Is the U.S. Navy willing to sacrifice operational readiness in order to placate the radical feminists?
Steven Davis of Freedom Alliance recalls that the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces "came to the conclusion that placing women in combat aircraft, on combat vessels, or with combat ground forces would be detrimental not only to the social fabric of American culture, specifically American family life, but also to the maintenance of U.S. defense capabilities." Nevertheless, President Clinton "sided with the proponents of the radical feminist movement," Davis continues. "In 1994, he instituted the large-scale introduction of women onto naval combat vessels." The results of this ill-advised experiment can be seen in a "crisis in readiness and rising sexual scandals."
Having to find replacements for pregnant soldiers is "a tremendous military readiness problem," Davis observes. "Due in part to Clinton administration-sanctioned military policies which demand aggressive affirmative action quotas to increase the number of women on combat ships, a woman leaving a combat ship because of pregnancy must be replaced by another woman," he explains. "Seeking a female replacement takes several months and sometimes as much as one year. This delay places an unfair burden on a combat ship's other crew members." Double shifts and double duties mean "a more fatigued and increasingly stressed fighting force with a greater potential for danger."
Esprit de corps does not refer to the furnishings of a trendy clothing store; it's a kind of camaraderie that is essential to any fighting unit. "Apart from the very serious reduction in combat efficiency and readiness caused by a female crew member's absence," observes Butler, "morale problems and distracting sexual temptations also increase. As other personnel, most often male members, are forced to remain deployed at sea for much longer periods of time and pull longer daily duty, they understandably grow to resent the hardship such feminist-inspired female quota policies cause them and their families."
The U.S. military now rewards conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman -- provided it is engaged in by a woman. "Like the failed liberal welfare system which rewards promiscuity, irresponsibility, and laziness," Davis explains, "the Navy's new policy toward female servicemembers provides generous benefits to those who become pregnant without regard to their marital status, sexual misconduct, or the operational hardships their absence from duty may cause. Such pregnant Navy personnel are given extra income for more comfortable living arrangements, the option of spending more time pursuing higher education goals or raising children, and priority medical care (which often causes the dependent family members of their male counterparts to have to wait much longer for medical treatment)."
Our forefathers warned against a standing army; but, if we are to have one, at least it can be ready. Steven Davis argues that the preferential treatment of would-be women warriors undermines morale in our armed forces, reduces their readiness, and sabotages our security. Maybe it's time we asked the people pushing these policies, Whose side are you on?
