Home Contact Register Subscribe to the Beacon Login

Thursday, October 27, 2016

DENNIS PATRICK: WOMEN IN COMBAT - A BRIDGE TOO FAR

The final conference at Field Marshall Montgomery’s headquarters preparing for Operation Market-Garden the discussion focused on five major bridges that had to be taken intact to facilitate the armored advance into Germany. Pointing to the Arnhem Bridge on the map LTG Frederick Browning commanding the First Airborne Army asked, “How long will it take the armor to reach us?” Montgomery replied, “Two days.” Browning replied, “We can hold it for four.” Then he added, “But, I think we might be going a bridge too far.”

The disastrous Battle of Arnhem produced an epic debacle. British and American forces suffered 16,000 casualties and over 22,000 Dutch civilians starved to death in the winter of 1944.

Leap ahead seventy-one years. In December 2015 the Pentagon authorized women to serve in all combat units (infantry, armor, cavalry and artillery) and special operations forces (SEALS, Green Berets, Rangers, Delta Force and Marine Raiders). This Department of Defense policy is not a figment of imagination. The policy is real and is being implemented. Those who know concur that this is a military disaster waiting to happen. Metaphorically, this may be our own “bridge too far.”

Most arguments opposing women in combat units typically focus on physical qualification of women compared to men. This misses the point entirely. More will be said about this.

Former Army associates, knowing I had served in the Army Infantry for over twenty years, provided some excellent commentaries. These commentaries are nothing short of brilliant for their insight. Unfortunately, these pieces are not well known because they do not fit the narrative of the liberal media or political template of the White House, Congress or the Pentagon.

This is what a political purge of the military looks like in elevating “yes men” to flag officer rank. The current crop of generals and admirals will say nothing to oppose political correctness.

Ray Starmann wrote a piece in USDefenseWatch.com on June 5, 2016, titled “Women in the Combat Arms: The greatest Disaster in US Military History.” He effectively sets the scene illustrating the mythical gender-neutral scenario. “Hollywood created the fantasy of the rough and tough, hard charging female cop. On any given night, on any given network, you can watch an anorexic 95 pound model, turned NYPD detective brandish a pistol larger than her waist and proceed to karate chop and cuff and stuff a myriad of male heavyweight thugs with the imaginary aplomb of Chuck Norris on all night POW camp raid.”

Retired LTG Gregory Newbold (USMC) also published a sterling piece on September 9, 2015 titled “What Tempers the Steel of An Infantry Unit?” found at Warontherocks.com. He maintains, “It is artificial to constrain the debate about women in the infantry to physical capabilities. This doesn’t address what holds an infantry unit together in the worst conditions humanity has to offer....[t]he characteristics that produce uncommon valor as a common virtue are not physical at all, but are derived from the mysterious chemistry that forms in an infantry unit that revels in the most crude and profane existence so that they may be more effective killers than their foe….Members of such units deliberately…avoid all distractions so that its actions are fundamental, instinctive and coldly efficient. Polite company, private hygiene, and weakness all step aside. These are the men who can confront the Islamic State, North Korean automatons, or Putin’s Spetsnaz and win every time.”

The crux of his piece is this, “In this direct ground combat environment, you do not fight for an ideal, a just cause, America, or Mom and apple pie. You endure the inhumanity and sacrifices of direct ground combat because, ‘Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.’ This selflessness is derived from bonding, and bonding from shared events and the unquestioning subordination of self for the good of the team. But what destroys this alchemy – and, therefore, combat effectiveness – are pettiness, rumor-mongering, suspicion, and jealousy. And when fighting spirit is lessoned, death is the outcome.”

Terry Garlock comments on LTG Newbold’s remarks in his own piece “Pulling Our Military’s Teeth” in The Citizen. “In my own words, less eloquent than Gen. Newbold, when you introduce the opposite sex into an infantry combat unit, at the very least it will be a distraction, and very likely will change the behavior of the men in that unit. At worst it threatens to introduce romantic competition, jealousy, mistrust, the emotional baggage of failed relationships and departure from unit protocol. Is it a stretch to think men in combat will react differently when a female comrade is wounded, captured or killed?”

In colorful and not-so-delicate language Starmann observes, “The military says that good leadership will put a damper on human sex drive. Newsflash social engineers, no amount of ROTC Leadership 101 is going to stop an 18 year old with an erection in a movement to contact with a 36-24-36 cheerleader, Private Babs Horny. Get a grip: the Army and Marines are about to become nothing more than a high school summer camp with guns and high explosives.” Is this policy of women in all combat units our own “bridge too far?”

The November 8 election will have serious consequences for national defense. General Newbold’s conclusion opposing women in combat units is direct and brutal. “If I am wrong, the cost may be denied opportunity to strong and impressive young women. If you’re wrong, our national security is shaken and there is a butcher’s bill to pay. Make your choice.”

 

Dennis M. Patrick can be contacted at P. O. Box 337, Stanley, ND 58784 or (JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

 

Click here to email your elected representatives.

Comments

No Comments Yet

Post a Comment


Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?