- Ohio university quiz implies atheists are naturally smarter than Christians
- Rep. Henry Cuellar on border crisis: ‘Playing defense on the one-yard line’
- Activists vow to occupy fast-food restaurants to get higher pay
- Rep. Luis Gutierrez: Senate Dems wary of immigration politics
- Summer camp for 1 percenters: Sushi, limos and shopping at FAO Schwarz
- Colorado gun crackdown law found to be built on faulty data
- Hank Aaron steps to fundraising plate for Democrat Michelle Nunn
- ISIL terrorists blow up burial site of Jonah, vow more of same
- Impeach Obama, say 35 percent in new poll
- Taliban yank 14 Shiites off bus, bind and shoot them on Afghan road
MAGINNIS: Sending our daughters to war
The military defies both science and human experience
Question of the Day
This summer, President Obama will announce detailed plans for incorporating women into the U.S. armed forces' ground combat units. Unlike the redefinition of marriage, this alteration of one of the basic norms of civilization has passed strangely unremarked. Yet it defies both science and millennia of human experience, and it ought to prompt some real national soul searching about the roles of the sexes in national security.
Two quite different views tend to dominate the debate over women in combat. Proponents of the change — feminists and their allies in the government, the Pentagon and the media — view this as a question of equality. As long as women are prohibited from engaging in the essential act of a soldier — ground combat — they are condemned to second-class citizenship in the military and in civilian society. Equality, in their view, is the supreme goal of public policy. If a cost of achieving it is the diminution of the efficiency or even effectiveness of our combat forces, so be it. They won't quite come out and say this, but it is the unavoidable conclusion of their reasoning.
Opponents of opening ground combat units to women, when they speak up at all, stick to the pragmatic point that women are incapable of meeting the physical and psychological demands of sustained ground combat. Since the evidence for this position is overwhelming, the argument is that opening ground combat to women would compromise the primary mission of the military — fighting and defeating our enemies. This argument, however, is frequently couched in terms of regret: We all wish, obviously, that we could accommodate women's laudable ambition to serve their country in this way, but the unpleasant reality is that it's just not practicable.
The debate about sending women into combat raises other questions, however. Both sides avoid them, but they are perhaps the most important questions. What kind of society sends its women into ground combat? Do we want to be that kind of society? Is sending our daughters, wives and mothers into combat good for women, for men, or for children? To a certain kind of feminist, hardened by ideology, it's repugnant even to ask these questions. We don't ask if we should send men into combat, so we shouldn't ask if we should send women. People who have blinded themselves to the profound and wonderful differences between the sexes are not open to a discussion about the consequences of those differences, and perhaps there is nothing more to say to them. But those people should not set the terms of the public debate. The American people need to stop pretending that sending women into combat involves questions no deeper than how far they can carry a 70-pound rucksack.
Between Sept. 11, 2001, and now, 141 American servicewomen were killed in the line of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. Nineteen of those women were mothers of children aged 18 and younger. By comparison, 16 women were killed during the Vietnam War, and six were killed in the first Persian Gulf War. Now women will be asked to shoulder a much heavier burden. More mothers of young children will be killed and wounded in war than ever before. And all young women will eventually be subject to the draft. This radical policy change erases the boundaries of sex and normalizes the exposure of women to lethal violence. Meet the real "war on women."
Two consequences of the Obama administration's new policy reveal its savagery with special clarity. The first is the moral certainty that female prisoners of war will be subjected to sexual crimes that will make their captivity even more horrifying than men's. The same people who decry sexual harassment in the barracks shrug their shoulders at the prospect of American servicewomen's falling into the hands of the world's most depraved misogynists.
The other savage consequence of sending women into combat is the forced separation for months on end — and perhaps forever — of mothers from their young children. This already happens, of course, when mothers are deployed to support positions on the other side of the globe. But now the pain of separation will be amplified by the anxiety that comes with combat duty. It drives feminists crazy to suggest that sending a two-year-old's mother to war is worse than sending the child's father, but it is. The two-year-old knows this, and so does everyone else — even Mr. Obama.
The decision to put women in combat bespeaks our deep confusion over manhood and womanhood. C.S. Lewis, who fought in the trenches of World War I, instructed children that "battles are ugly when women fight." People who know less about battle and less about man than Lewis did scoff at that unfashionable notion.
The pastor and theologian John Piper speaks for a remnant of American men for whom this issue is about more than career opportunities in today's Army:
"If I were the last man on the planet to think so, I would want the honor of saying no woman should go before me into combat to defend my country. A man who endorses women in combat is not pro-woman; he's a wimp. He should be ashamed. For most of history, in most cultures, he would have been utterly scorned as a coward to promote such an idea. Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women."
Mr. Obama is betting that ideas like this are already incomprehensible to most Americans. We shall soon see if he's right.
Robert L. Maginnis is a retired U.S. Army lieutenant colonel and a national security and foreign-affairs analyst.
TWT Video Picks
Second- and third-stringers eye 2016 if front-runner stumbles
Get Breaking Alerts
- Michelle Obama says money in politics is bad, asks donors for 'big, fat check'
- Presidents of Honduras, Guatemala blame U.S. for border children crisis
- 'We're coming for you, Barack Obama': Top U.S. official discloses threat from ISIL terrorists
- EDITORIAL: Detroit's water 'spigot bigots'
- NAPOLITANO: What if our democracy is a fraud?
- Hamas rejects Kerry's call for cease-fire; Fears grow others could join fight against Israel
- Crime-ridden U.S. cities differ on ways to fight gun violence
- Obama takes aim at 'corporate deserters'
- Let it roll: D.C. Council hits Las Vegas on taxpayer's dime, leaves $14,000 tab
- Obama orders Pentagon advisers to Ukraine