Republicans Debate: Should Women Be Drafted?
Phyllis Schlafly |
Senator Marco Rubio, whose teenage daughters were seated in the first row, was called on first. “I have no problem whatsoever with people of either gender serving in combat,” Rubio began. “I do believe that Selective Service should be opened up for both men and women in case a draft is ever instituted.”
Rubio has been ridiculed for the way he seems to deliver memorized, canned talking points, but his answer suggests he was unprepared for this question. He said he had no problem with women in combat “so long as the minimum requirements necessary to do the job are not compromised.”
The debate was held the night before the Super Bowl, where some of the nation’s best athletes compete before a world audience. Since there’s no rule preventing “people of either gender” from playing football in the NFL, why has no woman ever appeared in the Super Bowl? Even if an exceptional woman could meet “the minimum requirements necessary to do the job” of playing football, that’s not good enough for the physical demands of the NFL – or for military combat.
Rubio’s reference to “minimum requirements” was echoed by the next candidate to speak, former governor Jeb Bush. “If women can meet the minimum requirements for combat service, they ought to have the right to do it. For sure.”
Rubio and Bush have been the loudest voices calling for rebuilding the U.S. military into a force capable of defeating the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Why should we shoot ourselves in the foot by assigning women to combat merely because a few exceptional women “can meet the minimum requirements”?
Even when they “meet the minimum requirements” for military service, women are injured at twice the rate of men, just as female athletes in high school and college sports suffer much higher rates of injury. The higher injury rate for women is one reason why a Marine Corps study found that all-male teams outperformed mixed gender units on a wide range of tasks.
Yes, women can fight hard against enemy attackers, but it takes real men, backed up by unit cohesion, to say “Let’s go get him” and initiate the fight against armed enemies. There is no evidence that women are the equals of men in actual combat.
When I was asleep in bed with my late husband and we heard a noise downstairs that sounded like someone was breaking into the house, I assure you my husband didn’t say “Honey, why don’t you go downstairs and check out that noise?” My husband did the manly thing and went downstairs himself.
Yes, women can pass many tests for strength needed for combat, but there are no tests to find out who will say “Let’s go kill a vicious enemy soldier bent on killing you any way he can.” We have plenty of evidence that men can and will walk into that kind of peril to save their buddies.
The naive premise that women can perform in combat to the same standards as men was refuted by retiring Marine General John F. Kelly, the outgoing commander of U.S. Southern Command. In his final briefing General Kelly warned of the coming “pressure to lower standards, because that’s the only way it’ll work in the way that the agenda-driven people want it to work.”
When it turns out that few if any women are actually serving in combat units, General Kelly predicted, “the question will be asked why aren’t they staying, why aren’t they advancing as infantry people? The answer is, if we don’t change the standards, it will be very, very difficult to have any real numbers.”
The third Republican candidate to endorse women in combat was Governor Chris Christie who, like Rubio, is the father of two teenage daughters. “There’s no reason why young women should be discriminated against from registering for the Selective Service. That’s what we should aspire to for all of the women in our country.”
Senator Ted Cruz was not allowed to speak on this topic in the debate, but he unloaded the following day. “It was striking that three different people on that stage came out in support of drafting women into combat in the military,” Cruz said. “I have to admit, as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was: Are you guys nuts?”
“We have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military,” Cruz said to loud applause. “The idea that we would draft our daughters, to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong, it is immoral, and if I am president, we ain’t doing it.”
--------------------
Phyllis Schlafly has been a national leader of the conservative movement since 1964. She founded and is CEO and Chairman of Eagle Forum. She has testified before more than 50 Congressional and State Legislative committees on constitutional, national defense, and family issues.
Tags: Phyllis Schlafly, Eagle Forum, women, the draft To share or post to your site, click on "Post Link". Please mention / link to the ARRA News Service. and "Like" Facebook Page - Thanks!
3 Comments:
And the answer is, no!
From the many surveys I've looked at, there is a small majority of people (52%) who say they would approve of the reinstatement of the draft but only if it is exclusively male. There may be some reasons why drafting women may not be a good idea.
First, we profess to be a Christian nation even though we engage in so many wars despite worshiping the Prince of Peace. According to Bible law, women cannot be drafted. Drafting women would therefore be sin.
Second, the cost to society would be enormous - new rest rooms, uniforms, sleeping quarters, health care would be needed. The costs for upgrades and needed facilities would be staggering.
Third, family disruptions would take place as many moms would not be home with their kids. This assuming moms were in the reserves.
Fourth, many teen girls would get pregnant to avoid the draft. This would increase social welfare costs to provide help for unwed moms. Then there is the danger of some getting abortions upon getting exempt, especially if the pregnancy causes illness. Very ironically, the draft would increase unwed pregnancies while increasing abortions as well.
Fifth, as I mentioned above, the majority of Americans do not want to have women drafted. That can lead to an endless array of legal proceedings which would tie up the courts as well as legislatures. You can bet there would be many other social disruptions as well.
Problem: what happens if there is an all male draft? While women go to college, men miss out on education, technical or journeymen experiences, and salaries. While women get educated and go on to high paid professions, after 4 years in the military your son winds up uneducated, probably demoralized, with very little money, and will have no choice but to live in your basement. Are you willing to have your neighbor's daughter live the life of an independent woman, while your son lives like a helpless little boy in your basement or attic apartment?
I understand that 35-40% of men under 35 live with their parents because of social conditions today. An all male draft will likely increase that percentage even more. Thus, while drafting women into the services will cost society a great deal, drafting men exclusively can be just as hazardous to society. So which do you prefer - an all male or an inclusive draft?
Why don't more people comment on this issue?
It is very significant as the government persists in engaging in and expanding foreign war. One way or another there will soon have to be a Congressional vote on the draft whether for or against it, whether to include or to exclude women. Thus, your opinion does count and it should be expressed.
So please, let's see what you have to say.
Post a Comment
<< Home