Weakening Our Military – Joint Chiefs Head, Dempsey, Confirms Military “Will” Lower Standards To Increase Women In Combat Roles…

Women in combat – To the extent that ALL Standards and Expectations for qualifying remain intact, it should make no difference; and, as a consequence, all women should now be required to register for Selective Service.  However, the key is retaining the physical, mental and cognitive standards and expectations.   This admission by General Dempsey is alarming.

(CNSNews.com) – Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”

Dempsey’s comments came at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Sec. Leon Panetta Thursday, announcing the shift in Defense Department policy opening up all combat positions to women.

Dempsey, who is at the pinnacle of the military’s top brass, was asked by a reporter: “You indicated that — well, at least it sounds like that there may be certain combat operational forays that women might be excluded from still. I mean, what would be the reasons for that? What sorts of operations?”

Dempsey replied: “No, I wouldn’t put it in terms of operations, Jim. What I would say is that, as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict, not just COIN, counterinsurgency, we really need to have standards that apply across all of those.”  (read more)

About these ads
This entry was posted in A New America, Dem Hypocrisy, Political correctness/cultural marxism, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized, United Nations. Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Weakening Our Military – Joint Chiefs Head, Dempsey, Confirms Military “Will” Lower Standards To Increase Women In Combat Roles…

  1. eastern2western says:

    lower standards could mean more deaths on the field.

    Like

  2. aliashubbatch says:

    Repeat of yesterday when this was mentioned; ” I sense rape from muzzies in the future; and if God forbid that ever happens, the libs who celebrate this “victory for gender equality” will shrug it off and put down the army as a whole (again), some prolly suggesting that they deserved it, and some wishing to have done it themselves.”

    And again:
    “Cynical or practical, what am I?”

    Like

    • Sharon says:

      Both cynical and practical are you. And a realist.

      Like

    • jwoop66 says:

      When it happens, there will be litigation accusing the military of being negligent. This will continue at every opportunity. The military will “react” every time. Once the military is fully weakened (broken down), the progs can then rebuild it to their standards. Standards that no longer require things like Oaths to the Constitution. The military is the last brick in the wall for the progs.

      Like

    • griz1234 says:

      Well, it’s not like the “Muzzies” limit themselves to raping women. Any men (or goats) they catch are equally at risk: :0)

      Like

  3. ctdar says:

    I look at the scenario that if a woman can do everything a male soldier can do both mentally & physically than by all means allow them on the front line. However if they should falter at any time than no. Military service with emphasis on combat is difficult enough for one soldier to endure but to have a nagging feeling of doubt for your fellow soldier than it’s not worth possible loss of life due to lack of mental or physical ability.

    Like

    • Sam says:

      Not to mention that conditions in the combat area tend to be unsanitary with no privacy. Some guys on missions don’t shower for weeks and have to use ammo cans to crap in. On long flights or truck rides, there are no comfort stops, just plastic jugs and bags. The guys are crammed in against each other. And that’s just the sanitary stuff. Then there’s the physical demands of combat like climbing over walls with your gear, pulling a wounded buddy to safety (how does that work if she’s 110 lbs and pulling a 170 lb guy?) Women can pull a trigger as well as a man can and there are many jobs a woman can do in the military equally as well as a man. And yes, many women today get assigned to jobs that may put them in combat at some point. And they do them well. But Combat Infantry and Special Operations are two areas that are very demanding physically and mentally and I would doubt that many women could qualify; heck, many men who try out for those specialties fail.

      I guess the military is going to give it a shot and we’ll see how they do. I expect the Army to lower standards for women since they already do. The Navy will too; they are already re-designing ships to accommodate female sailors. The Marines probably won’t lower standards unless forced to. The Air Force doesn’t have any combat infantry so this is unlikely to affect them as much as the other services.

      Obama is determined to cut and run from every conflict so perhaps we won’t have to endure the horror of captured female soldiers brutalized, raped and killed by jihadists in the near future. The jihadists aren’t going to give up though and we’ll see something like Sundance describes someday if women serve in explicitly combat units.

      Like

    • libby says:

      I recall that recently women tennis players DEMANDED EQUAL pay with the male tennis players even though the women did NOT play as many games or sets as the men nor were they willing to actually play tennis against the men.
      If women cannot beat men on the field of sport orf even play on an even playing field with men, how will they expect to be equal partners on the battlefied?
      I want equal pay for subpar work, too. Where can I find that?

      Like

  4. John VI says:

    The Women pushing this agenda truely believe that by being in the field in combat situations that they will recieve the status and respect that the men do. It never occurs to them that because they NEVER met the training or physical requirements and standards that the men did, that the status and respect the men EARNED will never apply to the. And when their feelings get hurt when they realize it, there will be a massive step back from women trying to get into these combat roles. none of them want to be “in combat”. ALL of them want the JUST respect and status acccrued by combat soldiers. They think that combat is a shortcut to the ass kissing desk job they really want.

    Like

    • libby says:

      I love the equal pay aspect, but I hate the equal work thingie (Can I get the qual pay thingie without all the hassle of the equal work thingie (I find that so inconvenient).
      .
      I have seen many supposedly strogn women who claim they can do everythgin that a man can do. When asked or told to do what the men do, they say, “Why are you picking on me, is it cuz I am a woman or cuz you are intimidated by me?”
      We are pickign on those who demand equal pay even thought they know full well that they do not do anything near equal work.
      EQUAL PAY FOR INFERIOR WORK SHOULD BE KNOWN AS SUPERIOR PAY, not equal pay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Like

  5. jordan2222 says:

    Generally men are overprotective of females. I can visualize several men being sacrificed to save one woman.

    Like

    • WeeWeed says:

      They have been in the past. And will be, again.

      Like

    • libby says:

      Millions upon millions of men are sacrificed regularly to protect women.

      Like

      • Sharon says:

        What are you referring to here?

        Like

        • libby says:

          Thousands upon thousands of years of history?
          .
          Just cuz I pointed out the kind of sacrifices men have made for millenia doesnt mean I discounted women. (woman up).
          .
          Women make the greatest sacrifices for children (and have done so for millenia) while men’s greatest sacrifices have been for women (who are protecting the young).
          .
          Many men whose job it was to protect women have gone against the grain and have done the opposite of protection (just as many women whose job it was to protect children did the opposite of that).
          .
          neither women nor men have a monopoloy on suffering nor hard work. but because men’s hard work may be different from women’s hard work, I dare suggest that they are not identical.
          .
          if there had been a natural selection reason for men and women to be equal, it likely would have occurred.
          .
          just cuz men and women are not identical doesnt mean one is inferior or one is superior, it just means we are not identical.

          Like

          • libby says:

            Oh,
            And as long as I live and breathe I have heard women claim they can do every job a man can do, but almost every one of them seems to think taking out the garbage is a man’s job.

            Like

        • libby says:

          Sharon,
          Tis also true that women (millions and milluions and millions of them over the course of human prehistory and history) have sacrificed for children.
          Men are more likely to make sacrifices for their community at large whil women are more likely to make sacrifices for their immediate family and community.
          .
          Just because I suggest men and women make different sacrifices doesnt mean for a second that I think women dont sacrifice.
          .
          The army (military) is an area where men have traditionally made great sacrifices.
          Women have made great great sacrifices for humanity, but not always in the same way.
          .
          MIllions upon millions of women have died in child birth so we could reproduce as a species, but that doesnt mean that men dont make sacrifices to point out women’s sacrifices.

          Like

  6. sundance says:

    Currently the majority of public opinion is supportive of the change. In my opinion two things will reverse that support:

    1.) All 18 year old females being required to register for Selective Service (Draft)
    2.) The first captured female soldier paraded on U-Tube TV by the jihadists as they brutalize her, strip her, rape her, and ultimately cut off her head.

    I doubt public opinion would be able to maintain through these factors with enough support for females in combat.

    However, that said, the military, and the progressives in the military, also know this and they will work diligently to insure this never happens. So you can expect to see multiple operations specifically designed to avoid this issue. This in turn compromises mission objectives by factoring something into the equation that did not previously exist.

    Unfortunately, the unintended consequence is that more soldiers will die, as a result of weakened mission objectives, to provide women the ability to serve in combat.

    Like

  7. AghastInFL says:

    I see this move as evidence of the failure of the DADT repeal to increase recruiting and believe it likely points to a loss of new recruits overall.
    Has everyone seen and read this article from the Wall Street Journal, “The Reality that awaits Women in Combat”:

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html

    Like

    • Patriot Dreamer says:

      The military is not having any difficulty meeting its recruiting missions right now as far as I know, and I believe this is due to two things: (1) the poor economy with relatively high unemployment making it difficult for servicemembers to find a job outside of the military and (2) current drawdowns in personnel esp. in the USMC and the Army.

      What the military is seeing right now are higher rates of suicide and sexual assault.

      Like

      • libby says:

        As long as there are no effective punishments for fake claims of sexual assault, this shall be the most lied about of all crimes. Rape already is the most lied about crime (and rape liars get barely a slap on the wrist if they get any punishment at all).
        Imagine if it was easy for your bank to claim that your withdrawals were really bank robbery. Heck, you could be charged with bank robery for withdrawals you had made dasy, weeks, months and years prior could be treated as bank robbery (all based upon the managers say so).
        It would be a classic case of “he said, she said” combined with two main assumptions about rape.
        1) women never lie about rape
        2) men never tell the truth about rape.
        We already have a situation where women who claim they can do everything a man can do on college campuses and yet how do we handle men and women having drunken sex? We treat a drunken man having sex as a rapist and we treat drunken women havign sex as rape victims.
        Women are asummed to be incapable of giving consent while intoxicated while men are treated as rapists if they have sex while drunk.
        Men and women are NOT treated equally with regards to sexual assault.
        Female sexuality is treated as the human sexuality that requires much protection while male sexuality is treated like the beast that needs to be tamed (AND punished).
        If a man and woman are having drunken sex, the law currently treats the man as a perpetrator of rape while it exonerates the woman from responsibility for her actions.
        The law basicly treats the penis as a rape tool (and the vagina as the only sex organ that requires actual protection).
        1, 2, 3, men are not the enemy.

        Like

  8. Mike says:

    I pity the men who serve in the infantry, especially the lifers. They now see their whole profession turned into a joke overnight. The standards will be dropped and the force will be significantly weakened

    Like

  9. MuayTyson says:

    My brother is a Light Col. combat changed when he first started. It was no longer advisable to kill enemy combatants. If you injure an enemy it takes resources and manpower to evac and heal this means your combatant is off the field of battle and is costing money. Women in combat will cost us.
    Again the Obama administration is full swing to destroy America.

    Like

  10. MikeH says:

    So I see this as a net positive. I doubt women will have much stomach for door kicking if .mil was ordered to disarm Americans.

    Like

    • FedUp says:

      Don’t they have to be able to kick in the door in the first place?
      Women in the Infantry is so unbelievably stupid it hurts to think about.

      Like

  11. triage says:

    This all started with representative Pat Schroeder who said she wanted to change the culture of the military following the Tail Hook incident. She did not like the macho military culture. Bill and Hillary continued to neuter the military leadership. I am retired miitary and when I hear most Generals talk now I don’t have much regard for them as they are usually so compromised by the time they reach that level.

    Obama is gutting all senior leadership. Like the Clintons his one requirement of them is to do what they are told without question (even if it is firing on your own citizens). Some of the best Generals in history were fired for not obeying orders. Patton was told to wait for the Russians so they could go into Germany together. They had to take his gas away because he wouldn’t comply. Macarthur told Truman “Nobody can sit in an easy chair in Washington and tell me how to run a war.” We don’t have Generals like that anymore. We have managers not warriors. The guy who wanted to help in Bengazi but was then placed under arrest by the second in command stands out as an exception. I am not advocating loose canons in leadership positions but just people who will draw the line and tell civilian leaders what will work and what won’t in regard to our fighting forces. Whether it is lowering of standards or women in combat these modern day Generals keep selling us a sack of crap that they know is not true and is not in the best interest of our troops.

    Like

  12. czarowniczy says:

    As we say down here, it’s a ‘gawn pecawn’ (gone pecan). James Earl Carter Jr started the redefinitions back when he decided that women in general should be moved into more combat roles. I was a Combat Engineer and those wishing to enter the career field had to pass certain standards such as being able to carry a load of such a weight such a distance. There were numerous standards designed to test upper body strength and endurance, both traits vital to performing the mission and using the tools and equipment assigned. The standards disappeared and were replaced with all power tools vice hand tools – a nice change unless one considers that now we were required to pull extra trailers to power the electrical tools and haul extra gas for the gas-fired tools. No more two-man crosscut saws felling trees in relative silence, they required upper-body strength that most women didn’t have. Now we had chainsaws you could hear a mile away – both gas and electric powered. It wasn’t that women were to be allowed in as Engineers – we had two who were ‘linemen’ with a rural power company who were built like brick ****houses, they passed all of the strength requirement for men – and then some. It was that all requirements were dropped allowing anyone, male or female, to come into the field regardless of their performance abilities. We spent a lot of time reapportioning tasks in the company according to strength. This was before the big move in the late 90s to have everyone pass the PT tests, but we didn’t have that problem as if, as a pre-Carter engineer you couldn’t do every job the the company’s mission – you were out.
    Good thing I’m retired, I just don’t fit in with today’s modern Army.

    Like

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s