Wait a minute. The way I understood things when Obama's Pentagon decided to let women into full combat rolls, being in the infantry, like Marines or 101st Army Airborne, was that the deal was they had to carry the same load, hack out the same training, and at the end of the day be just as bad ass as the men.
Now, this Politico article points out that women's body armor is being lightened by 6 pounds. That sounds like a lot to me. Soldiers and Marines already carry a lot of weight, 6 pounds could be a significant difference between men and women on the training course. It also seems in this article that many Democrats who supported women in combat are really happy with this, those same Democrats who told us the women would carry the same loads and pass the same tests as the men. Politico quoted Massachusetts Rep. Niki Tsongas, a Democrat. (Why do I think she is related to Paul Tsongas?)
“I’ve been briefed on the new, improved outer tactical vests several times. I’ve actually had an opportunity to try it on. I think the improvements are tremendous,” she said, adding it is “critically important” to protect the new influx of women now able to serve in front-line roles.
“Prior to the adjustments, it was very difficult for a woman who was wearing the standard-issue vest to raise her arm properly in order to properly fire a rifle,” Tsongas added. “So beyond the comfort issues and just being able to better distribute the weight and all that, it’s critically important that women are adequately protected to do the task." ( MediaPolitical would note that in this Politico article some worry side body armor is a problem with the new women's armor and how they cut the weight.)
I'll be clear to MediaPolitical readers here, I support women in military combat roles, so long as they can pass the same tests as the men to reach it. A bad ass is a bad ass, regardless of gender. At the same time, there is a reason we have women's sports and men's sports, I know the comparison to the military with that is weak, but the truth in physical ability is real and the real reason the Democrats wanted to let women into combat roles has nothing to do with gender equality on the battlefield.
Liberals have long moaned, NY City Rep. Charlie Rangel being one of the loudest moaners, that we must have a draft. That way, like Vietnam, the American public would never accept a war again. And guys like Rangel say the only people who join the military now are poor people with no hope, so it is not fair we send our nation's poor to fight the rich man's wars.
Sounds good on the surface, but it's bull crap. The idea that only the nation's poor join the military is total bunk, and it is a proven fact that a professional, a volunteer army of highly trained, highly motivated individuals, are always superior to a conscript military. I want to avoid the Vietnam War thing here, but the draft was a huge part of why the American public gave up on that war, and our military learned from it. We don't draft anymore. They want volunteers committed to the cause. I suggest studying the ancient Greek Wars if you want to know about this because the military theory still works 2,500 years later.
The reason, and this is the core of my argument here, liberals want women in combat is because they know the American public will never allow another draft, but they want a way to horrify this public to war, and bringing home women in body bags will do it, at least this is their idea and as close as they can get without a draft.
So, cutting down a woman's body armor by 6 pounds is just the start, the next thing will be they can't carry as heavy a pack to run the obstacle course, then the weapon needs to be lighter, so on, and so on. And we didn't have to go there, I know some women who are as physically able as men, just most are not, and there is a reason for that too. But you'll have to have that conversation about why with God or a liberal. I suspect their answers will be quite different.
KEEP SCROLLING DOWN! TONS MORE INFO TO SEE ON MY BLOG!