Take the Polls on the Biggest Stories of the Day
In the past 24 hours, two news stories have shocked people and have the internet a buzz.
The first is that General Leon Panetta, with the backing of the Joint Chiefs of Staff are announcing the military will be opening every single position to women, including front line soldier. This landmark shift in policy will be implemented over the next three years, and it is the first time in U.S. history that women will be allowed combat roles and even eventually, Special Forces.
There are a lot of questions about what exactly this will mean. For example, will the PT, or physical training requirements be the same, regardless of gender or will it be adjusted as it is on many police and fire departments in recognition of women’s generally smaller bodies? If women are allowed to go into Infantry and become front line soldiers, will accommodations be made for separate privies and facilities in what are often already the most basic and crude conditions? Is this an idea whose time has come or the worst mistake in the history of the U.S Military?
Click the links to take the polls below:
- Should women be allowed on the front lines?
- Should women be allowed in Special Forces?
- Should adjustments or accommodations be made to physical training requirements for women going into combat infantry roles?
The second story that has people up in arms and has been the top story on media outlets across the nation is just as polarizing. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, after many delays, faced a Congressional hearing on the attack in Benghazi that left four Americans including our ambassador dead.
There were many questions focusing on whether she had seen the numerous requests for beefed up security from the ambassador, particularly after the English ambassador had been attacked just days before the U.S. compound was annihilated. When Secretary Clinton said she hadn’t read the cables, Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky responded that if he had been president, she would have been removed from her post for dereliction of duty.
The most impassioned speech of the day, however, came from Clinton in response to continued questions about U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice’s statements that the attack in Benghazi was in response to an anti-Islamic video, something the State Department and White House knew at the time was not the case. The bigger questions about why this misinformation was allowed to go uncorrected by the president of the secretary of state seemed to push Mrs. Clinton to lose her temper, literally pounding the table as she said “What difference, at this point, does it make?”
The other single most surprising statement was the awareness that there were weapons at that compound, weapons that have now been confirmed to be in the hands of Muslim jihadists in Algeria and elsewhere. This piece of information was not a mere question posed, but an understanding of a reality recognized by all at the hearing.
So, you tell us –
- Should Secretary Clinton lose her job due to the charge of dereliction of duty?
- Does it make a difference that it was a coordinated terrorist attack targeting our Americans?
- Does it matter what the White House knew and when?
- Would deployment of American military assets sitting off the coast of Libya at the time of the attack have kept the weapons that were stored at the compound out of the hands of the jihadists?
Follow the links to take the polls, or just sound off in the comments before the talking heads in the media tell us what we think.
Jerry
4:26 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
I voted in the poll, but I don’t know if it counted my votes or not. After answering all the questions, the poll results showed that three of the questions hadn’t been answered yet. Or maybe the system just didn’t like my answers!
I’m sure my answer to the women in combat issues won’t win me any PC awards, but should women be allowed on the front lines? NO. Should women be allowed in Special Forces? NO. Should adjustments be made to PT requirements for women in infantry roles? HELL NO. While this is seen as a great step forward for the military by some, and a huge shot in the arm to the equal rights crowd, the simple and short answer is this policy will cost lives. If it were the lives of the women who choose to serve in these roles that were the only ones at stake I could live with it. They know what they are getting into and if they choose to assume the risk so be it.
Jerry
4:26 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Problem is, these women will be part of a squad. A band of brothers (for now) that hold each other’s lives in their hands every day. The simple fact is that a 110 pound woman wearing 100-plus pounds of gear isn’t going to be able to pull an injured 185 pound soldier out of the field when she needs to, likely costing both their lives. I’m sorry if this answer offends anyone, but it is simple truth. Every decision and every policy that is made concerning those serving in infantry roles should be held to two standards…1) will this make every soldier in the squad safer than they were before and 2) will this make each unit more combat effective? The answer to both in this case is absolutely NO.
Jerry
4:36 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
The poll questions about Mrs. Clinton were oddly written, but in practical terms, there was no way she was going to get fired at this point. She already has one foot out the door and she has three years to get the stink off her before she starts campaigning for the big chair in 2016. Party leadership would never allow her to be fired, as much as she should have been. I will say though, that she has a future of a different sort. I haven't seen acting that good on daytime TV since Susan Lucci's glory days on All My Children. It's the hubris of the administration and politicians in general to believe "the masses are asses" and we can feed them any old story in order to spin events the way we want them to be perceived. And yet we vote them into office again and again. This is how we get the government we deserve.
Denise Williams
5:46 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
No offense taken by this woman. But, I don't know that women should not be allowed in combat roles if they are physically capable of doing the same job. That said, there are very few women who would be able to, GI Jane-style.
Oh, and I completely agree with your HELL no to adjusting the PT standards to accommodate women. But, if they can do it, I'm not sure I'd be willing to say no.
Jerry
9:01 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
The attached is written from a little different perspective, by a guy who was a marine infantryman in the invasion on Iraq and is now an attorney. It answers your point that just because a woman may be physically capable, there are still other factors to consider beyond that.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323539804578260132111473150.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop
Denise Williams
5:48 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
As a side note, I find it very interesting that this comes just when troop draw downs are supposedly coming in Afghanistan. I'm not seeing the rationale behind this, and that has me concerned.
Jerry
8:58 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
And maybe that's part of the reason for doing it now. The thought being that by the time it can be implemented we will be withdrawn from major combat deployments. But even if that's true, this certainly won't be the last war we're ever in.
Denise Williams
9:15 pm on Thursday, January 24, 2013
Jerry, thanks for the link, it is a very interesting and thought provoking perspective.
Edward Andrysiak
11:38 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
When the enemy are radicals who treat their women no better than their dogs...ask yourself what they would do to an American women they might capture. Let your mind run wild contemplating the torture, rape and humulation and mental breakdown a woman might/will suffer. In a firefight where capture is the only likely outcome...would "friendly fire" be something that crosses ones mind? I think so. And, why would you place that burden on your partner in arms? Keep women out of combat wherein they are one on one with the enemy! This is but another dumb liberal idea!
Jerry
9:44 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
I have no doubt that you are correct about how an American woman would be treated if captured but women are serving now in roles where this is a risk. And your comment about capture being the only likely outcome in a fire fight, just the opposite is true. Capture is actually a rare occurrence in such an engagement.
Edward Andrysiak
11:52 am on Saturday, January 26, 2013
Before I get beat up for my comments above...I would like to point out the reason why women WANT combat roles. It is said the there is a glass ceiling on promotions...example, to be a general a person must have combat experience. Notice you have not seen a women in the rank of general. So, instead of putting them in combat...maybe we need to change the rules and allow those with the capability to fill the shoes of that rank to do so with out the so called "combat experience". If you are going to change the rules for women...change ALL of them!
Jerry
9:48 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
There is a saying in the military that you're job is either in the infantry or to support the infantry. That's it. I wouldn't want people setting policy and making decisions that affect the lives and safety of these troops unless they have lived through it themselves. I think it's the only way to truly understand what the average Grunt goes through every day. And if that means women can never rise to the rank of General, then I'm sorry but that's just the way it is.
Denise Williams
10:01 pm on Saturday, January 26, 2013
From a recent CNN article, " Among the top ranks, 69 of the 976 generals and admirals -- 7.1% -- were women. There were 28 female generals in the Air Force, 19 in the Army, one in the Marine Corps and 21 female admirals in the Navy." Women have been barred from infantry, they have been in front line roles as part of gun crews, for example.