As Ramesh noted, Virginia governor Bob McDonnell spared few words today when attacking Rick Santorum for his comments opposing expanding the role of women in combat. I asked McDonnell’s office to clarify whether that meant that McDonnell himself supported women being allowed to be in all combat roles and on the frontlines, and received this response (which didn’t really answer the question) from McDonnell’s communications director Tucker Martin:
The Governor is a veteran. His daughter, Jeanine, served as an Army platoon leader in Iraq.
As a veteran, and as a father, he took exception to the inference that Jeanine was not up to the job when she was serving our nation overseas. She was. And so are the thousands of American women who serve with distinction in our military every single day, often in very dangerous situations. In fact, in Iraq, Afghanistan and other venues of modern-day warfare, the concept of ‘front lines’ is increasingly obsolete. In this new military landscape most soldiers are in harm’s way, no matter where they are physically deployed and based.
The Governor will never hesitate to speak up for the valor and bravery of our women in uniform. They are patriots. The Governor has not reviewed in-depth Secretary Panetta’s most recent proposal regarding the role of women in combat. As an Army veteran, he believes that specific decisions regarding battlefield operations and policies should be properly left to the Pentagon and our military leadership on the ground.
I think Governor McDonnel and his minions would be wise not to tie themselves too closely to Romney's fortunes. When Romney goes down in Novemeber, all of the insiders who were complicit in foisting this empty suit on us, will be held accountable. All of them.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIn effect, the Governor said a whole lot of nothing.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf some reporter dragged that statement out of Santorum, I suppose it is just one of those things that happen during campaigning. If, on the other hand, Santorum brought it up, on his own, I will just have conclude that he doesn't really want to be president. That is an argument for another time, and another place.
Why is it that Republican candidates scour their brains for something, anything, that bears no relationship to the job at hand (winning votes,) just to arouse opposition? Am I missing something? I guess I just always thought that the purpose of campaigning was to win as many people to your cause as possible.
One should not lie! On the other hand you don't need to say everything, that has ever run through your mind, every time you open your mouth
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Am I missing something?
Yes, but don't feel bad because I apparently missed it to. At some point in the not too distant past, the "real conservatives" put out a memo that essentially said to potential Republican politicians who are thinking about running for public office: You must, at all times, say the dumbest, most inflammatory things possible particularly when those things mean absolutely nothing positive for the middle third of the country that actually elects politicians in most parts of the country.
Santorum, and Palin and Bachmann and a cohort of others absolutely got that memo. McDonnell, apparently, did not. And to demonstrate the "real conservative" displeasure with McDonnell's thoughtful response to a question fraught with demographic peril, people have to put him on notice - as was done just above.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRight on Gov. McDonnell! He is awesome and was awesome at CPAC, gave one of the best speeches there.
Santorum or Newt will lose the GOP women votes, Rick's gaffe & clarification on this subject is more proof of it.
Jennifer Rubin (a fan of Santorum's) hit the right question:
"why should women be denied positions because of men’s alleged emotions? That was frankly the excuse for keeping women out of many professions, namely that men would be embarrassed or distracted or uncomfortable. Under Santorum’s reasoning, women shouldn’t be police officers or firefighters."
Republicans are never going to win over women voters with candidates like Santorum or Newt.
And the women vote is huge.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the "women vote" is inherently feminist, then yes, we'll lose it. But I'd rather lose than pander to the feminist left. Women should not be in combat. Period. Men and women have roles. God-given roles. It is the arrogance of man to deny this. Every father that dies on a battlefield is a tragedy. Every mother that dies there is a stain our our nation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSantorum's original statement and his explanation are both equally bad.
I'm glad McDonnell responded to defend his daughter's service.
I have a feeling this will not go over too well with female voters...especially Independent ones.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf a woman can carry a combat pack and do all the same sit ups and push ups, etc., then go for it. No special treatment whatsoever.
I agree that the whole "men will be distracted" thing is getting old. Are we really trying to say that men have ZERO control whatsoever? Does that mean we give them a pass when they cheat on us because it's just a hormonal thing and they can't control themselves?
I think today's generation is a lot better at hanging with women than most generations before. I think it started with my generation - Gen X. I noticed more women into sports, both watching and playing, and including extreme sports and outdoor activities. Sure, there are still some girly girls out there, too, but you find a lot more women not of that variety as well.
Again, if they are qualified and can do what needs to be done in combat, including carrying the required pack, then go for it. No special treatment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI don't think it's that men would be distracted in the sense you mean, which I think is romantically, but more the case of what could happen to moral if the one woman in the platoon is killed or wounded as they are trying to take a position, as opposed to losing a buddy under the same circumstances.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI meant "morale", not "moral".
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHaving women in combat rolls has been horrible for readiness and effectiveness. I say this as a former officer with three combat tours.
You don't hear about the problems because if anyone speaks up about the problems they get canned. I've seen it a bunch of times. Anyone, at any rank or rate, who points out the problems with the politically correct nightmare which having women in combat rolls is causing - they are done.
There is not one in ten of the women in the service who would be in their jobs if they were men and performed to the same level and had the same qualifications. If you do not believe it, look at the hight/weight/physical fitness standards betwen men/women and see that levels which would get a man kicked out of the service are equivelant to the top levels for the women.
As for the question of are the soldiers/sailors distracted by the opposite sex - yes. They are a bunch of 18-22 year olds away from home. Last tour in Afghanistan, I had to send back two men and one women for screwing around, and that was just in my little unit.
There may be some way to integrate women into combat rolls without messing up operational readiness, but to try to do it in a politically correct, no-failure-allowed environment is just a toxic brew of bad stuff.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThanks for being honest and telling the truth about a lousy situation that the left wants to force on us. Like you said, the "fooling around" in a deployed environment among these young adults is almost universal. They've been taught since they were babies that the world revolved around them and that the most important thing is how they feel - of course they're going to be jumping in the sack with each other when they get the chance!
Have restraint? NO, they won't have restraint! They've been taught by the same people who want them there, that restraint is letting some old guy's religious beliefs prevent you from having the good time to which you are entitled as a matter of your existence.
I have so far in my military career, met only one female who was as fully capable as a motivated male junior NCO. I have met several female soldiers who were capable of serving in administrative support roles, but only one whom I would be willing to rely on in combat. Not comfortable, mind you, but willing to, if I had to.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOne caveat to all this.
If gays and women in combat were coming at a time where we had no political correctness and the usually fascists screaming homophobe and sexist at us, I would feel 100% comfortable with both decisions.
However, that is not the case. And the only trouble I have with both is the problem with these 2 "protected" groups using cries of homophobe and sexist every time someone criticizes them or they don't get a promotion. Such things should NOT be tolerated in a military. It destroys morale.
I can't help but think that because of who is in power at the moment, this is simply another way to undermine our military. At the same time when our country seems to be beating the drums of war with Iran.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI suppose if we ever institute a draft again, Gov. McDonnell will be for drafting women and making sure they serve equally on the front lines for gender fairness.
Phyllis Schlafly, call your office. We've got another fiscal conservative who hasn't read your arguments against the Equal Rights Amendment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat letter is really something. Reminds me of why politicians are such an unsavory group, and how there is so little light between a letter from a politician and a letter from the customer service department explaining why they aren't going to refund your money, without actually saying they won't refund your money.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThe traditional and conservative position in the Western world is that women should not serve in combat forces - unless there is no choice (destruction of the nation is the only alternative). Conservatives value the beauty of their culture, and woman's (and man's) place in that culture. Conservatives dislike the idea of men dying in battle, but they hate the idea of women dying in battle.
To argue, as some do (including here) that a woman is capable of serving in combat is to adopt the arguments of the Left. It has nothing to do with capability. It has nothing to do with "fairness." Tradition is not always fair. But it may be beautiful, fitting, and worth preserving.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor a guy auditioning for the role of Commander in Chief , Santorum demonstrated an appalling ignorance of the reality of war as it occurs today in
Afghanistan and previously in Iraq .
And a jaw dropping lack of sensitivity to the families of the 111 women soldiers of the US military who have been killed in Iraq.
And the 34 women soldiers of the US military who have given their lives in Afghanistan serving their country.
Many of these deaths were in combat situations
or the result of hostile acts and ambushes by the enemy.
Not as a result of chivalry or hormones.
I don't think Santorum has any idea about what is actually happening in the war zones.
He describes combat as if it's cut and dry , like a scene from an old Hollywood movie.
Because of the unique situation of women in Afghanistan , the US military has initiated a program where specially trained female soldiers serve
with Special Forces teams to help in interrogation and communication.
External Link
" After a U.S. special operations force secured a compound outside Kandahar recently, Army 1st Lt. Ashley White was sent in to search and interview Afghan women.
Just after she arrived, a homemade bomb exploded,
killing her and two Army Rangers.
White, 24, was the first female soldier to die in combat while performing a unique new role for the Army. She was part of an elite cultural support team, first sent to Afghanistan in January in an attempt to overcome daunting cultural barriers in the deeply conservative Islamic country."
"Her efforts highlight both the importance and necessity of women on the battlefield today," the U.S. Army Special Operations Command said in a statement announcing White's death."
" Women like White perform duties that no man can attempt without gravely offending or enraging Afghans. They frisk and question Afghan women, many of them covered head to toe in burkas.
They sometimes find hidden weapons or explosives — and occasionally unmask insurgents dressed as women.
Trained in Afghan culture and customs, they build relationships with women while also ferreting out information unavailable to male troops."
"A Fort Richardson-based soldier, Pfc. Renee Sinkler, was killed in a nighttime attack on her vehicle in northwest Afghanistan this week, the Army said Friday.
Sinkler, 23, from Chadbourn, N.C., was the second female soldier and third overall from the 109th Transportation Co., the "Rough Riders," to die in combat since the 150-soldier unit deployed in July.
A gunner for the mission, she was in the exposed turret of an armored MRAP vehicle when it was struck by a rocket-propelled grenade, the Army said."
External Link
The men and women of the US military in Afghanistan and previously Iraq ,have
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuseserved together honorably and professionally and to describe them
like hormonal teenagers is insulting and shameful.
Sounds like your admiring their contributions. We don't doubt their contributions, You're ignoring the reality, and ignoring the reasons for his comments. Changing the subject isn't the same thing as answering the concerns. Some brave young women getting killed does not validate your argument.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd a jaw dropping lack of sensitivity to the families of the 111 women soldiers of the US military who have been killed in Iraq.
And the 34 women soldiers of the US military who have given their lives in Afghanistan serving their country.
Many of these deaths were in combat situations
or the result of hostile acts and ambushes by the enemy.
Personally, I think this is shameful. The families of the particular women should be proud. The rest of us should hang our heads in shame. I hadn't given enough thought to women in combat situations until I saw the first mother with a flag draped over her coffin. I was horrified and sickened, and I remain so.
You described "a unique new role for the Army," sending in women "to overcome daunting cultural barriers in the deeply conservative Islamic country." I can buy some of that, much as we have always used women in espionage. But to place women in quasi-combat roles as a matter of course is abominable, in my view.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRonan... wow. If opinions like yours are growing, we're doomed. You're no different from the feminists that insist that gender is a social construct and that there's no difference between men or women. There is, and there are moral roles they each have to play. With friends like these...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse