In announcing that all positions in the U.S. armed forces would be opened to women, Secretary of Defense Ashton B. Carter lied. According to the December 4 New York Times, he said,
They’ll [women] be able to serve as Army Rangers and Green Berets, Navy SEALS, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers, and everything else that was previously open only to men.
That statement is false. Women will not be able to do those things. Their bodies are not designed to do many of the tasks those positions entail. So long as realistic standards are maintained for those specialties, women will not be able even to qualify for them much less perform adequately in them. Men and women are different, physically and mentally, and their traditional social roles reflect their inherent differences.
Had the Truth Fairy landed on the SECDEF’s tongue as he was about to make his announcement, he would have said,
We are opening all positions in the armed forces to women. Women will not be able to do many of the duties entailed especially in the combat arms. We–the Obama administration–don’t care about that. Our ideology of cultural Marxism demands we pretend men and women are interchangeable. We will do whatever is necessary to maintain that illusion. In this case, if women cannot meet the standards, we will change the standards. If not enough women make it into the combat arms, we will establish quotas.
If, in combat, women cannot perform the mission, that’s not our problem. If it means lost engagements and unnecessary American casualties, what is that to us? Our ideology comes first. Get with the party’s program–or else.
Here again we see the slide of state armed forces into history’s wastebasket. Playthings of a political establishment that knows nothing of war, they exist for every purpose except fighting. Many of those inside them have figured this out. An Army study done at least ten years ago found that two-thirds of the Army’s women and one-third of its men disagreed with the statement, “The Army’s main purpose is to fight.” Most state armed forces produce so few fighters from their total manpower that they could not fight if they wanted to, not against any serious opponent.
So why do we keep them around, at immese cost? Mostly from habit. Few politicians know enough to see their obsolescence, and fewer still would take the political risks involved in pruning them back to budgets that reflect their military utility. The public, wallowing in the usual “Support the troops” rhetoric, cannot see their uselessness, and the air shows are fun to watch.
For the establishment, state militaries remain highly useful. They provide jobs and money that can be steered to political allies. Defense companies are big political donors. If you vote right, when you leave office many will offer you paid seats on their boards, plus lobbying contracts.
Senior officers feed from the same troughs, not to mention pensions that most people can only dream about (paid for by those dreamers). Once you make it to lieutenant colonel, the pay is great and the duties are easy, so long as you don’t object to working on vast staffs that produce nothing but contentless briefings which you must pretend to take seriously. If you hope to keep moving on up the career ladder, don’t forget the knee pads and the vaseline.
So to this dysfunctional and militarily impotent stew let’s now add women. Why not? Can anything make it worse than it already is? Actually, in this case yes, because putting women in combat units undermines the basic reason why they fight, unit cohesion. Instead of forming a band of brothers, the men fight each other over the women. When I asked the captain of an amphib with a male/female crew the fraternization rate, he replied, “100% of course. I have male sailors in knife fights over women officers.”
But in the end, it doesn’t matter much. These institutions are finished. Every time they take on non-state, Fourth Generation opponents they get their butts kicked.
4GW forces are about fighting. They don’t have much gear and their technical skills often aren’t great. But they and the men in them want to fight. Most of their personnel are fighters. Senior officers regularly get killed. Some of them seriously study war, a practice virtually unknown among our officers.
So the wheel of fortune turns. The fat, dumb, and happy careerists in their pressed camis are on the way down, and the lean and hungry believers with their AKs and IEDs are on the way up. Unserious, womanized state armed forces will vanish with the states they cannot protect and their ideologies not worth defending. 
Look on the bright side. When the revolution comes and we finally decide to secede from the depraved and crumbling USA, the US government’s military will be full of f@ggots and little girls and won’t be much of a threat. They’ll be easily defeated and put up against the wall.
They can still call in air & artillery strikes.
Well, you make a good point. On the other hand, can f@gs and little girls keep planes maintained? Can little girls manhandle an artillery piece into position? Nah, might break a nail.
Lower the physical standards to be “inclusive” and as an added bonus, you’ve just created justification for a bunch of nice fat defense contracts for robots, exoskeletons, and other expensive mechanical substitutes to do the heavy lifting.
That’s true enough. But – and a big “but” – does the high-tech stuff work reliably and can you afford to buy many of them? Aircraft and other weapons systems are becoming so expensive, soon we’ll have only one plane and the each pilot will get to fly it only once a year.
Who cares if it works, as long as the contractors get paid. That’s all they care about.
The end game here is what is not clear. Why would the Cult-Marx want to weaken the force that keeps them able to rule? Do they believe that they will be forever insulated from the consequences of the anarchy that they are creating? When the body bags full of young women come back from whatever war they send them to next, it will serve to shock those who still have a brain but who bought into the grrrlll power idea and will serve to cause the cynical shills to double down still further. It will discredit the shills in the eyes of many erstwhile true believers. The best thing to save women in the long run will be to send a bunch of women eager to fight to the front in the short run so that everyone can see what the consequences really look like.
And that statement confirm’s Ackbar’s OP.
This is how ideology works; it’s like a religion. They think that if they believe in equality hard enough that everything else will fall into place. That their military force might not benefit from egalitarianism is heresy.
Spot on. It is religion indeed. And the populace they have conditioned to being loyal to such religion plays a role in keeping every aspect of American life accountable to obey the precepts of this religion. It would be a sin (in their religion) to do otherwise.
Things like this are a great window into the suicidal pathology of Liberalism. They are even willing to sacrifice necessary defensive capabilities in order to engineer a tolerant and diverse outcome. Given time, they’ll reap the bitter rewards.
Now, I’m looking forward to the moment when all positions in the U.S. armed forces are open to disabled people, transgenders and ‘otherkin’.
The transgender thing is underway-no joke.