by a volunteer militia.

          Well, the line isn’t as clear as all that — we’re discussing Israel, for example, which is a nation potentially in arms at the drop of a hat, and the model of a nation *capable* of being in arms at said drop is not an invalid notion; it’s not the one we have here, but Mr. Kratman has been blithering on about universals (when it suits him), so we have to take that into account.

          You dismiss carrying a specific packload as being of little importance.

          I believe I was unclear. Carrying a packload — important. However, there is nothing holy and sanctified about the *specific* packload currently in use, and if, for example, dropping 50 lbs from it meant the ability to expand one’s potential useful fighting force 20% (numbers chosen, I freely admit, at random), that is a change at least to be *considered*. That is what I meant by it. My apologies for the confusion.

          One of the things, also, that I think has to be addressed: we;ve seen, in this thread (and in many places) a dismissive notion towards female leadership — one which I am pleased to see you do not share. However, having areas that are strictly gender-segregated a) undermine, however slightly, the power of said leadership (since people will go “Well, they don’t know *x*) and provides an excuse for those who object to said leadership on different grounds to dismiss it or attempt to eliminate it.

          And *that* is another potential huge cost; driving away potentially half of your leadership potential because, well — what, exactly?

          You’re clearly better sighted on Commonwealth militaries than I am, if you’re that confident -

          I make no claim to be better sighted; I’ve read (though I would have to dig up) accounts and memoirs, and have known people whose accounts I trust. I am certainly not saying they’re not there now; the UK’s issues with racism were never as…vigorous or obvious as this country’s. But the feeling was there.

        • Harry Kitchener

          I think the females in combat idea has historically been abandoned as soon as practicable for a couple of reasons – it tends to be politically unpopular, especially with the overwhelming majority of the population – and it also tends to be demographically silly; men are a relatively replaceable resource, women have the monopoly on producing more people; the hardwiring of the human animal (and let’s not forget, we’re only a few tens of thousands of years out of the caves) is to protect the woman and her ability to breed.

          As to Israel, yeah, so what? The original text is about the US Army and by extension the entire conversation has been about professional expeditionary armies. The Israelis have a pretty well-equipped nation in arms militia thing going on, are embedded in a pretty non-benign environment and are dealing with utterly different circumstances to ours. For what it’s worth, their female-heavy combat battalion performed very poorly, but served its purpose which was primarily political.

          I’m not clear on whether you’re suggesting that combat loads be reduced in order to make it more possible for more women to qualify carrying them, or, indeed, that the move to recruit more women into combat arms is being occasioned by a shortage of male recruits. On the first point, that’s obvious nonsense – if you need 35kg of load to operate as a combat infantryman, then that’s what you need, on the second, I really don’t think that’s the case – Western armies, even after nearly 15 years of oozing-sore slow-moving and unsuccessful military operations, still seem to be able to find the right people to recruit, particularly as the establishments are shrinking everywhere.

          Even a basic infantry soldier represents a major cash investment and armies are notoriously expensive as a result of their manpower-heavy composition, as opposed to navies and air forces with their fewer, but far more expensive platforms and relatively light manning levels. There’s little merit, in times of stringency and austerity, in spending extra cash on what are effectively gestures.

          I think that’s at the heart of my concern – much of this debate strikes me as utterly sterile and near-100% politically-, rather than practically-driven. Armies don’t exist to make people feel good about themselves, they exist to do violence to the Queen’s enemies. Generally they can be trusted to evolve as societies do (usually with a 10-20 year delay, which reflects their own demographics, people tend to serve their time with the attitiudes and values prevalent at the time of their joining) and they can usually be trusted, absent interference, to maintain tactical, operational and personnel postures which maximise military advantage and minimise significant inefficiency.

          On the last point, note that armies generally only function at their best when under stress – i.e. on operations. They tend to appear inefficient and shambling when in peace-time regime as they’re designed to be resilient, which quality of resilience includes being robust enough in structure and doctrine that there’s room for lots of imbeciles without rendering the organisation ineffective.

        • Tom Kratman

          It’s not social conditioning you moron; it’s hard wired.

        • Tom Kratman

          Homosexuality may have been fairly irrelevant in the predictable small numbers, especially in some commonwealth forces. Every experience we have of gender integration in US forces shrieks of love, lust, favoritism, demoralization, and de facto (sometimes de jure) prostitution. As I said, Victory Drive quickly transforms to Peyton Place.

        • Jack Withrow

          I’ve seen units fall completely to pieces when the first female was transferred into them, as I am sure others have seen the same thing. I’ve also seen units come apart at the seams, when a homosexual was discovered in the ranks. I would like to know what has changed so dramatically in the last 8 years that centuries of history are now to be disregarded. What is the existential threat that mandates we have to have women and homosexuals in the ranks to ensure our national survival?

        • Harry Kitchener

          I think the gay thing depended on a change in society itself, so that the young soldiers coming in to the military didn’t see it as a thing – that was certainly our experience, while the old and bold and crusty were deeply concerned, not least that out gays might suffer bullying and worse in the accommodation, the youth didn’t care one bit.

          Women are a subtly different case – they’re 100% capable of filling many military roles (in my experience, often better than men), but I strongly feel (as noted downthread) that sheer biology will keep them from ever functioning effectively as combat infantry, for example. No amount of social acceptance of gender equality will ever give a female private soldier greater upper-body strength or an enhanced ability to function on the battlefield when 10 weeks away from a shower or a change of underclothes.

        • Jack Withrow

          I am not sure the young soldiers accept gays any more than the old soldiers do. Liberal propaganda would have us believe that the younger generation accepts it, but the young soldiers I know have the same attitudes the older ones have.

          In regards to women in the ranks, I agree they fill some roles better than men; pilot is the first job that comes to mind. But like you I fail to see how a governmental fiat overrules biology.

        • Harry Kitchener

          That may be one of the social differences between the much more socially conservative (and religious) USA and the rest of the Anglosphere. I sense there is much greater social indifference to sexuality outside the US than inside and this may well be reflected in young soldiers’ attitudes. Even a staunch Right-winger in the UK, Canada, Australia or NZ would come across as a pretty out-there liberal in the US, at least where attitudes to sexuality and social issues generally are concerned.

        • Harry Kitchener

          Some sort of sexual shenanigans are inevitable in a gender-integrated unit, of course and human nature will always be consistent. I suspect the solution, if there is one, is cultural, in that if unacceptable behaviour is considered truly unacceptable by all, or most – and the chain of command is strong – instances of this kind of thing are addressed as disciplinary, rather than social, issues. I wouldn’t say that the commonwealth forces I know well get this right consistently, but generally, it’s more right than not.

        • Tom Kratman

          Contrarily, there seems little reason either to approve of something merely because it’s new. Or can you defend the switching of the burden of proof away from the left wing intellectual fantasist proposing the change over to the ones who wish to maintain what is and what works? Or in this case, can you come up with an example or two for us to explore of sexually compatible people forming combat effective tactical organizations without being locked into monogamy?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Contrarily, there seems little reason either to approve of something merely because it’s new.

          You, however, appear to be dismissing it because it’s new.

          Or can you defend the switching of the burden of proof away from the
          left wing intellectual fantasist proposing the change over to the ones
          who wish to maintain what is and what works?

          You do realize, don’t you, that this ahs been the argument against most any change (if you leave out the word “left-wing”)? It needs to be tested, to see if it works. If it does, we’ve drastically *increased* our potential fighting pool, which one would think someone like you, Mr. “Existential Threats Everywhere”, would approve of.

          Your final question, BTW, does rather ring of “We never let it work before, so why should it work now?” Most of the examples I’ve been able to find show up in irregular fighting units, under pressure — the Haganah, for example. There were also women in anti-aircraft artillery units during WWII, along with segregated units.

          However, as I’ve said, your question smacks of “We won’t let you do it until you prove it can be done, and you can’t prove it can be done because we won’t let you do it.” Rather like the NRA’s lobbying against funding for any real research into gun violence, and then proclaiming that there’s no evidence for gun control advocates’ claims.

          The logical way to go about it would be to test it; integrate a small portion of the force, separate from the rest, and see how it did under the best tests we can put together.

          The IDF, for example, whose performance I trust you will not take exception to over its history, is doing just that.

          Then we’ll see if your sex-crazed fantasies would come true, or not.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, Steven, I’ve written extensively on the subject (See: The Amazon Legion and The Amazon’s Right Breast, the latter a free downloadable essay) and I am not dismissing it because it’s new. I dismiss it because everything we know about combat and how a combat organization works says it is a bad idea. We know exactly what happens in the military when we mix boys and girls.

          Indeed, I’ve gone on record with a way – rather two ways – to make it work, but we have to dispense with the notion of gender and gender orientation integration as simply incompatible with creating the kind of small society that can and will fight.

          Addendum: Are you referring to the Caracal Battalion, Steven? Dig a little more, why don’t you? And as for the IDF in general, I am unimpressed. Just about anybody can stomp Arabs in heads up combat. Proves nothing.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I dismiss it because everything we know about combat and how a combat organization works says it is a bad idea.

          Funny, then, that people who *aren’t* you come to different conclusions, people with a lot more experience and just as much theoretical knowhow. You’ve written an essay. Big phuquing deal.

          Indeed, “everything we knew” about how combat organizations worked “told us” that desegregating combat units was a bad idea, too.

          Addendum: Are you referring to the Caracal Battalion, Steven? Dig a little more, why don’t you?

          Care to actually *say* anything, when presented with evidence, or do you just want to make general insinuations?

          And as for the IDF in general, I am unimpressed. Just about anybody can stomp Arabs in heads up combat. Proves nothing.

          OK. Now I can safely dismiss you, and anything you have to say on the military. Winning wars with out-of-date equipment, against significantly superior numbers doesn’t impress you? Makes me wonder what someone would have to do to impress you — oh, right; lose against overwhelming force in a “heroic” fashion.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, winning wars with out of date equipment, and just FYI not usually outnumbered at the point of decision, does not impress me when fighting Arabs straight up. The Arabs, though individually brave enough, have cultural problems that render them militarily worthless unless formed into clan-based organizations, and usually too fragile when they are so formed.

          You did know, didn’t you, that the IDFs (more technically, the Palmach’s) previous experience with gender integration, in the War of Independence, lasted under three weeks? Yeah, didn’t work. You did know, didn’t you, that until tossing Caracal as a sop to Israeli feminists, the IDF didn’t even let women drive trucks, because trucks went to the front and they were considered to have no business at the front. You didn’t, did you? Tsk.

          WRT Caracal, no, just go dig on your own, Steven. Educating you out of your idiocies has long since proven beyond my meager powers.

          You can believe that if you like, and I suppose your left wing mythos demands it. But the people to whom you are deferring seem damnably incapable of winning a war, so…

          By the way, who are these people with more experience than me? No, the female three star log or admin officer who’s never been shot at doesn’t count. Give us some names, will you, and what they’ve actually said?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Just a little note here: ” just FYI not usually outnumbered at the point of decision”

          In other words, if you have good generalship, leading to an advantage, you don’t impress Tom Kratman.

          “he IDF didn’t even let women drive trucks, because trucks went to the
          front and they were considered to have no business at the front. You
          didn’t, did you? Tsk.”

          Actually, I did; the IDF had a lengthy history of not wanting to put women near the front for two primary reasons: the risk of rape at the hands of enemy troops, and the objections of the strong religious faction within Israel, with which the IDF has had to cope many, many times, in different and sundry ways.

          WRT Caracal, no, just go dig on your own, Steven. Educating you out of
          your idiocies has long since proven beyond my meager powers.

          In other words, you ask for evidence, and when given evidence, you go “Oh, I don’t agree, go look it up yourself.”

          A most impressive double standard, and hardly reflecting well on your “facts” and “everything we know”.

          By the way, who are these people with more experience than me? No, the
          female three star log or admin officer who’s never been shot at doesn’t
          count. Give us some names, will you, and what they’ve actually said?

          No, I’m not going to do *your* homework for *you* either. However, since it *is* being done, across many different armed forces, that suggests that more than a few people disagree with your conclusion, since rarely do people at the rank you used to hold make major, armed-forces-shaking policy shifts.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, if you’re fighting arab armies and don’t stomp them like narcs at a biker rally then you don’t impress me. They suck.

          Do more research, Steven, those weren’t the main reasons.

          Not for me, Steven, for yourself. You made a claim for which I can find no real support. So produce it to support your argument.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Tom, every time I present evidence to you, you go “No, that’s not it”, fail to present anything else, and demand more evidence.

          So, no; you can do your own research and present your reasons, or you can let it stand that all you have is “No, no, no, no…”

          As for the latter, since you don’t care to explain *which* “claim” you mean, if you can’t tell that “Thing X, which would not happen without the support of people with far more experience and theoretical knowledge than you have, is happening, therefore there are people with far more experience and theoretical knowledge than you have”, that’s your lack of ability to reason, not my lack of evidence.

        • Tom Kratman

          Just give the evidence, Steven. Just give it.

          You can’t, because it doesn’t exist.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I’ll give evidence when you start doing it, instead of going “Do your research” when I challenge your claims.

          This is a two-way street. My claim, that people with more experience than you must support this idea, because otherwise it couldn’t be happening, is a logical deduction from the evidence of the world as it is.

        • Tom Kratman

          Yeah. You can’t because you’re a military ignoramus. You can’t even support what you claim. Give us the names of the people with more experience who say gender integration of combat forces is a good thing and exactly what they said. You made the claim. Support it.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I’ll give you a couple of links from a few minutes’ Googling; my library is rather more targeted towards the past.

          Of course, I’m quite sure you’ll find quibbles with this, just as you’re prepared to assert that any general officer who disagrees with you is doing it for reasons of political subservience.

          http://duckofminerva.com/2014/09/military-officers-on-women-in-the-infantry-five-for-one-against.html

          And go look up the Segev report in Israel, coming from high-ranking officers. For example, Lt. Col (and Ph.D.) Zeev Lehrer: Because there is no argument that the full integration of women would be good for the army and for Israel’s security. There’s no other issue here.”

          Oh, as a little side note: “In combat units, there are actually less cases of sexual harassment
          compared to the rest of the army. That’s because they are like brothers;
          they are fighting together, they are part of the same unit.
          Interestingly, something like 10% of the harassment cases we face are
          men, not women. Overall, we have less cases of sexual harassment than
          other big organizations in the country, such as the police, but we have
          them. Each one of these cases is dealt with, with very strict policies.” — Maj. General Rachel Tevet-Vizel, IDF

          Oh — and let’s adde in Gabi Ashkenazi, who said that the decision to go ahead with that Segev report’s recommendation over religious objections was entirely his decision — think maybe he was supportive? And I defy you to argue you’re more experienced than he was.

          And this is from a few minutes of Google, from someone who doesn’t have the kind of contacts/etc. you presumably still have.

          Go ahead; dismiss it all as you do every piece of evidence against you,. and cry for more; it’s not as if you ever bother to present any beyond waving your title around and then throwing invective.
          So: That’s far more evidence than you’ve bothered to provide for your hypersexualized army, beyond your feverish imaginings.

        • Tom Kratman

          We’re not Israel. FAIL!

          Okay, so you don’t know the difference between the captains you’re citing to there and the generals you were alluding to previously. Duly noted. FAIL!

          And the creation of a single small sop – supported by feminist pravda – is the same as ordering an entire army changed, that army being of a different country, a country faced with competent enemies. FAIL!

          There are no gender integrated combat _units_, there is one battalion, in Israel, which remains untested in war. As for the brotherhood, etc. bullshit…no, it reeks of propaganda.

          Steven, I’d like to say “nice try” but all you’ve done is add to the case that you’re a military ignoramus. We have enough evidence for this proposition now; you can stop.

          Addendum: Caracal, which has never been tested in a serious fight, in which in its first small combat action most casualties on its enemy were inflicted by the minority males, and at least one girl crawled into the bushes and hid, being listed as missing until found cowering, and in which straight women treat out lesbians like shit, and which is generally considered second or third rate within the largely amateur IDF, is not an example. You should do better research.

        • Steven Schwartz

          U. Tom, you said: “I dismiss it because everything we know about combat and how a combat organization works says it is a bad idea.”

          Nothing there about “it” being US-specific. So, yes, Israelis do qualify. But, as I figured, you’d change your statement to avoid being wrong.
          Given that, your bit about captains and generals is irrelevant; I cited generals. Go ahead and compare your record with Ashkenazi’s.

          The rest of what you have is strawmanning, pilpul of the silliest sort, and topping it off with a big bunch of projection. In other words, a typical Kratman sundae.

          Next time you ask for evidence, perhaps you should consider *not* changing what you want *after* it’s been given to you, or using the English language you’re allegedly good at to communicte what you want in the first place.

          OF course, given that y our satire would be considered too braod for Die Stürmer, I shouldn’t be surprised you can’t get your rhetoric right.

        • Tom Kratman

          Idiot.

        • Steven Schwartz

          As usual, when caught out, you retreat to vague invective. How amusingly different from your spammed questions before, when you thought you had something.

        • Tom Kratman

          Steven, you don’t “catch anyone out” by lying and tossing out irrelevancies. And those are all you ever do here.

          What did the Segev report suggest and what exactly did Ashkenazi order?

        • Steven Schwartz

          Tom, do your own damn research. You’ve offered up the sum total of one article and lots of your own useless opinion here, so you can go do your own reading.

          And, given that your “evidence” for your bit of grotesquerie above is nonexistent, your continued badgering for more nd more detail — especially after your “No, that doesn’t count!” rhetoric — is truly risible.

        • Tom Kratman

          Once again, Steven, you demonstrate that you’re so unbefuckinglievably and doctrinairely stupid that I am not going to waste any more time on you this week. You put up nonsense you don’t even begin to understand and call that evidence. You can’t stay on point. Essentially you’re useless even to your own side.

        • Tom Kratman

          Jesus, Steven, you are even more of a military ignoramus than I thought. Try this: the generals, picked for political subservience, are not supporting this. They are acquiescing in an order from civilian authority. These are not the same things. THAT’S why you won’t come up with any evidence; it ISN’T their idea at all.

        • Curt Pangracs

          “My claim, that people with more experience than you must support this idea, because otherwise it couldn’t be happening, is a logical deduction from the evidence of the world as it is.”

          Quite possibly the dumbest excuse for failing to provide real evidence to support a claim ever written, by anyone. By completely disregarding the fact that civilians are in charge of our military, ultimately, or that many of those civilian politicos have their own social agenda and desire to have their name stamped on anything that will garner votes from the militarily ignorant (such as yourself). You also discount that tour military is, quite often ordered to do the EXACT OPPOSITE of what is recommended by the “experts”. Seriously, Steven, no one can ever expose your absolute stupidity better than yourself.

        • Tom Kratman

          V. By the way, other than your complete military ignorance, why can’t you answer simple questions? To repeat:

          “Or in this case, can you come up with an example or two for us to explore of sexually compatible people forming combat effective tactical organizations without being locked into monogamy?”

        • Steven Schwartz

          I’m very impressed. Spamming your own comment thread.

          Because your so-called “simple” question is the rhetorical equivalent of “Have you stopped beating your wife”?

          Or “Can you come up with an example or two of people in flight, Orville and Wilbur, before we let you experiment?”

          Or “Can you come up with an example or two of Starship Troopers-style government, so we can explore it before we consider it at all plausible or workable?”

        • Tom Kratman

          Stay on point, Steven. Besides, I’ve addressed your idiotic attempt at diversion elsewhere here.

        • Steven Schwartz

          And, as usual, you “addressed” it by dismissing it without providing any real distinction, and then went on demanding evidence.

          Given that you’re not providing any of your own, but rather ludicrously broad caricatures, dismissals, and indications that your own military judgment is to be distrusted, why should I bother?

        • Tom Kratman

          What you can’t see, which is pretty much anything of reason, logic, or sheer common sense, is a flaw in you, and not in what you cannot see.

        • Tom Kratman

          I don’t care about Israel, Steven. Really I don’t. The best thing about the first gulf war was we didn’t have to listen to how great the Jews were; we’d fought their enemies and found them rabble.

          Steven, you haven’t produced credible evidence by producing feminist or femi-pandering propaganda. I’d accuse you, as is your wont, of lying about the IDF and Caracal. In this case, though, you get a pass; you’re too ignorant to lie and probably believe.

          Now show me what Ashkenazi actually ordered and what the Segev report claimed. Creation of a sop in the form of Caracal? So what? Equalization of terms of conscription? So what? Initiation of an experiment? Well good. Forced gender integration of the entire IDF? Umm…not so far.

          Addendum: Just because you’re not very good at research, as a special favor to you: http://www.jpost.com/Not-Just-News/Despite-some-progress-most-combat-roles-are-closed-to-women-in-the-IDF-412063

        • Steven Schwartz

          I don’t care about Israel, Steven. Really I don’t.

          Why does this not surprise me, given your ignorance of Judaism, and your regular dalliance with anti-Semites?

          Let’s see: aside from the minor detail that Iraq in 1992 was not Egypt or Syria or Jordan (whose Arab Legion was held in high esteem), and the fact that we began Desert Storm with a 12-day bombing campaign — oh, that was twice as long as one Arab-Israeli war, 1 1/3 as long as another, and 3/4 as long as the third main one — and had a massive technological superiority, along with a numerical superiority in total forces on scene — again, rather different than the significant *inferiority* of the Israelis — why am I not surprised that hearing about someone else being good was irritating you.

          Of course, by that standard, the U.S. really hasn’t been anything special; we had a massive industrial base that allowed us to bulldoze over our enemies.* So why should we care what one minor officer from one not particularly impressive army thinks?

          * As a note: I don’t believe in that standard. But you’re the one denigrating other people’s victories, and adopting a standard by which our own are nothing particularly to write home about.

          And I notice again you’re completely ignoring the major struggle within the IDF is not between people going “Oh, we shouldn’t do this for military reasons” and “We should do it for political reasons”, but rather, as Ashkenazi has pointed out, as well as Lehrer, a struggle with religious elements within the armed forces who have their own, very specific, objections to women in public roles, as opposed to specifically military ones.

          Here’s a clue, nitwit: Just because something does not smoothly work at the first try does not mean it is not worth trying. I am reminded of all the people who *knew* that Jews were no good at fighting, because none of them had distinguished themselves in battle — ignoring the fact that they’d been legally pacified across much of Europe for centuries — and were rather taken aback in ’48. And in ’56. And in ’67. By ’73 they were beginning to get a clue.

          Fortunately, your influence is slight, and your time on this planet will come to an end, rendering it even slighter. That will be for the best of the U.S. Armed Forces.

        • Tom Kratman

          I’m ignorant of Judaism, when you try to palm off the opinion of a small minority as significant? Stop being a child, Steven.

          The Arab Legion only looks good because they have the IDF to fight. They’re better than most Arab forces, which isn’t saying much, but have the fragility I mentioned previously.

          Bitter, are we, Steven? Tsk.

        • Steven Schwartz

          I’m ignorant of Judaism, when you try to palm off the opinion of a small minority as significant? Stop being a child, Steven.

          Ignorant of Judaism, when you try and claim that “Steven, what Man made, and man made those, Man can unmake”

          Oh, and describing Orthodox Judaism as “a small minority” and dismissing them; yes, that’s ignorant. If someone blew off Eastern Orthodoxy as “insignificant” when it came to Christianity, you’d object, I suspect. And if we dealt with the world, rather than just the U.S., if someone blew off Protestants as “insignificant”, I suspect most people would consider them ignorant indeed.

          And I’m not bitter; I’m grateful that you’re such a fine example of your cause that it’ll do it significant harm.

        • Tom Kratman

          IV. By the way, other than your complete military ignorance, why can’t you answer simple questions? To repeat:

          “Or in this case, can you come up with an example or two for us to explore of sexually compatible people forming combat effective tactical organizations without being locked into monogamy?”

        • Tom Kratman

          By the way, other than your complete military ignorance, why can’t you answer simple questions? To repeat:

          “Or in this case, can you come up with an example or two for us to explore of sexually compatible people forming combat effective tactical organizations without being locked into monogamy?”

        • Steven Schwartz

          Perhaps you can go back and look at what I wrote.

          You’re asking for proof that something will work before people do the experiment in order to let them do the experiment.

          After all, Kratman, show me an example or two of where voluntary-military-service-as-a-prerequisite-for-citizenship has actually worked, so we can explore it? Or can we dismiss that out of hand too?

          Perhaps *that* will get you to see the rhetorical flaw in your argument. If not, I can’t make it much more clear.

        • Tom Kratman

          Right. In other words your military ignorance is just that vast. Got it. No surprise. I will be surprised if anyone listens to you when you comment on matters military, after this.

          By the way, an experiment is not what you do when you force feed something to your entire armed forces. An experiment is when you take a smaller group, a group small enough not to be ruinous if the experiment fails, and try it there.

          Guess what, Steven; the Marines did that experiment and it was a failure.

          What you call it after the experiment is shown to be a failure and still force feed it to the armed forces anyway is probably sabotage.

        • Tom Kratman

          III. By the way, other than your complete military ignorance, why can’t you answer simple questions? To repeat:

          “Or in this case, can you come up with an example or two for us to explore of sexually compatible people forming combat effective tactical organizations without being locked into monogamy?”

        • Tom Kratman

          Spare us that bullshit, Steven; you seem to be in favor of a system that has never worked except to fill mass graves and make a little profit off slave labor. Compared to that an untested system is in every way to be preferred.

          Here, however, we’re talking about something that does work and has worked for thousands, tens of thousands, of years; single sex, combat forces. To change that you need to assume the burden of proof, and not the other way around.

          You weren’t aware of the rhetorical flaw, were you? Tsk.

        • Steven Schwartz

          Spare us that bullshit, Steven; you seem to be in favor of a system that
          has never worked except to fill mass graves and make a little profit
          off slave labor. Compared to that an untested system is in every way to
          be preferred.

          In other words, “When I think things should be different, I don’t need evidence — but when you do, you need evidence of it already working before we try it!”

          See above in re: double standards.

          Here, however, we’re talking about something that does work and has
          worked for thousands, tens of thousands, of years; single sex, combat
          forces. To change that you need to assume the burden of proof, and not
          the other way around.

          Just as monarchy “worked”, just as not letting women vote “worked”, just as a whole lot of things “worked”. Because it served the interestes of people in power.

          When the need has been desperate, women have fought — despite barriers being put in their way — and succeeded. You can look at WWII Russia for examples, or the anti-air defense units in Great Britain during the same war. Of course, since they weren’t integratined in precisely the same way as you’re asking about, they’re irrelevant to your “prove it works before we try it” question.

          And considering that you’re the one who advocates mass murder for political purposes, as we’ve seena gain and again — what was it? Kill half a million people in Haiti before we helped it, something like that? You’re not in much position to complain abotu theoretical blood on other people’s hands.

        • Tom Kratman

          No, exactly what I said. Your system is a horror show, but you prefer it despite evidence. I am willing to take a chance on a different one to avoid your horror show.

          No more of SST. Now stay on point and answer the questions.

          Of course you can’t.

        • James

          I’ve heard people from the IDF and from Israel say the same thing about the caracal units. Hell there are even video’s of it.

          Of course this is when they aren’t rendered handicap from hip dysplasia which seems to be a major problem. Women just aren’t built to haul all that gear over miles and miles. My buddies wife is getting kicked out of the guard for it and she worked on artillery pieces in a shop the whole time.

        • Ori Pomerantz

          Caracal has been in operation for about fifteen years (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caracal_Battalion). However, sex integration has not been expanded to other combat units. This is evidence that while it isn’t failing completely, it isn’t doing a great job either.

        • Tom Kratman

          There is a new rising battalion, tackily named Lions of the Jordan Valley. it’s not clear that it’s reached anything like operational strength yet, and the recent video on youtube smacks of a recruiting effort for a battalion they possibly can’t fill. Mox Nix, calling something a light infantry battalion doesn’t really make it so and Israel’s been displaying women, especially attractive ones, for propaganda purposes for a long time. I suspect this is more form than substance, too.

          Moreover, if they were doing this right, I would expect massive female injuries and other health problems, probably sufficient to shut the program down. That’s been our experience, as well as of other western powers who have tried. I’ve got a copy of a letter from the head of the PPCLI’s Battle School, for example, wherein he makes the very good point that we can’t criticize how hard the girls were trying; they were trying until they broke themselves. In huge and overwhelming percentages.

          So Caracal? Lions of the Jordan Valley, if they appear? Sops. Show. Form, no substance. If it were substantive, the girls would get physically wrecked.

        • Ori Pomerantz

          According to http://www.israeldefense.co.il/content/%D7%91%D7%A2%D7%A7%D7%91%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9E%D7%97%D7%A7%D7%A8-%D7%A2%D7%A0%D7%A7-%D7%94%D7%A7%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%AA-%D7%9C%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%97%D7%9E%D7%95%D7%AA (sorry, I could find an English reference – try to Google Translate it), the men in Caracal are not as physically capable as the men in other infantry units and the women can’t measure up. It may not be a huge issue for law enforcement duties along a peaceful border (such as Egypt or Jordan).

        • Ming the Merciless

          Also, when the IDF wants to stomp Arabs, they don’t bring the Israeli women along.

          http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/08/gaza-a-mans-war-israel-gender/375689/

          In the current conflict, all Israeli combat casualties have been men,
          since the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) does not allow female soldiers to operate in positions “over the border.”

          All of this has taken place as the IDF touts its record of gender
          advancement, noting that women are allowed to serve in more than 90 percent of army units—though in practice it’s actually more like 69 percent—and that women are being called up for reserve duty at record rates. Women are visibly involved in managing the Iron Dome missile-defense system and teaching about artillery and engineering. But it’s difficult to claim that women are equals in the IDF (even the IDF admits that less than 4 percent of women are in combat positions). Many are in “combat-support” positions that can involve anything from opening the gate of the army base to cleaning guns—and which, by the way, command a lower salary than combat positions.

        • Tom Kratman

          By the way, other than your complete military ignorance, why can’t you answer simple questions? To repeat:

          “Or in this case, can you come up with an example or two for us to explore of sexually compatible people forming combat effective tactical organizations without being locked into monogamy?”

        • Curt Pangracs

          “You are also right in that I don’t think it’s very good satire.” Interesting, I don’t remember seeing Jack Withrow write ANYTHING about YOU. This leads me to believe that you are a typical narcissistic troll who, despite little to no practical experience in anything actually useful to anyone, likes to argue for the sake of arguing, then spin something that has nothing to do with the subject into an entirely new argument, leaving the meat of the original issue far behind, since you have little or no understanding or practical experience in that subject. Yeah, you’re the kind of guy who would never say the things you write to someone face-to-face, because you know, no matter how much of a pacifist the other person might be, your pedantic asshattedness would drive them to punch you square in the suckhole.

        • Steven Schwartz

          That’s funny; I don’t recall seeing anyone write anything about you, either, yet you feel somehow compelled to come and comment at great length.

          Perhaps you should consider your own behavior in light of what you’re saying above.

          And there is not one thing I’ve said here, or anywhere on this site, that I would not say to someone’s face, if the conversation were happening in real time.

        • Tom Kratman

          Not quite satire, no. Satire is supposed to be funny, I think. I don’t think any of this is actually funny. Rather, though it will vary in details, it is what I expect to happen across the Army and the Corps. But I’m not done yet.

        • Jack Withrow

          I don’t think it is satire in the least, although the left thinks it is very bad satire. I think it is a true picture of what an infantry unit will become in very short order. It is already a true picture of what goes on in some Support Units on a daily basis. The only thing you might have possibly exaggerated about is the trannie in the ranks, and that is only because they haven’t forced the military to accept them in the ranks openly yet.

        • Tom Kratman

          “Yet…”

      • Mark Andrew Edwards

        I remember when Joe Haldeman and Mike Judge were writing science fiction and not prophesy. I’m starting to think The Forever War might be a best-case scenario.

        • Tom Kratman

          At least he had the courage to propose a system and the honesty to admit it would break down rather quickly.

        • Mark Andrew Edwards

          He did indeed. I just recall thinking how depressing and unrealistic The Forever War was. Now it seems far, far too visionary. I suspect we will be tested soon and all these foolish dogma are going to get good people killed.

        • Tom Kratman

          In job lots.

      • Albert

        Hasn’t the military _always_, from the beginning of time, been about energetic young folk looking to get laid?

        • Tom Kratman

          Not usually by each other, with a couple of odd exceptions here and there. Generally speaking, combat is a social activity and an infantry company above all a social grouping. Adding in sexually compatible people, not otherwise locked into monogamous relationships, tends to turn military organizations from group social to couple social, from combative to courting, and from Victory Drive to Peyton Place. Yes, this has happened pretty much everywhere men and women have been grouped in the military.

        • Albert

          Right, that’s what I mean. Soldiers are going to seek out sex enthusiastically, by and large. Have them serve with sexually-compatible people and it seems kinda obvious, even in theory, that they won’t go looking further afield when sex is available on location.

          (And of course reality has proven time and again that _this_ time the theory is correct.)

        • James

          Yep and when those people are the only ones with them for a 6 month period in the middle of no where surrounded by people who see them as the enemy they will become even more likely.

          Even when they are happy and willing to not try it war is BORING. Honestly almost every guy I know who went to AFG or Iraq and came back smoking when he didn’t before admitted to doing it because he was bored.

          Add to this the fact that when fallout4 came out pornhub lost 20% of its traffic you realize sex or at least simulation of it is a great time killer. Why rub one out when the corporal with the nice ass from Bravo gives head for 40 bucks?

        • Ori Pomerantz

          Which is another reason for it to work in Israel. Israeli soldiers very rarely serve more than a couple hours’ drive from an Israeli town. When I was in (early 1990s), you had to be in prison or something like that not to get to go home one weekend out of four.

        • James

          Yea, that’s the problem. To many people “coughstevencough” don’t know or don’t care about the differences in the way the services serve their individual countries and services.

          It’s like comparing a Sub crew on a French sub operating in the Med. for 6 months to a Boomer from the USN operating in the deep blue for 9 months. It’s going to be completely different. And none of that takes into account cultural traits.

      • http://www.angry.net/blog2 Angry Webmaster

        Thank God I had finished eating and drinking before I started reading. :D

        • Tom Kratman

          So you would have something to hurl?

        • http://www.angry.net/blog2 Angry Webmaster

          So I wouldn’t have to replace my keyboard or monitor. Can’t afford it at the moment thanks to gainful unemployment.

      • Tom Kratman
      • Bill Wade

        A case in point, of which I know LTC Kratman is aware.

        http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/13/inside-ft-hood-s-prostitution-ring.html

        The point being, if the officers and NCOs in charge of investigating sexual harassment are incapable of proper discipline, one can scarcely imagine the problem is controllable.

        • Tom Kratman

          Screw that, the goddamned deputy IG of the Army – David Hale – was coercing the wives of his subordinates into the sack by threatening the careers of their husbands. Idiot lefties think sex can be controlled, or claim to think it. I cannot think of any good reason to believe it can be, and certainly not by any methods we’re willing to countenance.

      • Andrew Foss

        The thing about coed forces is this: it is damaging to order. Until you can stop basic training privates from paying someone to get out of firewatch (It happens, I know of a guy who took eight shifts at $20 per one night. The Drill that found out about it sent him back to the B’s rather than scuff him up and make him continue the duty day.) You really can’t argue that de facto prostitution won’t occur on a large scale. Such is *always* corrosive to morale and discipline, and thus, order.

        There are instances where a fully-integrated force has operated and won, (Vietnam, irregulars) but there were extenuating circumstances. (A direct threat to one’s homeland brings people together. You can’t argue our invasion wasn’t.) And they still nearly lost. (I’m on a smartphone right now (and commenting is a massive PITA.) so I can’t track down the references to give more exact numbers than “a shitload”) We killed off a shitload of their men. If we’d have kept at it for another year or two, we’d have attrited the NVA into surrender or irrelevance.

        • Tom Kratman

          They weren’t integrated in the VC. Inside the VC and NVA, Sherman and Cragg I think it was, showed that women in the VC were segregated into women-only companies.

      • BlueHornet

        And someday … someday we’ll be looking back on this as “the good old days.”

      • Mightypeon

        Can I volunteer to provide another perspective?

        That of an actual Russian Zampolit equivalent (current Russian armed forces have no direct need for those) tasked with overseeing the pow camp this unit finds itself in?

      Be Sociable, Share!