I was disappointed by Rand Paul's speech, particularly the Spanish parts. The keys, in my mind, to any resolution of this situation are assimilation, learning English (and use of English only in all official documents), and closing the border. I don't care where someone comes from, but if they want to be American they must assimilate and not form an ethnic enclave demanding recognition on an ethnic basis.

Good will works both ways. Learning English, assimilating, and rejecting an ethnic heritage are the traditional requirements and practices of every generation of immigrants to the United States. If Hispanics embrace those values and recognize the founding political culture here was of Anglo-Saxon origin (but applicable to all), there will be no problem. If they continue to insist we "Press 1 for English", and have multi-lingual ballots, and talk about re-taking the southwest, there will continue to be huge problems.

Missile defense is hard, but not impossible. There have been several promising options that have been abandoned in the post-Cold War era. Moreover, defense based on nuclear-tipped ABM systems, while it too has problems, also has strengths that overcome some of the arugments in Mr. Chapman's piece.

Assimilation, securing the border, and English are the keys, although I agree with the other points in the article too.

Women in combat is a coed issue to the extent that catering to the desire of women to participate will put men at greater risk.

There are also a lot military feminists who serve, and who are adamantly in favor of this because they want the promotion opportunities and, overlooking the degree to which they have already benefitted from quotas, affirmative action and lowered standards, cannot accept anything that claims they are unequal or inferior to men. Their emphasis on their own careers itself renders them unfit for commissioned status, and the willingness of male officers to go along with this renders them both unfit for their status and professionally incompetent if they really believe it's a good idea.

I'll buy some of the argument in principle, but Rachel, if NCIS is unsuitable, I don't know what isn't? I must have missed the profanity, which is at best mild. The characters are very restrained sexually. Big Bang Theory also has relatively little profanity, althought it has more sexual content (mostly verbal). Three of the characters are in relationships, one of which is marriage (at least one other is trending that way). It's not a show for kids, but it's still funny. I find far more objectionable all the supernatural vampire type shows, and the relentlessly feminist themes of most shows.

All of these arguments apply to areas of the service opened to women back in 1994, especially in the Navy and Air Force. Either bonding, physical capability, sexual misconduct and pregnancy matter or they don't. Standards have already been lowered in the "non-combat" or combat support or technological services like the Navy and Air Force. Major pregnancy and fraternization problems exist. Either one speaks to these points or one has no argument about ground combat. After all, if it's the "best person" and the standards are equal, then everything should be open. If it's cost=benefit even with equal standards, then some areas should be closed.

Our current policy of talking tough about what is "unacceptable" and then doing nothing about it makes us look like idiots...and doesn't work. States wanting to preserve themselves will continue to acquire nukes, with all the secondary instability and proliferation that will accompany this, until we make an example of one of these states AFTER it has acquired nuclear weapons.

The minor nuclear powers - and I include North Korea and Pakistan in that category - can be attacked and their arsenals destroyed, but only if we have the will to do the necessary damage. That would involve either earth-penetrating nuclear or non-weapons delivered by our stealth bombers or nuclear attack on their facilities delivered by ICBM or cruise missiles. In either scenario, there will be fallout, literally and figuratively. However, it will make unambiguous the fact that we will not tolerate additional nuclear powers - least of all rogue ones - and that, more importantly, simply possessing nukes will not deter us from dealing with these outlaw regimes. The alternative would be for us to shut up and simply live with the nukes.

General Dempsey has also put the services on notice by telling them that they must justify high standards that exclude women. In other words, the priority is not performance or equal standards but inclusion. This clown may be a general but he is to a real one what McClellan was to Grant: prissy, squishy, gutless and unsuccessful.