WHY DO OUR LEADERS THINK DRAFTING WOMEN INTO COMBAT IS A GOOD THING?

I got the following from Delegate Bob Marshall today.

THE MARSHALL MESSAGEDear Friends,

Large majorities of Republicans in the US Congress support drafting women for combat based on their support of the House and Senate versions of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Acts.   There is still time to eliminate the provision to draft women from the final bill.

The Senate Committee NDAA (National Defense Authorization Act) Report summary does not list the drafting of women for combat in the bill.  But, on page 11, it does acknowledge that:

”The NDAA includes a provision that amends the Military Selective Service Act to include women in the requirement to register for selective service, to the same extent men are currently required, beginning January 1, 2018. Because the Department of Defense has lifted the ban on women serving in ground combat units, the committee believes there is no further justification in limiting the duty to register under the Military Selective Service Act to men.”

The only Virginia Republican Congressman to vote against the NDAA was Morgan Griffith, while 237 House Republicans voted yes! Only four other Republicans voted no in the House, and only six of 54 Senate Republicans voted no.

Please ask Democrat Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine, who supported NDAA passage, as well as your own Congressperson whether or not they publicly supported a position in favor of drafting women into military ground combat when they last ran for office.  

This is the first time in American history such a radical policy has been approved by Congress. Where was the groundswell for, or even the public debate for this misguided radical policy which mandates that men and women must register for the draft on identical terms?

The Senate bill (John McCain, R-AZ) provides that after January 1, 2018 female citizens or legal residents 18 and over “shall be subject to such terms, conditions, and limitations as are applicable under the provisions of this Act to similarly situated male registrants …[because of] … the continuing need for a mechanism to draft large numbers of replacement combat troops.”

How can pregnant women (married or not) or young mothers, aged 18-26 avoid being drafted for combat duty under such provisions?  This is not a matter of young women voluntarily enlisting in the military.  This would be a mandate upon every young woman aged 18-26 whether or not they had any intention of ever serving in combat.

The House and Senate must approve final versions of the 2017 NDAA bill.  Please contact Sen. Mark Warner, Sen. Tim Kaine and your own Congressperson today.  Firmly and with civility demand that they vote NO if provisions for drafting women are contained in the final NDAA bill, unless you are fine with having your daughters, granddaughters sisters and nieces conscripted into the military for front line ground combat!

I encourage you to contact Senators Kaine and Warner to voice your opinion on this issue.  You can contact each of them through their websites at the links or you can reach Senator Kaine at (202) 224-4024 and Senator Warner at (202)224-2023.    To find your Congressperson check out Who’s My Legislator.

Please let me know if you have any questions.  Thank you so much for your continuing support!

Sincerely,


Delegate Bob Marshall

I have seen how the all-volunteer military operates. Therefore, I wonder why we need a draft. Draftees are people put into service whether they want to be or not. To keep them in their service, their masters don’t have to treat them well. Hence, I think any serious effort to return to a draft military would reveal that drafted soldiers are treated more poorly than volunteers (Has everyone forgotten Vietnam?). On the other hand, our volunteer military forces have demonstrated the capacity to fight both bravely and effectively. It is a civilian leaders who have failed.

At the same time, we have seen that even in a volunteer military it is too easy for men to abuse women. So why would we want to draft women?

What this effort tell me is that too many of our leaders don’t know what they are doing. They just want to look good so they can stay in office. So they do what seems popular to the news media. Yet if we ever institute a draft, drafting women will just create problems that will blow up in our faces.  The people in the news media don’t know anything about fighting a war.

Look at WWII. When they felt America was threatened, the Americans of the 1940’s fought bravely and effectively. Because they were so eager to fight their nation’s enemies, young men eagerly volunteered. Were some drafted? I suppose many were, but those who could not get in to the military were ashamed.  Hence, we effectively had a volunteer force. Yet hardly anyone seriously considered drafting women. Somebody had to stay at home. What needed to be done at home was just as important as what needed to be done at the front. And that involved much more than just rivets.

(from here)
(from here)

Yet a pretty girl flexing her muscles certainly draws attention and makes good copy. Imagine how cute she would look in Hollywood designed body armor waving a sexy assault weapon.

Advertisements

14 thoughts on “WHY DO OUR LEADERS THINK DRAFTING WOMEN INTO COMBAT IS A GOOD THING?

  1. “What this effort tell me is that too many of our leaders don’t know what they are doing.”

    Yep, I think you’ve summed it up well in this one sentence. No one is even thinking of the implications anymore and that includes many voters. Of course, now it’s a bit of a catch 22. We can’t discriminate against perceived sexual identity, so men just have to say they self identify as women and they shouldn’t have to register for the selective service at all.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. In a world where homosexuals can marry and anyone can be a man, a woman, or anything outside or in between depending on their mood…

    …how can anyone possibly argue against the new, be all you can hallucinate yourself to be, US Amazon Army?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. It used to be “Love Conquers All”. Now our glorious leaders divide and separate us to conquer us. Can’t have diversity without separating people by race, sexual preference, disability, creed, ethnicity, and so forth. We just all have to believe Big Government is our savior.

      Whatever we want our leaders will give us with money they supposedly take from someone else. Hence, the military is just another political favor.

      Liked by 1 person

  3. In thinking how this Bill makes any sense, the only thing I could come up with is this. If this law is enacted, all voters, men and women, will think twice about who are the best leaders to vote for to keep us from leaping into another senseless war.

    In my opinion, both Vietnam and Iraq were senseless involvement by the USA going it alone.

    I qualify senseless because of this Alsop wisdom saying in the Fox and the Goat.

    ‘Look before you leap.’

    Regards and goodwill blogging.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. novascout

    The short answer to your question at the top of the post is that many, perhaps even most of our leaders don’t think “drafting women into combat” is a good idea. The issue of putting women in combat situations remains an extremely controversial issue and I suspect opinions are all over the place on that. The problem is that Mr. Marshall, never one to shy from alarmist exaggeration or misstatement, kind of put it in those terms, although in the middle of his own circular that you re-produce, he acknowledges that that is not what the NDAA says. Instead, the issue there is whether women should be required, as are male citizens, to register for the military draft.

    The conscript pool is one that we all hope will never be touched again. The security situation would have to be rather dire indeed to step away from an all-volunteer force, particularly since our all-volunteer military has had considerable success in the field and is probably, top-to-bottom, a more able collection of willing public servants than was the conscript army of my day (which is not a particularly meaningful comparison, given how many loopholes there were in the draft system of the 1960s for precisely the people one would have hoped would have been serving, particularly in the officer ranks).

    The NDAA, however, takes the position, one that is quite rational, that if women are to serve, they should also register for conscription. There are women in the military currently. Some of them want to serve in combat arms. Others not so much. There are plenty of people (I count myself in this group) who have real reservations about the wisdom of compelling, or even in some cases permitting, women to serve in the most hazardous or physically demanding specialties, particularly if physical standards have to be relaxed to accommodate the notion that the military should be some sort of social experiment to advance political agendas about how we treat people in the civilian society. But that’s a different issue and one that needs to be debated on its own combat-effectiveness merits.

    The issue blown into Hysteria Land by Marshall (he has a predictable gift for this kind of thing) is simply whether females should register for the draft. What happens once they do is a whole ‘nuther discussion.

    Scout

    Like

  5. @novascout

    Marshall is an alarmist? I am so relieved to hear that from such a reliable source.

    You must believe then that the Republican Establishment will firmly and steadfastly resist recruiting women into combat positions, requiring women to register for the draft, or actually re-instituting the draft. Undoubtedly, such a reliable source as yourself can provide plenty of evidence to quiet my fears. I earnestly wait further examples of your wisdom.

    BTW. When draft ended, many of the loopholes had been scratched. One of the reasons the drafted ended is that the government had implemented a lottery in response to public outrage. Once the influential could not keep their children from being drafted, the pressure to end the draft was sufficient to get rid of it.

    Given the shenanigans this generation of leaders has demonstrated, I seriously doubt they would re-institute the draft without adding plenty of loopholes. However, our leader’s poor management of the military is such that they may feel forced to re-institute the draft. Then they can replace our highly effective volunteer military forces with canon fodder and human mine sweepers. Then they will try to make up for failing to purchase first rate weapons systems and for failing to provide adequate training by purchasing large amounts of cheap weapons and drafting large numbers of expendable men and women. Then they can exhibit the worst possible example of government waste, fraud, and abuse.

    Like

  6. novascout

    Since you didn’t mention it, I take it you agree with my major premise that the immediate issue addressed by the NDAA amendment is not drafting women into combat, but rather requiring citizens, both male and female, to register for the draft.

    Mr. Marshall’s broadside somewhat obscures that point, and I thought it worth clarifying. I’m quite sure that if you stack up Bob Marshall’s circulars over the past x period of time (pick an interval, any interval), you will find that virtually every one reflects either a distortion, misunderstanding, or negative exaggeration of something that has a far less sinister explanation. My own particular theory about his MO is that he uses these missives to keep his constituents and supporters riled up and to stimulate political contributions. There may be other explanations, but the pattern is fairly prominent. If you want to test the hypothesis, just go back through the various Marshall-grams that you have re-posted here and do a sample survey.

    I suspect the ship has sailed on women in the military and that the use of women in combat roles is pretty much a done deal. My understanding of the current status is that women are not “forced” into combat roles, but are not categorically excluded, either. My concerns are how this affects unit cohesion and morale in combat and whether physical standards are relaxed to the point that impairs combat effectiveness. I am very much of a view that this drive toward integration of genders is not prompted by military preparedness concerns, but rather reflects the imposition of political notions on the military at the expense of fighting capability. I’m sure my concerns are not isolated or peculiar, so I would guess that there are members of both parties, particularly those with direct experience in the military, who share them. I don’t see it as an “establishment” issue, or, for that matter, a “Republican” issue.

    Having said that, I don’t see any problem requiring all citizens of military age to register for the draft. That is what the NDAA provision requires.

    Scout

    Like

    1. @novascout

      How sad! I asked for you to quiet my fears. Instead, you just continued to attack Del. Bob Marshall’s character.

      Your solution? Full retreat. You would just have us all accept a done deal. Your disappointment? That anyone would dare to point out that full retreat is not the best option.

      Politics is never-ending battle. Participants in the battle, unfortunately, include the wormtongued. These do little or no good. Instead of adding clarity, the wormtongued would have us hobble ourselves, and they assault the character of those who would focus on the issues and their best resolution.

      Like

  7. Pingback: My Article Read (6-24-2016)–(7-1-2016) – My Daily Musing

  8. novascout

    Huh? Have another cup of coffee, Tom. You did open my curiosity, however, to something I had never considered previously: worm tongues. I guess they must have something like a tongue, but I had always thought of them as kind of a self-contained, wiggly alimentary canal. Kind of like one of those enormous tunnel boring machines that they make subway tunnels with, except on a much smaller scale. I see my research task for the day has been abruptly changed.

    Sorry I couldn’t quiet your fears. I will always try to do so if I can, but sometimes accuracy interferes. Your fears on this seem to be ones that I share to a degree (not as fears, but as concerns – I doubt very much that I can even begin to approach your level of fear about most things) – but my assessment is that the horse is out of the barn on the matter of women in combat and has been for some time. I may be wrong, and, on this subject, I’d rather like to be wrong for reasons I mentioned in my previous comment. I don’t think it a sustainable argument to advocate and absolute ban, but I worry that combat effectiveness would be degraded if access to any particular military specialty becomes attached to the concept of a “right.” One has to earn those positions with performance. My earlier primary point, however, was that the NDAA was about requiring all citizens of military age to register for the draft, not about forcing women into combat, as Mr. Marshall chooses to color it. I did think that rather alarmist.

    My observations about Mr. Marshall are not attacks on his character. I’ve met the man, but don’t know him personally. While his political methods might reflect a generally bad character, they also could simply be the product or reflection of a currently in vogue political methodology that relies on exaggeration and mischaracterization to keep the electorate roiled up. It’s hard to tell pols not to do this – it works for many of them, and it is far more attention-grabbing than actually reporting the truth or offering an intricate analysis of a complex issue. It may also be that Mr. Marshall just doesn’t understand what he’s talking about. If that’s the case, his problem is certainly not one of character.

    He is not the only one who engages in this chicken little schtick. The practice is quite commonplace all the way up to our current presidential contest, but I see more of his product than I do many others, probably because I live near his district and am on a lot of Republican mailing lists, perhaps because the on-line media I read either re-publish it approvingly (as you frequently do) or, more commonly, post it up for ridicule. I personally think it not especially wise to treat such matters humorously, because of the fact that a lot of uninformed, impressionable or credulous people may take his missives more or less at face value and react politically to them as if they were accurate.

    Scout

    Like

  9. novascout

    PS: initial inquiry was easier than I thought. Worms (at least earthworms – you may have had another brand in mind) do not have tongues. They have mouths (no surprise there) and a pharynx, but no tongues. Interestingly (at least for me), they have five hearts.

    Scout

    Like

  10. Pingback: My Article Read (6-24-2016)–(7-1-2016) – Br Andrew's Muses

Comments are closed.