The Right Opinion

The Diversity Cult's Attack on the Military

The Center for Military Readiness reveals the destructive agenda behind putting women in combat.

By Arnold Ahlert · Jan. 25, 2013

Center for Military Readiness (CMR) president Elaine Donnelly continues to challenge outgoing Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's elimination of the ban against women serving in combat. A 42-page report, “Defense Department 'Diversity' Push for Women In Land Combat” is a no-holds-barred assessment of the pitfalls that attend women serving in combat units. In a memo released Monday, Donnelly reveals why the report is necessary. “Secretary Panetta is making this move on his way out the door, cutting Congress, and the American people out of the decision-making process… Congress … should schedule long-overdue hearings that examine the full consequences of imposing gender-based 'diversity metrics' on infantry battalions,” it reads.

The report begins by revealing the Obama administration began accelerating the effort to increase military “diversity” in February 2012, when a Defense Department report officially repealed the “collocation” rule that had been circumvented without authorization since 2004. In other words, despite a 1994 ban on women operating in locations near combat units, the rule was being routinely ignored – for diversity's sake.

As the Pentagon continued to move forward with its plan, it began following the recommendations made by the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC), a committee established by Congress comprised of military and civilian diversity “experts.” In 2011, they released a report, “From Representation to Inclusion: Diversity Leadership for the 21st Century Military,” that sought to explain the rationale behind the push for greater diversity. “The Commission found that top military leaders are representative neither of the population they serve nor of the forces they lead. The extent to which racial/ethnic minorities and women are underrepresented varies across the Services, but the Commission found, on average, low racial/ethnic minority and female representation among senior military officers,” it stated.

Regarding women, this outlook reveals why the Pentagon feels it has become necessary to allow women to go into combat. The CMR report explains. “Since ground combat experience often (but not always) improves chances of promotion to general officer and senior enlisted ranks, the MLDC is recommending that female officers and enlisted personnel be ordered (not allowed) to serve in 'tip of the spear' units involved in direct ground combat.” Thus, the MLDC “has recommended that women be assigned to infantry units at the battalion level, primarily to promote career opportunities and promotions for a few female officers to three- and four-star rank.”

As CMR's report rightly notes, this turns the entire purpose of what the military is supposed to be about on its head. Diversity is not being pursued to improve military readiness as much as it is being pursued to improve the career chances of what amounts to a handful of women in the higher echelons of the military command structure. As a result, the military is prepared to embrace the circular reasoning of “diversity metrics” designed to obscure the genuine differences that exist between men and women, in order to reach predetermined outcomes that allow more women to be assigned to combat units. This in turn enhances their prospects for career advancement, which will undoubtedly be used as rationale to promote the idea that no real differences exist between the sexes.

Thus we get the essence of radical feminism, the idea that man and women are equal in every respect, even if it means “fudging” some realities to get there. As the CMR's report reveals, that's exactly what the Pentagon has done, noting that physical capability tests measuring common skills “have been scaled back from six to three and adjusted to reduce physical demands and improve women's achievement scores.”

The CMR report goes on to outline many drawbacks of women in combat, but the most significant aspect of it concerns a test conducted by the Marines to evaluate whether women could meet the same physical capabilities expected of men. They intended to collect data from 90 women as part of the evaluation process, but only two volunteered to be part of the grueling Infantry Officer Course at Quantico, Va. Both women failed to pass it. Speaking to Front Page, Donnelly reveals that several sources have given her information about the other aspects of the test. Yet she notes that the results of the test have not been released to the public, despite what Leon Panetta said yesterday when he officially announced the lifting of the ban:

Women have shown great courage and sacrifice on and off the battlefield, contributed in unprecedented ways to the military's mission and proven their ability to serve in an expanding number of roles,“ Panetta said at a Pentagon news conference. "The department's goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best-qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.

"If the tests conducted by the Marines confirm what Panetta said, then why haven't they been released?” wonders Donnelly. “And if they don't, then what is he doing?” Both questions deserve an answer, yet one suspects that the Obama administration has already provided it. Leon Panetta is a lame duck on his way out. As a result, the likelihood of him having to explain anything – including his role in the Benghazi debacle which this latest action pushes even further below the media radar – is virtually nil. Furthermore, putting women in combat has obscured the far bigger issue: this president's appetite for naked power grabs is getting out of hand.

Elaine Donnelly reinforces that argument along with her own contentions in a statement released recently:

Following orders from President Barack Obama, lame-duck Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has recklessly announced unilateral nullification of direct ground combat exemptions that are important to the majority of military women who serve in the enlisted ranks. Secretary Panetta has excluded Congress and the American people from the decision-making process, and imposed a radical 'diversity' agenda on our military without disclosing the data and results of extensive research on the subject of women in land combat that the Marine Corps conducted last year. Congress should insist on seeing data gathered during the Marines' research, and conduct immediate oversight hearings before harmful policies imposed by the outgoing Secretary of Defense become de facto law.

Thanks to the Left's slanderous “war on women” campaign, which has paralyzed rational debate on such matters, don't count on a single member of Congress rising to the occasion.

Arnold Ahlert is a columnist for FrontPage Magazine.

Appeal_patriots_day_5
14 Comments

wjm in Colorado said:

Another example of liberal insanity. Just wait till a female body is dragged throught the mud by some islamist scum, or a plattoon is overrun when a female is unable to drag an ammo box to resupply them. In what fantasyland will a woman EVER be able to support true Combat operations? Now, will all females be required to register with Selective Service?

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 9:40 AM

sfj in Alabama said:

As a Vietnam combat vet (F.O. for Artillery/105MM howitzer "gun bunny") I can tell you for a fact no 110 lb women will be able to endure the torturous hardships she will face in ground combat. The strength is not there. The aggresivness is not there and a women present within an infantry squad will just add to the tension already there. I understand that the 2 females who were accepted for Ranger school washed out. They may be good pilots, drone operators, etc but never sustained ground combat. Nuff said.

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 9:57 AM

Tony in Texas said:

Maybe the muslims will be laughing so hard on the battle front they will pee over themselves. What a joke. Every veteran should be insulted.

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 10:33 AM

John Q Citizen in Colorado said:

There is only one woman I want fighting next to me, my wife. She knows how to shoot. Having said that, I have two young men who will do all of the heavy lifting with me to ensure that said wife will not. Females ARE NOT CUT OUT for the rigors of combat. Having been in units with and w/o females I would take an ALL MALE UNIT EVERY TIME. Panetta/Obama et al are a disgusting lot to consider "ordering" women into roles they will fail 95%+ of the time and thereby causing the loss of lives for which they would be responsible for.

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 10:51 AM

Tapdaddy in Indiana replied:

They will never accept responsibility for the death of any soldier, just ask them.

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 2:39 PM

Ed Watts in Near Palm Springs replied:

"What difference does it make?"

Monday, January 28, 2013 at 2:55 PM

READY4ACHANGE in ILLINOIS said:

Seriously, there is no way a woman will ever have the physical strength of a man. And, what happens to these soldiers if a woman does become pregnant, and the man and woman both have families back home? How does one explain that?

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Bruce R Pierce in Owensboro, Ky replied:

They both get charged with adultery and serve time; yes adultery in the Military is a Courts Martial offence.

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 12:50 PM

Wayne in Hinesville, GA said:

Political correctness gone totally stupid. I served with some outstanding female officers during my career but none of them had the physical strength or stamina required in front-line combat units and knew it. Many of them were outstanding soldiers with good leadership skills and technical expertise in their fields. Spent most of my career in Military Intelligence and cannot speak for the rest of the Army.

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 11:20 AM

Robert in NEW Mexico said:

It's ironic that the left is putting women in combat in order to fight against the fabricated "war on women".
Are this administration's perversions without end?

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 12:38 PM

wjm in Colorado replied:

It always ends up becoming the oposite of what they preach.

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 1:59 PM

BJ in St. Cloud, MN said:

Solution? Military units to be made up entirely of either male or female or homosexuals. Never mixed. Wouldn't that solve everything? I'd also like to see a United White College Fund, one for Hispanics and other races too.. How about a White Miss America Pageant? All White TV Network?? Later, when whites are a minority are we going to have affirmative action for white folks? Today I heard that schools must find room on all sports teams for disabled students. Pro's should have to do that too. NFL Wheelchair Team anyone?

TERM LIMITS-IMPEACH-PROSECUTE-SOON

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Tapdaddy in Indiana said:

When the new policy was first mentioned, the day before, Leon made the announcement the only thing that stood out to me was, a new government jobs program, 230,000 mew positions would be opening up for women.

Friday, January 25, 2013 at 2:33 PM

Tod the tool guy in brooklyn ny said:

DIVERSITY=ANYTHING GOES it's just another liberal code word, Patriots. INVESTMENT= MORE GOT SPENDING& KEYNESIAN FAIRY TALES!!

Sunday, January 27, 2013 at 6:41 AM