I asked Elaine Donnelly, that relentless patriot who has warned us about the dangers of radical feminism pressuring the military for decades, what now? She had had a bad feeling this was coming to pass, sounding an alarm most recently earlier this week (see the report here).
“What now? Congress needs to exercise oversight before policies made by our lame-duck secretary of defense become defacto law,” she said.
At a minimum, members of Congress and the general public need to see the data compiled by the Marine Corps over the past year. The multi-phased research project announced by Gen. Amos in April 2012 consisted of:
A review of exceptions to current policy and requirements of ground combat element (GCE) units, including infantry and Special Operations Forces battalions
Physical tests of male and female volunteers performing certain “common tasks”
The opportunity for female officers to attempt training on the Marines’ Infantry Officer Course (IOC) at Quantico, VA
An extensive survey of Marines seeking opinions on related issues
Where are the data produced during all elements of the research project? Even if General Amos says nothing is wrong with Panetta’s move, (Does he have a choice?) information compiled by the Marines last year needs to be seen and examined independently in public (not private) hearings. Failure to disclose results to Congress will confirm that this move is purely political, with no benefits for the military.
The delay in implementation of the policy does not excuse what Secretary Panetta is doing: shifting to field commanders the burden of doing what he himself is not willing to do. The majority of women who are in the enlisted ranks will be ordered (not allowed) into infantry battalions — not to improve the effectiveness of fighting units, but to achieve the “diversity metrics” that were announced at the Pentagon news conference last February 2012.
According to the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC) report, promotions for field commanders will depend on the attainment of “diversity metrics” (read, quotas), which can only be achieved by creating a “critical mass” of women in infantry battalions. This means that standards will have to be adjusted downward to accommodate women — a gender-norming process that will be disguised with sophistries pretending that “equal effort” is the same as “equal results.”
“Gender-norming will not work in infantry battalions, but it will increase resentment and harm morale,” she worries. “This move surely will increase problems of sexual misconduct — across both sides of the spectrum from sexual abuse to inappropriate relationships,” she adds. “Rates of sexual misconduct have been getting steadily worse in other military communities, and transferring these problems to infantry battalions will weaken our military even more.”
As if looking into a telescope and seeing the future, based on her years of research and testimony — and good sense — she continues: “In a short time this incremental process will make infantry life more difficult, more dangerous, and thereby less effective, while putting both men and women at greater risk. But the lame-duck secretary of defense will not have to deal with the consequences.”