In response to:

Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

Doug3370 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 6:46 PM
"What is the emotional and psychological effect of this on women (not meant or created for war) versus men (who were created to protect and be warriors)?" Men and women both have instinctive protective feelings. "Army documents state that Hester was serving as team leader during a March 20 mission outside Baghdad when her convoy came under attack. Hester maneuvered her team through the kill zone, then turned around to assault the insurgent’s trench lines with grenades. According to soldiers’ accounts, she entered the trenches with Nein and killed at least three insurgents with her rifle... (read the rest at: http://www.stripes.com/news/female-soldier-awarded-silver-star-1.34794

Last Thursday Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta and other U.S. military leaders lifted the ban on women serving in combat positions. I, for one, think this is a great idea and have a few modest proposals, if the brass inside the beltway is open to suggestions, on how they should deploy the dames (and whom they should deploy).

First off, if you truly want to eviscerate the enemy—namely Muslims—then I propose sending the most nerve grating and foul women Hollywood has to offer straight into hot zones as our forward armies. I’m a thinkin’ starting off with Roseanne Barr, Joy...