http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...n-new-rules-infantry-armor-officers/83036812/
Continuing Obama's relentless push to politicize the military and use it to force radical social change, the Army is touting the commissioning of 22 females to lead infantry and armor combat units. It's like being a grunt is not tough enough, now you have to contend with some woman as your platoon leader. Just hope she's doesn't go hysterical or start crying if you're attacked.
The article gushes in typical USAToday fashion about how great this is:" Having female leaders in jobs such as the infantry is important, since they can serve as role models for enlisted women who may elect to join the infantry or other ground combat jobs." Incidentally, that is not a quote, it is "reporting", ie the writer's own comments.
The reality is even fewer enlisted women than men want to be in a position to get shot, blown up or captured. The few that do would probably feel better with a competent man leading their unit than some woman put in there to satisfy feminist politicians. What this is about is careerist female officers who resent the fact that their path to promotion is hindered by lack of combat leadership time on their resumes. Effectiveness, safety of troops, etc all have to take a back seat.
The article does mention that infantry is tough work, with troops having to bear body armor and packs that can go to 100 pounds. We know women cannot do that, so I suppose there will have to special accommodations made. I'm sure ISIS will be ok with that.
Continuing Obama's relentless push to politicize the military and use it to force radical social change, the Army is touting the commissioning of 22 females to lead infantry and armor combat units. It's like being a grunt is not tough enough, now you have to contend with some woman as your platoon leader. Just hope she's doesn't go hysterical or start crying if you're attacked.
The article gushes in typical USAToday fashion about how great this is:" Having female leaders in jobs such as the infantry is important, since they can serve as role models for enlisted women who may elect to join the infantry or other ground combat jobs." Incidentally, that is not a quote, it is "reporting", ie the writer's own comments.
The reality is even fewer enlisted women than men want to be in a position to get shot, blown up or captured. The few that do would probably feel better with a competent man leading their unit than some woman put in there to satisfy feminist politicians. What this is about is careerist female officers who resent the fact that their path to promotion is hindered by lack of combat leadership time on their resumes. Effectiveness, safety of troops, etc all have to take a back seat.
The article does mention that infantry is tough work, with troops having to bear body armor and packs that can go to 100 pounds. We know women cannot do that, so I suppose there will have to special accommodations made. I'm sure ISIS will be ok with that.
