Women In Combat. Doubling Down On Stupid?

As has been said before, elections have consequences, and the results of this most recent one may have more than most.  As reported in the Chicago Tribune, among other media outlets,  the left wing ACLU wasted no time in rounding up four service women as complainants to bring suit against the United States Department of Defense.  The suit alleges that the DoD is engaging in  illegal discriminatory practices based on  its long-standing ban on women being assigned to certain combat roles.  It is no coincidence that the request for an injunction was filed in the Northern District Court of California whose appeals are reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals which is known for its liberal bias.  Should the case end up coming before them we can only hope that the judges won’t be able to tear themselves away from any taxpayer paid vacation plans they may have made for the relevant time period.

This suit represents the final step in an on-going attempt to place individual hubris above the success of the mission and vividly illustrates the myopic thinking inherent in the actions of progressive groups and individuals.  Once again we see the results of allowing the liberal brain to run wild in pursuit of a goal based on its pre-programmed focus on a limited menu of moral and ethical options.  One has to wonder, but perhaps not for long, on which side of the debate noted social psychologist Jonathan Haidt might be found.

In his book, The Righteous Mind, Dr. Haidt might well provide some insight as he examines how liberals and conservatives approach solving dilemmas involving just the kinds of questions which arise in attempting to address the women in combat controversy.  Although Willian Saletan, ironically as a proud possessor of a liberal mind, did argue against some of Dr. Haidt’s conclusions in his March 2012 book review, he does do a relatively good job of presenting many of Dr. Haidt’s views without excessive commentary.  The first quote is pulled from about the middle of the article where Mr. Saletan reports the following:

These moral systems aren’t ignorant or backward. Haidt argues that they’re common in history and across the globe because they fit human nature.

He goes on to quote Dr. Haidt as concluding:

When it comes to morality, conservatives are more broad-minded than liberals. They serve a more varied diet.

Although the context in the next quote is a concern over the liberal losses during the 2010 election cycle, the over-all narrative remains the same:

Haidt agrees that old ways must sometimes be re-examined and changed. He just wants liberals to proceed with caution and protect the social pillars sustained by tradition.

Perhaps particularly relevant to this discussion:

Another aspect of human nature that conservatives understand better than liberals, according to Haidt, is parochial altruism, the inclination to care more about members of your group — particularly those who have made sacrifices for it

The point in beginning this discussion with a review of Dr. Haidt’s work is that a major problem in attempting to address the issue of women in combat is that the two sides are using two completely different sets of values to support their positions.  In addition, this is another case where both sides are not attempting to reach the same end point, albeit by different means.  The ACLU is not motivated by any sense of altruism or even the well-being of their “clients” but rather by the opportunity to push their agenda forward.  The petitioners, whether or not they support the ACLU’s agenda, are seemingly much more motivated by their misguided views of what is in their self-interest and are certainly not interested in what’s best for the particular branch of service to which they either were, or are, attached.

There are very few reasons for changing the present policy while there are any number of factors arguing against such a change.  The reasons in support of this change can practically be put into one sentence.  I would suggest that these women, and the men who support them, are a product of a culture which seems to put the right to do something above the necessity of being able to perform the task up to an acceptable level.  There is no good reason to lower standards or make politically correct concessions when by doing so it puts the survival of the entire group in jeopardy.

As  Capt Katie Petronio clearly states in the title of her article published in the Marine Corps Gazette, Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal.  Anyone wishing to understand the problems associated with revoking the ban on women in combat should not miss reading this article written by a woman who has been there.  After reading the article consider the comments as an integral part of the narrative and read on to see what those who have experienced combat have to say about the topic.  Thoughtful and knowledgeable service people take the time to address topics ranging from inherent biological differences to the additional cost borne by the taxpayer  due to additional injuries, pregnancies, being discharged early, additional training requirements, threats to unit cohesion, and more than I can remember.  At this point, rather than go into them in any more depth,  I’ll simply direct you to their comments.

There is one suggestion which someone may or may not have made, but perhaps the best way to eliminate this controversy is to deploy a unit into combat comprised exclusively of females.  The on-going success of such a unit would go a long way in eliminating any further opposition.

Thanks….comments and other forms of recognition are always appreciated.

Advertisement