In response to:

Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

RGR28 Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 1:37 PM
Traditionally, women have accompanied combat units as medics, military police or intelligence officers who interact with indigenous women. But recent wars have had no clear front lines, no traditional safe havens for soldiers of either gender. Fighting with guerrilla insurgents could break out anywhere once a unit moved outside the wire. So even those in so-called support roles find themselves exposed to enemy fire. The number killed in such jobs is proof of that. The Pentagon’s distinction between combat and noncombat bore little resemblance to reality.

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...