In response to:

Women Serving in Combat Positions Is a Batty Idea

Vader!*#% Wrote: Jan 27, 2013 11:44 AM
As a retired career Armor Officer, I have served with many fine ladies during my time, all in non-combat arms branches. There is a lot more to being an armored crewman than just shooting and I doubt there is much different in hand/eye coordination these days with all the video games. How about breaking track, changing roadwheels, humping ammo for a 120mm gun and countless other tasks that require a lot of upper body strenght? Everyone on the crew has to pull their weight. As you know, women with child are not deployable. You can get away with a lot if you only intend to fight counterinsurgencies. I bet the Chinese and Russians are laughing themselves silly.

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...