Infantry strong. And distractions

Lieutenant General Gregory Newbold (U.S. Marine Corps, ret.) takes up what tempers the steel of an infantry unit: “It is artificial to constrain the debate about women in the infantry to physical capabilities. This doesn’t address what holds an infantry unit together in the worst conditions humanity has to offer.”

the issue we’re now debating has to include a recognition of cohesion and the cost of sexual dynamics in a bare-knuckled brawl, amidst primeival mayhem, in which we expect the collective entity to persevere because it has a greater will and fighting spirit, and not because it is bigger, faster, or more agile. The championship team in virtually any professional sport may only coincidentally be the most physically talented, but it most assuredly will be the most cohesive. Why not appreciate the same ingredients in infantry units?

Finally, you may bet your future earnings that the current effort to integrate the infantry will not cease with a few extraordinary females, but will eventually accommodate a social engineering goal by changing standards. Think I am wrong? It’s already happening. Read the words and understand the goals of the current Secretary of the Navy (an arsonist in the fire department) and the Secretary of the Air Force, and examine what we now call “the Dempsey Rule.”

If I’m wrong, the cost may be denied opportunity to strong and impressive young women. If you’re wrong, our national security is shaken and there is a butcher’s bill to pay. Make your choice. The line forms on the left.

The one or the many? The question was put on the table in one of the later, PC, Star Trek movies in a different context. It is the question here as well in a more raw form. The basis is about the nature of humanity and trying to pretend it is something that it is not and using denial to try to make it so, anyway.

Comments are closed.