In response to:

Soldier Girl Blues

45caliber Wrote: Jan 30, 2013 5:34 PM
They want the population to get upset enough at women being killed (or raped) in combat that the population will allow the total elimination of a military. After all, as the strongest nation on earth, we will never be attacked and therefore don't need a military. That money can be better used to buy votes ... ah, increase welfare dividends or other bennies. And if we have a military someone might want to insist we need to use it for some disagreeable thing like, for instance, preventing some invaders from entering our country. (Wait, we do that now, don't we? The government calls them illegal immigrants.)

What if, during the presidential campaign, Mitt Romney had accused President Obama of wanting to let servicewomen serve in combat? After all, Obama had hinted as much in 2008. What would Obama's response have been?

My hunch is that he would have accused Romney of practicing the "politics of division" or some such and denied it.

In any case, wouldn't an open debate have been better than putting women into combat by fiat? You'd think the folks who are always clamoring for a "national conversation" on this, that and the other thing would prefer to make a sweeping change after, you...