It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
I think I've established my libertarian bona fides rather comprehensively here at Ricochet. Anyone who's been around our little community for awhile has probably received some of my Peace, Love, and Happiness (hands off, that's trademarked -- I bought it from a boomer after the dot-com bubble burst) at some point, and hopefully left the conversation a little more mellow. And maybe with the munchies.
Though not strident, I default on equality of opportunity and human freedom, and that extends to gay rights, gender roles, soft drugs, weird religions, immigration, and a whole slew of other positions typically viewed by my more conservative brothers and sisters as positively Leftist. They're not, at least not in justification, and I'm certainly no commie, but we'll leave off that discussion for another time.
I say all that to say this: I am absolutely opposed to having women in ground combat roles. I'm no misogynist, I'm just a Soldier with 13 1/2 years in the Army, multiple combat tours, and a wealth of experience from having served under, with, and over both male and female Soldiers. War, as fought today by U.S. Army and USMC ground fighters -- infantry, for the most part, but also tankers, cavalry scouts, combat engineers, and artillery -- is exclusively male for very good reason, mainly having to do with physical limitations. I've never bought the argument that females are trouble and young males can't be trusted (true for teenagers, less so for young troops with a scowling Casey Taylor ready to discipline them), or that women must be protected from the horrors of war, but those are moot points; a person has to be physically strong to meet the demands of ground combat. Though there are separate fitness standards for females in the rest of the branches, those considered 'combat arms' have one -- male. We all have to meet basic strength and endurance standards, and all of them, for every age group, are far greater than those required of females. For very good reason, as ground combat is no place for weakness. We have high, uniform standards in place -- higher than any other country's military force -- to ensure that when we fight, we win. At least we used to.
Which brings us to this week. Our senior military leadership has made a grave mistake which, I fear, will greatly harm our lethality and esprit de corps. From the Army Times:
WASHINGTON — Army leaders have begun to study the prospect of sending female soldiers to the service’s prestigious Ranger school — another step in the effort to broaden opportunities for women in the military.
Gen. Raymond Odierno, Army chief of staff, said Wednesday that he’s asked senior commanders to provide him with recommendations and a plan this summer. And while he stressed that no decisions have been made, he suggested that Ranger school may be a logical next step for women as they move into more jobs closer to the combat lines.
Don't be fooled by the verbiage; it's already a done deal. My instructor buddies already have their orders.
I'm not a Ranger, but I cut my teeth in the Infantry. I learned everything I need for a successful career by going to other schools, but I respect the discipline and strength of those men like no one else, and I'm still surrounded by them; friends, neighbors, co-workers, leaders. My best friends are Rangers, the Mountain School is my backyard, and the best warrior-leaders I've ever had were all Rangers. They, to a man, are devastated by this. The whole community is devastated, and it's already filtering down to the regular Infantry; my inbox is testament to this. Whether or not our senior leadership chooses to recognize it, this will very likely bloom into a crisis very quickly if not handled correctly. Given that no opinion was sought from the Ranger community before making this move, I have my doubts that it will be. I'm out of words, so I'll leave you with this sobering read:
Female officers have complained that the lack of the school credential disadvantages them for promotions and commands, and in an election year their complaints have found champions among the political appointees in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. In a Department whose highest priority is the Secretary's million-dollar Gulfstream commute, and that has lost interest in two ongoing wars and a dozen other flashpoints where soldiers risk their lives daily, a stroke of a pen can upend a 60-year-old course that embodies a tradition with roots in the 18th Century.
As with everything else I write, these are my opinions and mine alone, and do not represent the position of the United States Army, Department of Defense, or other Federal agency. That should cover it.
- Comment (171)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (12)
Comments:
Oct '10
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Casey, as usual I am late getting into this, had a long day at work. I served over twenty years in the military and have to agree with you, and for most of the same reasons. There are many dedicated and courageous young women in the military, but most would find themselves physically challenged in certain combat arms. This would put them, as well as, those that they were serving with at additional risk. Mandating that women be in the Rangers is a little like telling the U.S. Men's Olympic track team that they have to include women and then being surprised that they don't bring back as many gold medals. In the case of the Rangers, however, it will be young men and women who will not come back.
May '10
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Is your reason forming your opinion or is your opinion directing your reasoning? If appeals to tradition, biology etc hold no sway for you for on SSM it would appear the later is true. That is why very early on I asked if it was about feelings...or what you think is really really important. I don't have to meet your continued demand for a body count...please, I'm just trying to follow the logic.
May '10
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Speaking of same-sex marriage, Casey, come to OH when you retire and we'll marry. I'll cook, do the dishes, laundry -- all that stuff; you keep us safe. Plus if you could mow the lawn, that would be cool. (Great post and comments everyone, even the SSM spat -- good points on both sides, imo.)
Feb '12
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Casey Taylor
Katie O
...You say my analogy is flawed because the gravity of the ramifications is so different. Do you really think the possibility of gay divorce is why people oppose gay marriage? Come on, you're kidding right? Traditional marriage supporters think their reasons are every bit as serious as battlefield casualties...if not more serious.
Show me the dead bodies that have resulted from gay people marrying each other. ·
Oh that's easy. There are many thousands of dead bodies resulting from our denigration of marriage (same-sex marriage is the latest part of that denigration): innocents of all ages murdered by gangsters and other violent young men who came out of broken homes; children killed by abusive single mothers or their boyfriends; children killed by illnesses, accidents, and other dangerous circumstances due to a lack of supervision; children killed by foster parents after being taken from broken homes; infants abandoned in dumpsters; wives murdered by bitter ex-husbands; etc.
Tens of thousands of deaths - probably hundreds of thousands - since we began denigrating marriage and the family. (I'm not including abortions.)
Feb '12
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Casey Taylor
Western Chauvinist
On what basis do you believe SSM isn't on par with women in combat? The immediacy of the threat?...
Social ostracism isn't death. Don't like the way things are going in ol' Mass, and don't think you can change them? Move to Georgia. Soldiers don't have that luxury. They can't move away from the danger in which their superiors have placed them due to this policy.
The army is made up of volunteers. Of course soldiers can move away from the danger - don't sign up or leave. I'm completely on your side when it comes to the policy, and I'm completely on the side of doing everything possible to equip soldiers correctly, including raising taxes significantly, if necessary, but soldiers have as much of a choice as anyone else when it comes to accepting risks.
Nov '10
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
I urge anyone with an interest in this area go to Elaine Donnelly"s website: Center for Military Readiness, www.cmrlink.org/. Elaine has been taking on this issue for more than a decade and has a great deal of the pros and cons. Your IDF questions are answered there.
Another possibility for this is the same the Obama administration is using in the cuts for the Army and Marines, if you don't have ground troops you will not go to war. If you have women in combat roles, then you will be less likely to use them with an America hypersensitive to combat losses magnified by her girls in ponytails coming back in body bags.
I am reminded of a story I read from a SF firefighter who complained that due to physical standards being lowered for women to join SFFD, that men for the most part did the lifesaving. Eventually, this turned to firefighters "taking turns" in that if was the women firefighters turn to "make the rescue" and she could not, or would not, the victim was out of luck.Rationale: Same pay, same risk, diluted mission.
Apr '12
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
This argument is illegitimate.
The activists are not conservatives.
The activists are those seeking to change the foundations upon which our society stands.
Regardless, to say one cannot argue or defend multiple positions is the emptiest of observations.
A sad degeneration of reason.
Apr '12
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Leporello
Oh that's easy. There are many thousands of dead bodies resulting from our denigration of marriage (same-sex marriage is the latest part of that denigration): innocents of all ages murdered by gangsters and other violent young men who came out of broken homes; children killed by abusive single mothers or their boyfriends; children killed by illnesses, accidents, and other dangerous circumstances due to a lack of supervision; children killed by foster parents after being taken from broken homes; infants abandoned in dumpsters; wives murdered by bitter ex-husbands; etc.
Tens of thousands of deaths - probably hundreds of thousands - since we began denigrating marriage and the family. (I'm not including abortions.) · 1 hour ago
Leporello brings the sledgehammer - argument and evidence!
Apr '12
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Casey Taylor
I'm not sure I understand your criticism, or maybe I didn't supply enough background. First, I'm a firm believer in equality of opportunity, and I fully support females in combat, but in roles better suited to the sex. The recognition that nature has built the sexes differently doesn't strain the bounds of libertarian purity...
Second, given the nature of this topic and its immediacy for those most adversely affected...
Edited 18 hours ago
My criticism was not of your argument against female participation in the military as you have described.
Clearly direct language must by used here so I say your overall argument is that of the hypocrite because you claim to adhere to libertarian principles on a host of issues, but in this one, well, let Mr. Taylor argue from experience.
Sorry, Mr. Taylor, you are held to a higher standard because of the public nature of this discussion.
Again clearly, one cannot coherently argue for conservation of one social principle from the evidence of human experience but claim the same is illegitimate in other realms of inquiry.
When did you do this? In the preamble of your discourse.
Apr '12
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
If the introduction regarding "libertarian bone fides" had been omitted, little discussion would have followed from your post.
As is, however, many recognize a lack of coherence between the established bona fides clause and request for clemency as libertarian principles of individual freedom - even the freedom to suicide or self destruction (see the "soft drug" "default" statement in paragraph two) - are jettisoned in the remainder of your post.
Hence the firestorm of commentary.
To your counter argument:
We agree that the genders are differently constituted and so perform differing roles due to their freedoms and constraints derived therefrom. This observation, however, you limit incorrectly to your argument. The conservative argues that accurate observation has broader societal implications to be preserved.
Your statement that the recognition of gender differences "doesn't strain the...libertarian purity" in this situation is entirely ad hoc.
Clearly stated, you make a conservative (that is experience and culture based) argument to support your libertarian position. This is chicanery of a high order but one you are, hopefully, coming to recognize.
Consider that conservative thinking tends to stress that our society's institutions were created in recognition of gender differences as well as other human variations.
Apr '12
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Finally, let's consider the "nature of this topic and its immediacy for those most adversely affected."
Will you allow that individuals bearing perspectives differing from yours might state that in defence of drug laws, immigration laws, abortion laws, curtailment of the welfare state, and support of traditional marriage (admitted straining in the category here) there is an "immediacy for those most adversely affected?"
In other words, how can the "immediacy" argument be limited to only the subject matter upon which you claim (13 1/2 years) experience when others may have similar or more experience in other matters?
Ultimately, there is a methodological question being asked of libertarians in much of the commentary. How do arguments from experience and authority remain conserved in your beloved matters only to be jettisoned when others with similar, possibly greater, interests should abandon theirs for the greater wisdom?
Is the distinction like pepper? To be used according to taste?
Props to rico-peep Western Chauvinist for stating the overall purpose of these commentaries. Not to brow beat (though a firm touch is clearly required) our libertarian brethren but to illustrate some of their own, unconscious, adherence to conservative principles.
Edited on May 20, 2012 at 6:57pmAug '10
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Furius Camillus
Leporello
Oh that's easy. There are many thousands of dead bodies resulting from our denigration of marriage (same-sex marriage is the latest part of that denigration):
Leporello brings the sledgehammer - argument and evidence!
Well, almost.
Leporello argues that much suffering (some of it considerably worse than death, in my opinion) has resulted from the denigration of traditional marriage. He parenthetically notes that SSM is only the latest part of that denigration. As such, SSM simply hasn't been around long enough to cause much in the way of deaths.
It is a perversion of logic to say that SSM has caused the deaths due to the degeneration of marriage before SSM was even an institution.
However, there's nothing illogical about arguing that, since the degeneration of marriage has caused suffering and death, and SSM will undermine marriage further, that SSM will cause suffering and death in the future. People who genuinely believe SSM will bolster rather than undermine marriage will disagree with this argument, but the argument itself now has a logical shape.
Aug '10
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Furius Camillus: Your statement that the recognition of gender differences "doesn't strain the...libertarian purity"...
...you make a conservative argument to support your libertarian position. This is chicanery of a high order...
I don't see why Casey is obviously indulging in chicanery of high order.
When he says that his "default" on gender roles is equality, he isn't insisting that the sexes are practically indistinguishable. Giving equality the benefit of the doubt simply means supposing the sexes are equal unless there's good reason to believe otherwise.
Even with all the wonderful complementarity between male and female, his attitude is a reasonable one: despite our differences, we're much more alike than different -- we're all human.
There is nothing about libertarianism that precludes libertarians from believing that the sexes are quite different. Yet we are equal enough to enjoy equal freedoms before the law -- to hold property, to freely contract, to speak...
Obviously, the sexes have not always enjoyed equality before the law. For example, the US Progressive movement has both historically restricted women's rights to freely contract and recently enacted regulations giving women preference rather than equal standing. Neither position is libertarian.
Feb '12
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Furius Camillus
Leporello
Oh that's easy. There are many thousands of dead bodies resulting from our denigration of marriage (same-sex marriage is the latest part of that denigration)...
Leporello brings the sledgehammer - argument and evidence!
...Leporello... parenthetically notes that SSM is only the latest part of that denigration. As such, SSM simply hasn't been around long enough to cause much in the way of deaths.
It is a perversion of logic to say that SSM has caused the deaths due to the degeneration of marriage before SSM was even an institution.
However, there's nothing illogical about arguing that, since the degeneration of marriage has caused suffering and death, and SSM will undermine marriage further, that SSM will cause suffering and death in the future...
I would qualify your statement: The effects of SSM did not begin to be felt when the first state imposed it, but years earlier, when the SSM conception of marriage became a respectable opinion. Or perhaps it was decades earlier, when the conception of marriage as an ordinary contract for personal happiness first became respectable (from which SSM flows ineluctably).
There is no perversion of logic.
Feb '12
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Midget Faded Rattlesnake
Furius Camillus: Your statement that the recognition of gender differences "doesn't strain the...libertarian purity"...
...you make a conservative argument to support your libertarian position. This is chicanery of a high order...
I don't see why Casey is obviously indulging in chicanery of high order.
...despite our differences, we're much more alike than different -- we're all human.
There is nothing about libertarianism that precludes libertarians from believing that the sexes are quite different. Yet we are equal enough to enjoy equal freedoms before the law -- to hold property, to freely contract, to speak...
Obviously, the sexes have not always enjoyed equality before the law. For example, the US Progressive movement has both historically restricted women's rights to freely contract and recently enacted regulations giving women preference rather than equal standing. Neither position is libertarian.
The evidence is rather the other way - that women and men are more dissimilar than similar. See, e.g., Taking Sex Differences Seriously, by UVA professor Steven Rhoads.
Nor does equality of natural right under the Declaration require equality in every privilege under the positive law.
Aug '10
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Leporello
The evidence is rather the other way - that women and men are more dissimilar than similar. See, e.g., Taking Sex Differences Seriously, by UVA professor Steven Rhoads.
Sex differences are larger than modern people expect, yes. The differences between the sexes far outstrips the differences between races and likely even cultures, yes. But that does not make men and women more dissimilar than they are similar, unless you have an extremely blinkered view of the ways in which two things might be different.
What's easier for you to relate to, a woman or a centipede?
I thought so.
Edited on May 20, 2012 at 9:36pmAug '10
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Leporello
Nor does equality of natural right under the Declaration require equality in every privilege under the positive law.
So?
My understanding is that libertarians do not believe that it is the State's business to enforce positive law.
Depending on what definition of positive law you mean, positive law is either a pernicious concept that must be stamped out in the interest of freedom, or the kind of custom (such as "laws" of manners) best enforced by social institutions, rather than legal institutions.
Sep '11
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Furius Camillus: Obviously, it is possible to oppose two different things at the same time, but many so cons don't devote anywhere near the energy to opposing WIC as they do to SSM.
Those whom I know in the pro life movement consider themselves activists; they do mailing compaigns, take part in marches, man booths at the state fair, etc.... All of those activities can be considered a form of activism.
Aug '10
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Leporello
I would qualify your statement: The effects of SSM did not begin to be felt when the first state imposed it, but years earlier, when the SSM conception of marriage became a respectable opinion.
The above case can be made, but you must ask how long, really, the SSM conception of marriage has been respectable opinion. Ten years? Twenty?
And what fraction of casualties in the "death of marriage" during that time are attributable to such a marginal issue, rather than to larger issues like no-fault divorce, perceiving marriage as an "arrival" rather than "departure" point in life, etc.
The following case, however, cannot be made:
Whether SSM flows ineluctably from viewing marriage as contractual or personally fulfilling is debatable. (Many historical cultures viewed marriage as a contract. Jane Austen wrote about marriage and personal happiness. None of these people imagined SSM.)
But let's grant that SSM flows ineluctably, as you say. You still must wait until something actually appears before you start tallying up the casualties attributed to it.
Edited on May 20, 2012 at 10:20pmSep '11
Re: It's Getting Harder To Be in the Army
Maybe there is something that I am just not getting here, but I don't understand how gay people can be held responsible for what straight people do. Straight people are the ones responsible for the vast majority of cases of child neglect and abuse. Gay people make up, at most, 5% of the population; to lay our cultural problems on their doorstep is to imbue them with a power that they don't have.