The New Year has finally arrived. The new Congress is finally in session. The shock of the Arizona madmen is finally starting to calm down. What will these events bring; a fresh start with a chance at political reconciliation, a shift in big government ideology from the previous two years, or maybe a 180 from the seemingly indelible polarization that has fixated itself inside our way of life? My guess is none of the above. And even with Congress’ symbolic move to “sit together” during President Obama’s upcoming State of the Union address, I believe it’s all the same dog and pony show we’ve seen time and time again. The reason being; our liberal media and liberal friends will continue to carry on with their crusade to transform America.
Over the weekend, trying to get away from Sunday news shows interviewing injured Arizona Congresswoman’s female friends, and the New England Patriots inexplicable loss to the New York Jets, a news stories caught my eye. It outlines the train of political thought that I have been trying to explain for a few years now.
On January 16th, the AP reported, “Women are fit to fight, panel says.” The article cites a commission of current and retired military officers who believe that women should be allowed to fully serve in combat. Their aim is to “create a level playing field for all qualified service members.” They say that minorities and women lag behind white males in terms of military leadership positions, and that many promotions are dependent on combat experience so it’s only fair to change the policy. The report also cites another report that says that women serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have “had a positive impact on mission accomplishment.” This prompted Pentagon spokeswomen Eileen Lainez to email a statement back that included, “Women in the military continue to make tremendous contributions and profound sacrifices.” The commission’s report which will be sent to President Obama in the spring has yet to be finalized.
A closer read of the short article clearly outlines the writer’s and the commission’s “liberal” way of defining issues, one that I believe most Americans don’t understand, let alone agree with. The writer, Pauline Jelinek called the lack of women fighting in combat as “the last major area of discrimination in the armed forces” and likened the Military policy to racial discrimination and another potential sea change in military culture with the phasing out of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.
It’s also important to note that the commission, the “Military Leadership Diversity Commission” was created under President Obama with the aim of executing a “wide-ranging review of the issues regarding diversity in the military services” as well as “conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces, including minority members who are senior officers. “
That’s correct. The aim of the commission is to mandate equality inside the most important organization the world has ever known. The US Military. In the Commission’s eyes, “The Armed Forces have not yet succeeded in developing leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.” This means that, until full representation at all levels of the armed forces is fully representative of America’s exact racial, ethnic, sexual orientation and gender percentages, the Military is inherently discriminatory and therefore not allowing themselves to reach their full potential. Whether you believe me or not, what this recommendation does, as it did with the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, is attempt to further blur the distinction between genders.
Now, before you shape your final opinion on the matter of mandating women be allowed in all combat situations, please re-read the previous two paragraphs. And please understand that a simple tenet of liberal ideology is that gender is of no consequence, and plays no major role in the way we think, the goals we strive towards, or our physical/mental aptitudes. Most clear thinking people realize this is absurd, and recognizing the differences in say, male sexual nature compared to female sexual nature, or the more obvious clear differences in physical stature, is no more favoring of one gender as it is a demonizing of the other. The differences just are, and they are okay.
I am not arguing for or against women being allowed in combat, I’m simply looking into the motives, pretexts, and potential ramifications of such a policy change. Something I believe its staunchest proponents may not have done. The articles I’ve read which summarize the commission’s findings and desires appear to focus purely on the surface level of an incredibly complex and important issue. Breaking down the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell or the potential mandate of putting a percentage of women in full combat to a simple notion of “fairness” or career advancement does us all a disservice. And in the midst of a media onslaught calling for civility and level-heads in regards to political and social rhetoric, I hope those pushing this envelope assess all of the potential consequences before the next round of name-calling begins.