Conservatives didn’t understand why George Stephanopoulos asked Mitt Romney questions about birth control during one of the debates back in 2012. It seemed like a bizarre question since it was a non-issue at the time, but it turned out to be foreshadowing of the Democrat strategy to make birth control a central part of the election.
We may have seen the same thing in the New Hampshire debate as liberal moderator Martha Raddatz asked Republican candidates if they thought young women should be forced to sign up for the draft. Surprisingly, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie all blundered right into her trap and agreed that we should take the radical step of forcing young women to sign up for a potential draft.
If one of those candidates ends up as our nominee, he would deserve the brutal wave of attack ads Democrats should launch at him for taking such a thoughtless position. He would also deserve to bleed female support – and maybe male support, too. When you start telling fathers that you want to take their baby girls and force them into a situation where violent armed men are going to try to kill them, don’t be surprised when their protective instincts naturally kick in and they decide you’re not someone that they want in the White House.
The rationale for potentially drafting women is Defense Secretary Ash Carter's foolish statement about putting women in combat, "(A)s long as they qualify and meet the standards, women will now be able to contribute to our mission in ways they could not before. They'll be able to drive tanks, give orders, lead infantry soldiers into combat."
Sadly, even many of the people in charge of our troops seem to have forgotten that the first purpose of our military is to kill people, destroy things and win wars. Instead, they’re focused on turning our military into a politically correct social experiment despite the fact that will accomplish nothing other than getting more of our soldiers killed.
Because women are shorter, lighter and don’t have the same level of muscle mass as men, only small percentages of women are capable of meeting the minimum qualifications for most combat positions. If the military was being honest instead of tilting the scales for public relations reasons, it would also admit that there may not be a woman on the planet who can truly meet the almost super human qualifications for elite military units like the SEALs or Rangers.
Additionally, while we should certainly appreciate women who serve our country, it doesn’t change the fact that the more women you put into combat, the worse our military will perform. That’s just what you’d expect and as the Marine Corps found out when it put women to the test, that’s exactly what happens.
One measure showed that the musculoskeletal injury rate for women was 40.5%, compared with 18.8% for men.
...All-male units performed better than mixed-gender units on 93 of 134 tasks, or 69%; gender-integrated units performed better than all-male units on two tasks, which were not identified.
All-male infantry squads were faster in each tactical movement, with differences more pronounced when "crew-served" weapons such as machine guns had to be carried in addition to the standard assault load.
All-male infantry rifleman squads were more accurate shots, with notable differences in all weapons except the M4 rifle.
Men in the provisional infantry platoon who had not attended the infantry course were more accurate marksmen than women who had, hitting 44% of targets with the M4 rifle versus 28% among women trained at the infantry school.
All-male squads were notably better as a group when tackling obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example: "When negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top."
Keep in mind that we're talking about women who want to be there and are probably much better athletes than the average female. Some of them are undoubtedly fine soldiers and all of them deserve to be lauded for choosing to serve, but that doesn't change the fact that most of them are apparently liabilities for their units. Furthermore, those women would be head and shoulders better than 18 year old draftees. So, who in his right mind thinks that in a time of national crisis so severe that we’d need a draft that we should force our military to sort through millions of 5' 2”, 120 pound girls who’ve never been in a fight so we can say that it’s “fair?” Incidentally, that’s what this whole dumb idea is about: “fair.” It’s a way to shove it in feminists’ faces – “Oh, you really want to be equal? Then why don’t you try combat! Ha ha ha!”
Can’t we set the “get evenism” and political correctness that says “men and women are exactly alike” aside and just note the obvious truth about differences between our genders? Have we gotten so mired in this faux feminism,” “You go, girl” culture that we can’t even admit that men are generally much better suited to kill other men than women?
It is a tragedy that so many of our young men have given life and limb fighting for our country. It would be even worse if we had another emergency so severe that we’d need to draft unwilling young men to fight. However, if we ever stoop to drafting women and forcing them to fight our battles, it would be one of the most foolish and shameful moments in our nation’s history.