Dempsey to combat arms: Prove it!
Our buddy, Rowan Scarborough, in the Washington Times writes today that Chariman of the Joint Chiefs, Marty Dempsey, has moved past the point from which women will have to prove themselves equal to men in regards to assigning females to combat arms specialties;
ArmyGen. Martin E. Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has said that if a service wants to keep a job as a male-only occupation because of its high physical demands, the service will have to show why those tests should not be lowered to accommodate women.
Tests of strength are particularly important to special operations. About 15,000 combat positions, a fraction of the 1.4 million active force, are subject to integration.
“The only option now is to offer reasons why they can’t do it,” said an Army special operations veteran who believes U.S. Special Operations Command will cave to White House demands to include women. “I haven’t heard that anyone has the courage to say they can’t do it, either. Maybe the new [military occupational specialty] can be 18P — Special Forces camp follower. Is that PC enough?”
An ArmySpecial Forces soldier said the qualification course at Fort Bragg, N.C., to earn the Green Beret is so demanding that the Army will have to lower standards for some tasks in able for women to succeed.
So, there you go. I’ve said since the beginning of this most recent series of discussions that the generals are going to do whatever it takes to please their political masters and it looks as if none of them have the courage to speak up.
So where are these all-important veterans in Congress? Other than Duncan Hunter, I haven’t heard a peep out of them. You’d think that Miss Lindsay Graham who drags out his commission at every opportunity would stand up for future warriors who will have to fight the next war after substandard training. And where the Hell is John McCain, who understands the rigors of war more than most?
Category: Military issues
One hundred men will test today,
But only ninety-seven will win the Green Beret… thanks to this.
Here’s the thing: Hypothetically, if you force women into combat arms positions because not enough volunteer…and those who absolutely do not want to do it all of a sudden become pregnant en masse…then what? Who then do you draw from?
How would you justify, for example, branch transferring a female Lieutenant Colonel from a different branch into infantry while simultaneously keeping her from dropping her retirement packet in response?
Is this another way of cutting numbers to meet another absurd budgetary demand?
out of everything i did and accomplished in the Army, i am most proud of my tab. what will this do to my beloved Rangers? we will have substandard classes pass in bulk with lower standards, and still wear the same tab? anyone who joins the Rangers or earns their tab after the new “standards” are implemented will be considered less by his fellow Rangers and looked down upon. this single act will destroy the unit cohesion of the Rangers. When i meet a fellow Ranger, my first thought will be if he passed before the course was castrated. i have never been so glad to have gotten out of the army, i wouldnt have been able to bear this
This gives a whole new meaning to the “last hard class.”
Ex, what do you mean when you say women do their jobs with out special treatment in the military? cite one example of any woman in any job in the military who does not receive special treatment? all branches of the military have a PT test, and every last one of them has seperate standards for women. the day the female standard is dropped from the PT test and all soldiers, sailors, and marines are required to meet the current male standard, ill accept that a woman is succeeding in the military with out special treatment. if we get a “gender neutral” standard that is somewhere between the two, ill still claim that women are receiving special treatment on the grounds that men met the standards for many years now while women needed it dropped to accomidate them.
“So where are these all-important veterans in Congress? Other than Duncan Hunter, I haven’t heard a peep out of them.” There is someone else in Congress I think he was from Arkansas though.
I’m with you, no one will listen until it’s to late or worse they’ll use combat defeat/fail to justify reinforcement. It will be self perpetuating, failure just means we aren’t doing enough of it!
SMitty — OK, my niece, 1LT Natalie Santini, Army Surgical Nurse, assigned to a CASH in Iraq. Spent more hours on her feet in surgery than you do in a week. Not once did she ever tell me she got ‘special treatment’ because she was a girl. I can, if you like, include the names of women who worked in MASH units in Vietnam, some of whom were killed on the job.
Oh, yeah, Navy women divers: here’s a link to their history.
http://www.history.navy.mil/museums/keyport/WomenDivers/Wdivers5.htm
One of them died doing her job. I doubt that any of them received any special treatment.
If the only thing you’re going to focus on is test scores and not doing the job, you really did miss the point.
Here’s some info about women working as Navy SpecOps divers.
I doubt that any of them are getting any special treatment.
http://www.navyseal.com/women-and-men-are-special-ops-navy-divers/
@107
Women have gotten special treatment. You may brush off PT test scores as not that important. But when PT scores are tied to promotions and women DO NOT have to perform or even compete with men on a level playing field; that is special treatment.
Now bringing up the 1 percent constitution of navy divers that are female is fine. I’m sure that there are women in that community that perform as well as the men.
But that does not change the institutional issues for which we treat women in the military as a whole.
Here is how the whole women in combat thing should have played out:
The Marine corps got the general idea right. But I don’t think they fully committed to the idea(which is a shame).
a) All women(in every MOS) should have been given one year to meet the current minimum male PT standards. The male minimum PT standards now becomes “the standard.” Women now must compete with men for promotions and such on to the higher standard.
Obviously, that would knock out a TON of women in the military. I say fuck em. If a women is not willing to put forth the effort to meet minimum male physical fitness standards(which the minimums are not impossible for women). We don’t need them in the military in any capacity. I would rather keep the ones that remain who are motivated and want to the job. Cut the fat.
That would have been step one
Then, we would have done a gradual opening of ALL MOS specialties. Not as many women in the military. Not going to be many in combat arms anyways. But at least there is no bullshit female tier’s anymore.
oh btw, no more grooming exceptions for women in boot. They shave there head just like the males and better like “high and tights” when they get to combat units.
and your little neice wouldnt even be in the military at all if it wasnt for special treatment because she cant meet the male physical standard. keep in mind, i did 15 months in iraq back in 04-05 as an infantryman, dont talk to me about long days on your feet. even now, i work a manditory 60 hour work week on my feet, (your standard was than i do in a week, i still run 25 miles a week on top of that) that is far more than large base surgical nurses do. you might want to look into the shifts they actually pull there. she didnt tell you she got special treatment, because women in the military ACTUALLY think they dont get special treatment. if women actually stepped back and looked objectively at the world, they would realize how much special treatment they get!
as for diving school, look that up, they have special standards for women too, BECAUSE WOMEN CAN NOT MEET THE REAL STANDARDS!!! EX, you have no idea what the infantry is or does, clearly, and can not comprehend what it takes to earn the Ranger tab. Im sure you think that women are as capable as men and can handle the rigors and pain of infantry and Spec Ops, but the only way is to retard the standards and lower the bar until it doesnt mean anything any more.
Did anyone see the movie G.I.Jane? that was based on a true story, very loosely. the actual story was a woman who used politicians to get her into BUDS, couldnt pass a single physical event, got politicians to force emplimentation of special “female standards” and still couldnt pass a single thing. now we get to do this again on the large scale.
I agree with you. I said I don’t think the standards should be lowered. It reduces effectiveness in anything, even if it isn’t the military. Someone else said previously that women firefighters are fine, but if they can’t get her and her kids out of a burning house, she doesn’t want them showing up on the firetruck.
Re: haircuts: I don’t see anything wrong with that, either. Long hair is a liability around machinery; it’s a liability in many other environments. The Roman Army had grooming regulations. Long hair was something an enemy could grab to cut off your head or run you through with a pike. All of them, from the hastati and velites right up to the legates and imperator, had short hair. Long hair in a bun makes you stick out like a sore thumb, so I agree completely on that part.
Smitty — 60 hours a week on your feet in Iraq? And then you went run 25 miles a week, also? Wienie. My civilian job as a special effect photographer on an animation camera was 5 years on my feet from 7AM to 2AM, five to six days a week.
I also ran 3 miles a day with my dog as an escort because she was a German Shepherd and I took her to work with me in lieu of a gun. I probably got paid less than you did, too. They complained if I took a day off because I had the flu. They also complained about giving me and the graphics people raises, and they didn’t pay for our health insurance. We did.
You probably made more money in Iraq than I did as a civilian.
@111
There is a catch to everything I was saying though. No gender quotas, no social engineering.
That would mean, realistically, considerably less women in the military. Forcing women to meet minimum male physical fitness standards probably means significantly reducing the overall composition of females. That 14-15 percent in the army probably gets cut in half easily.
Only a small percentage of that are going to be in combat arms and probably a fraction of that will be in infantry.
If that is acceptable then this whole thing would work out fine. You end up getting a leaner more motivated female representation.
However, we will NEVER do what I said above. The military has become some sort of social program distributor to many women(and men for that matter). We don’t have courage to do this the right way.
@112
Are you seriously going to draw correlation to your job as a photographer to the life of an infantryman?
I know your trying to goad him, but this is downright silly.
OH, yeah – I was completely fried by the time I left that place. That’s a 19-hour day.
And please don’t bring up that god-awful movie.
Also, I should also add that special interest groups(like SWAN) will find out a way to freak out over the U.S, military applying higher standards to women as a whole.
They don’t want the overall number of women to decline. That is counter productive to them and means less of a political voice.
They may be rooting for women in combat arms. But what those groups REALLY care about is getting a women on the joint chiefs of staff.
ya know this whole thing reminds me of that one time where I met a crossfit female in a gym who said she benches 400lbs. Little did she know that the world record holder for women in bench is about roughly 400lbs.
So I asked if she would’t mind demonstrating this. She reluctantly said ok(obviously caught in her bullshit) and proceeded not even get the bar off the rack. In reality she could only do about 150 lbs.
No, findip, he was offering a comparison of hours for hours. If it’s hours for hours and running, then it isn’t about the job. Okay, if we’re going to compete about things, I’m 5’2″. When I was in the Navy, I was at my most fit. I weighed about 116 pounds. I worked at my Navy job, which also required being on my feet all day, and then went to a training stable where I put in another 6 hours training squirrely horses that no one else could handle. You want to see the scar on my eyesocket where one of those hammerheads punched me? Or how about the time one of them reared and fell over backward on me? Yeah, that was fun — 1200 pounds of iron-shod kicking horseflesh missing my head by a few inches. And then there that time when my own horse went galloping up to a fence he could sneeze and get over and stopped cold. I went up his neck instead of getting thrown over and breaking mine. It takes some physical strength to do that. In addition to all that, I cleaned stalls, hauled 85 pound bales of bedding and hay around from the loft to a drop chute and moved bags of feed into the grain bins. I didn’t drag them, I lifted them. The heaviest bag I lifted was 150 pounds of oats,cracked corn and alfalfa pellets. I now have a bad back and severe arthritis because of all that stuff I used to do. Oh, yeah, — I took up ice skating as an exercise in 1994. If you’ve never been on skates before as an adult, you have to relearn all your motor skills just like a one-year-old learning to walk. Lots of falls, lots of bruises, lots of slamming my head on the ice, but I put in 2 hrs practice in the mornings, another 3 hours in the evenings on open skate, and that was 7 days a week, in addition to work. I just didn’t take up hockey. I didn’t want my teeth knocked out.… Read more »
@118
ok, so now its not about being a photographer but rearing horses and doing farm work….and ice skating…
I still don’t see how that is comparable to being infantry soldier, but whatever…good for you.
no, 60 a week now as a civilian, im saying my civialian job now is more hours than your little neice that was only in the military because of special treatment. i was doing 18 on 6 off in iraq back then. that 6 off was time to clean weapons, eat, hygeine, and if there was time, sleep. every 7th day we had 3 8 hour shifts that we did FOB security, Gate gaurd, and down time. so once a week, we actually got a decent rest.
Flindip, i bench just shy of 400 lbs, (365) but shines a nice light on the physical disparity that supposedly doesnt exist.
@121
I think the female bench thing is a more of a case of a person saying something outright ludicrous because they don’t have clue what they are talking about.
They’re women who can bench 300-400 lbs but they are the athletic equivalent of bigfoot. Even among elite female athletes.
ex, you dont want to talk scares, im covered from head to toe. as far as those oats, ive worked a farm since i was knee high to a grass hopper, ive never seen a single bag of any feed or seed that was more than 80 lbs. please tell me where that was produced and bagged, because im calling bull shit right now. ive had horses throw me and crack ribs, that is nothing. in fact, of all farm related injuries, nothing compared to breaking my back on a jump in april 05. even after that happened, because the infantry is required to be tough, i went back to work and didnt say a thing about the pain for 2 weeks! this is the standard that is required of the infantry. i hear women (in the military) complain of the pain of a broken nail or stubbed toe, you think they are going to be able to hump off the DZ with 3 fractures in their lower spine? much less train for the next 2 weeks? get over yourself, plain and simple, the military is no place for women. they shouldnt have been brought in in the first place, they should in no way be combat arms MOS, and certainly not in the Rangers!
Then, findip, you’ve never been around a volatile, bad-tempered, crazy thing that would just as soon kill you as look at you and will actually position itself to do just that, have you?
Are you going to diss ice skaters now? Do you have even the faintest idea how much physical strength is required to do a triple axel jump? That’s the forward jump with three spins in the air. Men now routinely do quads. Midori Ito was the first woman to land a triple axel in the Olympics. Tonya Harding, who was kicked out of skating competition for life, followed Midori Ito. Now it’s almost routine, because those girls pull weights and build the strength to get the height to do that jump. Sasha Cohen used to do quad salchows. That’s four spins in the air, coming into the jump backwards, one full traveling spin and then into the jump. If you think that doesn’t take strength and endurance, you’re crazy.
@122, im sure there are, and there are women that can put me to shame physically, but i would consider myself above average, and they are the top notch elite
@124
Actually I played ice hockey as a defensemen. Ice skating is extremely physically difficult on your core and lower body. Saying I played ice hockey though has no correlation to being an infantry combat soldier. In fact, most sports are highly physically specialized.
I’m beginning to suspect PH2 that you have massive inferiority complex.
Btw, I’ve been around plenty of bat shit insane smaller females. I never thought of them as physically threatening unless you gave them a firearm.
I never thought any of them would make good infantry soldiers or even be able to do hard labor like a man.
I also met very rare ladies that were physically robust and could at least keep up physically. But, they weren’t bat shit insane either.
Smitty, it was produced by going to a grain elevator and getting a 200-lb burlap grain bag filled to the ordered weight by the elevator operator from the grain bins.
Not Purina Omalene. Not steamed racehorse oats.
My LITTLE niece? She’s 5’8″. “Special treatment”? She got a ROTC nursing scholarship and owed the Army six years after graduating. I’d hardly call that special treament. And her hours were 14 on duty, 10 off, unless there was a flood of triage coming in.
Really, if you dislike women so much, all you have to do is say so.
Ex, i have been around crazy pissed off things that would just as soon kill me as… what is your point? does that qualify anyone to be infantry? man or woman? everything you have pointed out first off, isnt that big a deal, and second, doesnt even come remotely close to being comparable to infantry or qualifying anyone to become infantry.
Ex why are debating him? You and the rest of our Ladies said this would lead to a lowering of standards.As to the horse thing I can match work for work and scar for scar. I was a rotorhead on purpose. I could not be a grunt. Flat feet would have me falling out some time while on the mission. Let’s be truthful there also a lot of men that do not have the mindset and or strenght to be a grunt. Do women want to risk their childbearing (more studies needed on this)to be a grunt?Just some throughts from a “Old Corps”. Joe
@128
Again, it is special treatment if she has her own physical fitness standards that are going to directly effect how she is promoted.
how saying that means “I HATE women” is just dismissive and not facing reality. If you were egalitarian about it, you would say that it is wrongful discrimination against male service members.
Why do they have to promoted under different standards from women if they are both the same?
findip, inferiority complex about what? You guys are the ones saying women are only good for one thing. You’re bringing up comparisons, not me. I’m just following your lead, you sap.
Smitty, go ahead and call BS on me. I paid the bills on those bags of grain, I know how much was in them and what they cost. Loose grain is less expensive than those asinine mixes sold by Purina at 10 times what they should cost. You want a healthy horse with a shiny horse? Good quality oats, alfalfa/timothy mix hay, a mineral block, clean water, and some open pasture.
@128, i dont care how tall your special treatment neice is, fact remains, she can not pass the same standards that are required of men! that is special treatment! even if not on an individual level, her (your) gender get special treatment just for being women! my complain is with the whole feminist movement that doesnt want equality, it was special treatment! you are trying to boast yourself up as being able to do things men can do, but you too still could not meet the standards that every man in the military is held to.
as for her 14-10 schedule, she also gets breaks in there (dont pretend she didnt, everyone working inside the wire does) for meals or just to catch her breath. infantry dont take breaks on patrol, we keep humping. there is no time to stop and change a tampon or take a day off because of cramps, we keep humping! and when you are hungry and complaining because you missed breakfast, we keep humping!
Joe, I don’t know — they seem to have a clutch-fisted mindset on the subject and I merely pointed out that they’re competing with air. And getting a ROTC Scholarship is NOT special treatment. Those are open to anyone who wants them.
I wouldn’t want to be in combat. And I agree that most of this nonsense – and that’s what it is — is going to be detrimental to the entire combat-centered end of the military, but it got off track into something else – competing to see who did what and how much and where.
And besides, I don’t care how much time guys have spent in combat. There isn’t one of them that has had to go through 18 hours of labor and give birth. That’s the one thing guys can’t do. It really bugs them.
For the record, while I do keep my nails short for typing, I have never cried over a broken nail or a stubbed toe. I have cursed, especially if it broke down to the root, but not cried. I didn’t even cry when a horse threw me and I broke my arm, until I was told I couldn’t go to the movie, after all. I think it was “Moby Dick” or something.
@132
When did I say women are only good for one thing? hmm? I never said that in any of my posts. I never even was an antagonist with you until you started to add the snark and stupidity.
You put words in peoples mouths. You speak out of no positions of insight or expertise and yet want to be taken seriously. You dodge questions, and when finally pressured give inane answers.
You then draw insane correlations to things that aren’t even remotely related.
Your posts reek of someone who loves trolling people on a message board or someone who has venue to stroke their ego.
no one said women are only good for one thing, we just say they dont belong in this! women, pound for pound, have 50% less upper body strength and 25% less lung compacity. that isnt down playing women, its just pointing out a genetic difference. in this case, that genetic difference the ability of the trainee’s performance.
im not talking about any purina mixes, im talking about going to the mill and getting cattle cubes, horse pellets, or what ever else bagged on site. again, that has nothing to do with qualifications for infantry or why women will miraculously be able to perform at some level exponentially higher then they have ever been able to in the vast history of the world!
EX is no troll, she has been on this blog for a long time and her oppinion is welcome here, no matter how assinine it is. in this case, it’s pretty assinine.
your neice, no matter what ROTC crap she did (ill give my utter disdain for officers later) was still not held to the same standard that men are. no matter how deserved or leveling or what ever term ya want to use for the women’s standards, they are not the same as the men’s! your neice never had to meet the minimum standards of a male PT test. the minimum, the very lowest ammount accepted from a man, is still above a female max score! that is special treatment! women have come to expect and demand special treatment to the point that they just view it as the norm. they dont realize the special treatment given them is special, it is just what they deserve or are owed.
Oh, come on, findip — I answered your questions and you blew off every one of my answers. I don’t do trolling. You refused to acknowledge that I agreed with you. You blew right past that until someone pointed it out to you. Who has a venue there?
SMitty, I’m not arguing your point, I could never do men’s pushups and I had great upper body strength. It wasn’t the dip, it was the push BACK up. Lifting is not the same as pushing against gravity. It is easier to lift than to push against gravity. Nor could I do those pullups past three, and I tried. There are some women who CAN do them. But we were NOT tested for those things in the 1960s or 1970s. Our PT tests were a joke compared to what is done now.
I have NOT once disagreed that this goal is ridiculous and unworkable. Never mind the body bags, never mind the body count. It’s just stupid because the consequences to effectiveness have not been addressed.
Also, Smitty, I’d like to point out that you probably earned more money in Iraq in combat than I ever earned as a civilian animation camera operator.
@138
No, that is not what you did. Read your posts. Your first answer is drafting women into a conscription based model. We have a volunteer military. So that is a non answer.
After three or 4 more attempts, you finally answered my question directly by saying that we will(or at least how I read it) recruit women forcefully from existing female service members to try to give them more representation in infantry/special ops. A completely impractical approach imo. But I treated your response as an answer.
You trying to brush it off as me misintrepting your sarcasm is deflecting. Especially when I asked an honest direct answer without it.
back then, even just 8 short years ago, the military pay wasnt near what it is now. i started out taking hom 2G a month as an e-4 (i think the exact number was 2012$ a month but that was a long time ago), as an E-5 i took home about 2400 a month. thats all the tax free hoopla, jump pay, and hazard pay.
findip, I answered your question, which was “how will you do that” 5 times by your count and you ignored every answer. Everything I said was both practical and applicable. That’s your problem, it comes from you, not from me. You’re being evasive. I was not. But while I’m still here, you guys brought up reproduction and women’s monthly cycles. I did not. I avoided that intentionally. That’s not a reason to exclude women from combat. There are plenty of ways to solve both of those problems, but you don’t want to hear about it, because that means you wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in that regard. Until you brought it up, I respected your answers but when you bring up reproduction that means exactly what it says: you think women are good for ONLY ONE THING. Well, fine. But remember this: when an adult male population in any culture exceeds the number of available females for reproduction, a war-fare ‘environment’ arises and all the eligible males — meaning the younger and most fit, in their breeding prime — are the first to be sent into combat, reducing their chances for reproduction. And they’re the most likely to be killed off in combat. If you don’t believe that, go look at the statistics for yourselves. China has a population of 1.5 billion people. They have a higher ratio of men to women than most countries because of their one-child per family policy, and none of them want female children. This reduces the number of available females. China’s been gearing up for military action for a while now. The military is one of the places where you’re almost guaranteed a job for life. Look at the warfare in muslim countries. All the men are half my age and have no prospect of jobs, marriage or family, so what are they doing? Engaging in warfare. And then, while you’re at it, remember that the military here or anywhere always wants the youngest and most eligible men for combat, not for desk jobs. They don’t want some old ‘geezers’ with gray… Read more »
And as I said before, lowering the standards for combat infantry readiness is a disatrous route to take, but it will be taken, regardless, because the agenda is more important than anything else.
my only argument was your claim that women (your neice specificly) didnt and dont receive special treatment. im not sure what forced service has to do with the price of tea in china, but hell why not. lets go to the Israel model and require mandatory 18 months service for all women and 2 years for all men. oh wait, thats discrimination, 2 years for everyone!
SMitty, I think the IDF requires three years of everybody.
@142-
Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. Lets run down your responses to my initial question:
My question:
I think you need to explain this statement, ” And it should never be just one woman assigned to a SpecOps team. It should be half men, half women. Period.”
How is that going to happen, in any way shape or form, without DRASTICALLY lowering standards?
Posts:
47-You answered to me that allowing 50/50 male/female make up is the non-PC thing to do. Thats not answering my question.
52- You said standards shouldn’t lowered. Again not answering my question
56- You make a feeble attempt but it ends up being a non-answer. You said women should sign up for selective service. That Norway/Israel are good examples of utilizing a conscription model. We are a volunteer military. This does not apply to us, its not even remotely practical or applicable. This is a non-answer.
64- You repeat drafting women again when we have a volunteer military. You then make anecdotal claims about Vietnam era infantrymen. Again, your not answering my question.
73/84- non-answer responses
86-I finally get an answer to my initial inquiry. I don’t agree with it, but at least I can actually deal with some sort of an approach.
I also responded to post 86 directly. I didn’t brush you off. I wasn’t even remotely evasive.
From my calculation it took seven responses from you until I finally got an answer that dealt with my question.
@142
I never brought about that women should be excluded from combat because of the issue of pregnancy. When did I say that in any of my posts?
I did not say pregnancy. I said ‘reproduction’ and ‘women’s cycles’. I did not say ‘pregnancy’.
Since you insist that I did not answer your question “How”, answer this question of mine:
If the agenda of filling combat infantry and SpecOps roles with women is not met by volunteers, what means OTHER THAN CONSCRIPTION FROM THE AVAILABLE WOMEN is there to use?
Never mind that we have an all-volunteer military. That can be changed with and executive order or by legislation. Conscription is the replacement resource for insufficient trooops that has been used by armies, etc., since organized warfare started, dating back to the time of Troy. Drop the ‘we have a volunteer military’ thing.
What makes you think it won’t be used now?
@148-
I never brought anything up over women’s pregnancy, menstrual cycles, reproduction, cramps, nagging, broken nails whatever. Never came up in my posts, and it was never even implied. I don’t know if you confusing with someone else or whatever. That never came from me.
To answer the whole conscription thing. Bear in mind, this is a totally different discussion to women in infantry units. Just because you have conscription based military doesn’t mean you get tons of women in infantry/special ops. I have no idea where you are drawing that correlation.
But, I will tell you why it will never happen. The American public will not tolerate it. They learned this in Vietnam. Its why we have fought in both Afganistan and Iraq without an anti-war counter culture movement.
If a draft would have been implemented during this past decade every single politician would have had their job on the line. It aint going to happen unless you can prove some sort of direct global threat(Hitler)as a narrative.
Women signing up for selective service is largely an empty gesture at this point. I would be willing to bet you that they will eventually just do away with selective service in general.
Also, do you think that if women were being forced into infantry combat this wouldn’t DRASTICALLY change public support over the whole women in combat issue.
Its one thing when you allow the occasional women to try. Its a whole other thing when you are forcing women into these roles.
That’s shit aint gonna fly.