Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Rick Santorum's remarks this week about women serving in combat, and the possible ramifications of it, sparked many heated reactions. This post at Gunpowder & Lead does a good job of encapsulating why what Santorum highlighted is a serious and unavoidable issue for our armed forces to consider.
His concern is not, as was initially spun, about the "emotional" nature of women — but rather about the way good men naturally respond when a woman is put in harm's way. As Santorum noted on CNN: "It already happens, of course, with the camaraderie of men in combat, but I think it would be even more unique if women were in combat. And I think that’s not in the best interests of men, women or the mission."
The whole conversation brought to mind Robert Heinlein's numerous comments on the hard-wired nature of men since the dawn of time to protect women and children - defense of the species as our primary role. Heinlein has a rather famous story about a tramp who was killed trying to save a woman from a train in Swope Park which he would cite as an example. You can read it here.
As Heinlein put it: "Men are expendable; women and children are not. A tribe or a nation can lose a high percentage of its men and still pick up the pieces and go on as long as the women and children are saved. But if you fail to save the women and children, you've had it, you're done, you're through!" Or, as Mark Twain put it: "What, Sir, would the people of the earth be without woman? They would be scarce, sir, almighty scarce."
But this also brought to mind this fascinating bit of conversation from an Uncommon Knowledge interview with Victor Davis Hanson:
PETER ROBINSON: “Now here’s the question. Whereas the leading figures of Greece all understood the military from firsthand experience, American elites, Northeast, Coastal California, can lead their entire lives without brushing up against military culture, let alone military experience. Is this something new in American military history and is this healthy? Is it sustainable?”
VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: “We’ve had people who have not had a lot of military – Abraham Lincoln was in the Black Hawk War for a few weeks. FDR was secretary of the Navy. So we’ve had people but what the difference is that this is the first time that we’ve had commanders in chiefs either have not had military experience or they haven’t had anything comparable. What I mean anything comparable, anything from the underbelly of American life, anybody who’s had to take apart an engine, anybody who’s had to build a house.
“So there are approximate experiences, not the same but there’s a tragic sort of notion that you’re in a dead end job, you have to work with muscular strength, there’s no good and bad choices, bad and worse choices. All of that tragic view is necessary to understand what war is but yeah, I’m afraid that in a very sophisticated technological society we are certifying excellence and this is a larger topic, expertise based on basically an Ivy League credential which is not commensurate with real experience in the real world. It doesn’t tell us really what somebody in Fallujah is really thinking about.
“What saves the United States when it goes to war is that we have a subset of the population for a variety of reasons enlisted in officer corps that are 19th century in mentality. They live according to the protocols of the 19th century. What do I mean? They’re more likely to believe in a transcendent religion. They’re more likely to believe in nationalism. They’re more likely to believe in a tragic view that you can be good without having to be perfect. So they don’t become depressed or inordinately give us because of an error. They are more likely to have had experience with muscular matters and so military really hasn’t changed since the 19th century. The people who are ordering it and organizing it and auditing it have changed greatly. But so far it’s sort of like it’s stuck in amber and they’ve been a great salvation to the United States.”
Thought-provoking stuff, to say the least.
- Comment (48)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments:
Dec '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
I'm happy to agree with Jeff Younger.
If there's anyplace where we should resist dealing in theoreticals and hypotheticals, it's military combat. These units aren't supposed to provide affirmative action for women. They're supposed to go kill the enemy -- to make the other bastard die for his country or cause. I don't care if some women qualify and want to do it. It's not about what they want. Dear Lord, we're turning into a bunch of narcissistic ninnies.
I feel similarly about women presidential candidates, btw, barring the rise of an American Margaret Thatcher.
Jul '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
One of the most ardent supporters of women in combat was former US Rep Pat Schroeder. She was also very anti-military. As such, I always thought she had ulterior motives with respect to her support.
Mar '11
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Yet another attempt to "evolve" away differences between men and women.
May '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Believe what you will, Katie. Mitch Daniels was still, I believe, correct. The question is not who is right regarding social issues- all the candidates and virtually all of us agree on the substance.
The question is one of setting priorities. If you are about to go off the cliff (spending and entitlements), you first try to stop the train, then you worry about whether the crew is male or female, the engine is the right horsepower, or the club car is the right color.
May '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
This just shows me that Rick Santorum is a witless pawn of the media's desire to make him out to be a nutter. We don't need one more non-material, unimportant issue to fight about. Rick Santorum has never served in combat or in the military at all. So he should stay out of such pointless and futile debates. Honestly Michelle Obama's opinion of child nutrition is more important.
Dec '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Western Chauvinist: ...
If there's anyplace where we should resist dealing in theoreticals and hypotheticals, it's military combat. These units aren't supposed to provide affirmative action for women. They're supposed to go kill the enemy -- to make the other bastard die forhiscountry or cause. I don't care if some women qualify and want to do it. It's not about what they want. Dear Lord, we're turning into a bunch of narcissistic ninnies.
I feel similarly about women presidential candidates, btw, barring the rise of an American Margaret Thatcher. ·
I don't know WC, you've been regularly seen kicking some big time patootie around here ... the Marines might be a good look for you
Dec '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
I just do not approve of America putting its women into combat situations . What I am about to say isn't my words but something that I read somewhere on the Internet; I would give attribution if I could. It is a paraphrase of the original.
If I hear a burglar downstairs at 2 AM I do not send my 18 year-old daughter downstairs to confront him--I go downstairs to confront him. It would be both morally repugnant and cowardly to send my daughter or other woman downstairs to do the man's job. America sending its women into combat situations morally repugnant for the same reasons.
Rick Santorum is right to call this out, but I wish he had made this point instead of the one he did make.
May '11
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Ben Domenech:
As Heinlein put it: "Men are expendable; women and children are not. A tribe or a nation can lose a high percentage of its men and still pick up the pieces and go on as long as the women and children are saved. But if you fail to save the women and children, you've had it, you're done, you're through!" Or, as Mark Twain put it: "What, Sir, would the people of the earth be without woman? They would be scarce, sir, almighty scarce."
I'm just going to focus on this point, because I don't think anyone else has brought it up. In a country of 300 million plus citizens, in a world of 7 billion people, is it still true that women are more valued because of their reproductive capabilities? Our total armed forces number somewhere around 1% of the population, even if they were filled entirely with women and suffered catastrophic losses on the battlefield, would that have any effect on the population growth of a modern state? Let's remember, in Twain's time childbirth was a little more hazardous than it is now. That being said...
Apr '11
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
I find that Co-Ed Combat has said pretty much all that needs to be said on this subject.
Since I was an enlisted puke in the Air Force rather than in the armed forces, I don't claim my experience is expert. But, fwiw, there were only a few women mechanics who were capable, and they tended towards the avionics side of the house. Conversely, the women in more "traditional" roles as clerks and nurse-technicians and so forth were quite competent.
May '11
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
According to a SEP 2010 report by the Congressional Research Service http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RS22452.pdf, military deaths for female troops totaled 2.5% of the total for Operation Iraqi Freedom (110) and 1.6% for Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan (20). The sacrifice of those women in our nation's service is honorable and should be remembered, but it seems obvious to me that any opening of direct combat occupations now closed to women will result in those numbers and percentages becoming much larger in the future. Is that something the nation is ready for? Are mothers, daughters and sisters in body-bags more damaging to the morale of the nation during conflict than that of our men? I don't know, but I think it's a question that has to be asked before we engage in such a policy.
For anyone wondering my position, I have to say I'm on the fence on this one. I do believe there are women who can do the jobs, and would have no problem letting them take the fight to our enemies. However, on the whole I don't think most women would be suitable.
May '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Of course I'll believe what I will. What I object to is two things:
1) Your consistent tendency to characterize conservatives whose political judgments differ from yours as foolish or idiotic or stupid or naive. You may think Daniels' strategy was "correct" (as if were matter of objective truth rather than prudential judgment). I think events have shown how wrong-headed it was. But either way, countless thoughtful, serious-minded, politically astute commentators opposed it on grounds of both principle and prudence. They deserve better than to be dismissed as idiotic naifs.
2) The tendency among so many on the right to pay more attention to possible political ramifications than to the truth and justice of a statement like Santorum's. I think it contributes to the PC climate that has done so much damage. Why castigate him when he says something true--something you believe? If you can't bring yourself to support the statement, okay. But why trash him for it?
Edited on February 12, 2012 at 1:28pmMay '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
This just shows me that you live in San Francisco.
You think he's letting himself be baited by the media; I think he's appealing to the sound good sense of normal Americans who have been culturally marginalized and cowed into silence by the PC power brokers. He's signaling that he's not afraid to take them on.
You see this as a non issue. I see it as part and parcel of the Obama administration's aggressive undermining of all traditional American institutions, especially those that inculcate moral resistance.
The family, the Church, the military.
I for one am glad and grateful that there's at least one man running for President who's more concerned with truth and right than short term political expediency. I'm glad he's got enough confidence in the majority of Americans to be willing to try to persuade rather than cobble a majority together by avoiding unpopular stands.
Edited on February 12, 2012 at 1:15pmFeb '11
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Unfortunately I served with women in the USN. The experience convinced me that women should have approximately zero involvement with the military.
But actual experience matters not at all. The left doesn't see military service as service. They see it as a group they despise- men- getting a privileged seat on the government gravy train- and they hate that.
So they relentlessly push to get their constituent groups into that privileged seat- military effectiveness be (expletived)- as a matter of principle.
When I was in the navy I saw enormous political pressure applied to make it seem as if women in the military was a great success. From what I've heard since from other veterans that political pressure continues.
But it seems not a coincidence to me that the same national leadership that gave us women in military also gave us- to pick one example- the idiotic rules of engagement that hamper the US military in Afghanistan. Military effectiveness just isn't a priority.
As evidence I note we have failed to win, despite ten years and lots of money spent there. This is what failure looks like- and we should stop it now while we still can.
Oct '11
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Rick Santorum wants to be Commander-in-Chief. His viewpoint on this issue is important.
And as I said upthread, I think he's totally wrong on this.
Sep '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
One problem with the women in combat debate is it wants women to be treated the same as men in combat but not once they are captured. The supporters of women in combat then revert to "old gender stereotypes" that seek to have men and women treated differently. Remember the reaction to Jessica Lynch's capture? If we are going to allow men and women in combat are we willing to deal with the consequences of women being treated differently by an enemy that does not share our "enlightened" view of gender equality and in fact sees women inferior in every way.
May '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Katie, I explicitly said "....Daniels was still, I believe, correct"- how much more do I have to explain that this is my opinion? And I very specifically did not trash Santorum- I said we all share his substantive views.
I will say again, without trepidation or apology, that his approach of bringing this stuff up the same way over and over when there isn't a specific benefit to the strategic goal, is not politically wise. A campaign is a strategic process, not a stream of consciousness expression of views.
I happen to believe- based on observational experience here in Minnesota, that the Republican party, which won the legislature for the first time in 40 years, may have screwed itself over for this year's election by doing exactly what6 Santorum is doing- tossing social issues into the middle of economic policy debates at time and in ways that damage their long term goal and mission.
I repeat- GW Bush was a strong friend of the pro-life cause. He was excoriated by some fervent commentators for not using every platform to preach opposition to abortion. He replied- I believe correctly- that you need to change hearts more than laws.
May '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Embittered Redleg
Rick Santorum wants to be Commander-in-Chief. His viewpoint on this issue is important.
And as I said upthread, I think he's totally wrong on this. · 7 hours ago
At some theoretical level I suppose that's true (though I would hope he would defer to the judgement of those actually running the military.) My problem is that this is issue #3,657 in importance to our Republic. Yet it will end up being in the top 5 soundbites people have about him. That's an issue of judgement and sophistication. Our candidate has to play smarter, not fall on the sword of inane issues, right or wrong.
Sep '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Trace Urdan
How in the world is whether he served relevant?
Dec '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Back when the issue of women in combat units first came up, there was a debate on the old CNN Crossfire TV show. Pat Buchanan was the "conservative" host and following a long filibuster by the left wing host and guest he responded with sort of an exasperated retort, "before we start placing women in combat positions, shouldn't they at least begin by playing high school football?".
On the other side is the compelling history of Martha McSally, who is running for congress in AZ. Very impressive.
May '10
Re: Rick Santorum on Women in Combat
Ronaldus Maximus
Trace Urdan
How in the world is whether he served relevant? · 42 minutes ago
How is he supposed to speak with authority on how men and women operate in combat? So his opinion is based on what? The table manners of his friends?
In God we trust. All others bring data.
Edited on February 13, 2012 at 1:15am