The Israli Women Combat Canard

On April 27, liberals on the House Armed Services Committee attached an amendment to the 2017 Defense Authorization Act that would require our young women age 18-26 to be subject to the draft should we face a real war and an all-volunteer force prove inadequate.

Due to some smart maneuvering by Pete Sessions (R-TX), the chairman of the House Rules Committee, that amendment was stripped from the House bill, but now the Senate Armed Services Committee has adopted it.  The upper chamber will soon vote on the measure and it’s likely to pass, barring a huge public outcry.

It is therefore imperative that every concerned citizen contact their two senators and put them on notice that this action is unacceptable for the following reasons:

  • This will create an administrative nightmare for the military, which will have to train and cull through all eligible females in order to find a few minimally qualified women who could make it into a combat unit under gender-neutral standards which the Pentagon insists will remain high.
  • This wastes time which, during a national emergency, the nation cannot afford.
  • This wastes money at a time we can least afford it.
  • This will result in a lot of minimally-qualified women being placed in combat in order to fill these positions as quickly as possible.
  • Gender-neutral standards based on minimal fitness tests leave women vulnerable and men less prepared for combat.
  • Minimally-qualified soldiers are more likely to be killed or injured which is not only expensive, it is unconscionable.
  • In the event of a national emergency, we need the most potent fighting force possible, not a minimally-qualified one.
  • Women, who think they are qualified and want to serve in combat, would be free to volunteer.
  • With 73 million military age males, there is no compelling reason to draft women
  • None of our potential enemies are foolish enough to saddle themselves with this politically correct, expensive and dangerous experiment.

And yes, this would be an experiment.  It’s true that countries such as Canada and Denmark have integrated units for the purpose of equal opportunity, not military necessity.  However, these countries have militaries that are largely peacekeeping forces and depend on other countries for their survival.

Despite what you may have been led to believe, Israel, which consistently has had to fight for its survival, drafts women but they are not used in combat.  Instead, they train and support the troops and guard its borders with two friendly countries, Egypt and Jordan.  In fact, their role in the IDF is more limited than in our military.

For a brief period, before and immediately after World War II, Israeli women fought alongside their fathers, husbands and brothers to defend their homeland as part of the Haganah.  It was viewed as a necessity, but was not all that successful.  These mixed gender units suffered high casualty rates. The women not only put themselves, but the men who tried to defend them, in more danger.  Therefore, the idea of using women in combat was abandoned  by the Haganah and not even considered by the IDF.   We could learn a lot from Israel.

Let’s be clear.  Throughout our history, women have volunteered for military service and served with distinction.  However, the recent action by the Obama Administration to begin assigning women (not a choice) to direct combat positions will cause many thoughtful women, who would be inclined toward military service, to reconsider.

It may not be fair that the average man is six inches taller, 30 pounds heaver and, more importantly, has 42 percent more upper body strength than the average woman, but it is reality.  In combat, a woman will not have an equal opportunity to survive, nor will her fellow soldiers who must depend on her in battle and who must make up for her lack of strength and stamina in the field.

The larger question for members of the House and Senate is why have you neglected your duty to regulate the military?  Why have you left the important decisions regarding women in the armed services to this and previous administrations more concerned about political correctness than military necessity?

On February 2, the Senate Armed Services Committee held its first hearing on women in combat since 1991, 25 years ago.   During that time, the executive branch has put more and more women in harm’s way by steadily blurring the lines between combat and combat support and now this!

They have betrayed our military and are worthless representatives of we the people.

8 thoughts on “The Israli Women Combat Canard

  1. A woman should not even be considered as Potus and Commander in Chief of the U.S. military while women are using their gender as a loop hole to avoid military service and their duty and responsibility to the Nation.

    The military gender loop hole should be closed or women should not be considered for the position of Commander in Chief of the U.S. military.


    1. I disagree. If a woman fully understands that the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things and otherwise shows good judgement I support her as I can a man who has not served.

      John Kerry, the Swift boad commander served and the he would be a disaster as president.

      On the other hand, Elaine Donnelly, the president of the Center for Military Readiness is one of the most knowledgable people on military issue in the U.S. She would make an excellent Secretary of Defense. Check out http://www.cmr-link


  2. This is all about two things: pandering to the radical feminists for votes, and the ongoing program for erasing all perceived sexual differences and finally destroying marriage and family. And this, in turn, furthers the goal of rapidly depopulating our planet, a goal cherished by our elites. The radical pervert agenda and homosexual and lesbian “marriage” and the GLBT agenda are all part of this.
    No woman has ever made it through the USMC infantry officer’s course. Women began making it through jump school only after physical standards were lowered, although they deserve some respect for going out the door. The two who “graduated” from Ranger School were given a lot of help and a lot of preparation, allowed to retake parts of the training, and even then could not meet the standards, but were given their ranger tabs anyway.
    Women certainly have a place in support units and administrative jobs in the military and can function quite well as doctors, nurses, and computer specialists, or in food services. They can be radar controllers and even truck drivers.
    On the other hand…why don’t we draft all the radical feminists, including those who hold public office and send them as infantry against ISIS? That would solve the problem once and for all.


  3. Franklin, it strikes me as unfair to say women can’t be president because they can’t serve in every role in the military, because women haven’t been “using” a loophole, either as a group or individually. They have simply been banned from some areas. To ban them from POTUS because they’ve been banned from something else is unfair.

    Thank god your way of thinking didn’t prevent, for instance, M Thatcher from being in charge with Argentina invaded the Falklands.


  4. I’m from the old school where men defend women who are the bedrock of our civilization because of families and women’s homemaking instincts. Coercion is the opposite of freedom and what would we be fighting for if we force the physically weaker sex into situations beyond their mental and physical makeup. Drafting women is another step toward abandoning the ideals of Western/European culture that has advanced freedom for all. Basically, the manly thing to do is defend your families, meaning wives, children, elders, and those who cannot likely defend themselves. Like now, that was my attitude as an AFROTC graduate, USAF pilot from 1957 thru 1971. What has happened to our military? PC has infected it.


  5. Yet, Warren, on 4/6 you shared the quote “The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, as long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs or impede their efforts to obtain it.” Be careful of imposing restrictions on women based on their “homemaking instincts.” If they’re not interested, then obviously they should be free to make another choice.

    Also, while the average man is stronger, physically, than the average woman, there are literally millions of American women who could beat the average-sized man in a fair fight. If they want to try to qualify for combat, I say go for it.


  6. I’d like to see the radical feminists getting drafted to serve in the front lines, and if they have daughters, force their daughters to serve. Be sure you buy both ear plugs and ear muffs to protect your hearing when they start to oink, snort and squeal. That will be a comical viral YouTube video.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s