Women in armed combat? I say no. What's the advantage? But how do our leaders feel? Let's ask them.

By Verne Strickland, January 26, 2013

WOMEN IN ARMED COMBAT? WHY? I SAY NO. WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE? BUT HOW DO OUR NC LEADERS IN ELECTIVE POSITIONS FEEL? LET'S ASK THEM.

I am against women being in front-line situations in full-bore combat. We are using our Armed Forces for social experimentation. What is the mission of our troops on the ground? Kill the enemy, essentially. Overpower, obliterate, fearlessly, physically, psychologically. Why would anyone assume that the average woman would be better suited to that demanding task than a man?

 

The enemy we now face relishes the opportunity to demean, humiliate and desecrate American women, whether they call themselves combatants or other. If women even then want this mission, I suspect they will get it. But if it is front-line foxhole duty, which still exists throughout the modern military, each woman so involved will be taking the place of a more able soldier -- a male. What possibly could be the advantage? There are myriad other duties for women to fulfill, that call for strength of will, dedication to duty, intelligence, concentration, organization, but don't call for digging trenches or sticking a bayonet through the throat of a charging Islamic fanatic. At such duties, I relent somewhat. Otherwise -- no. It doesn't make sense.

But what I say is of little consequence. What I am mainly interested in is what our "leaders" say -- such as Senator Richard Burr, Senator Kay Hagan, Mike McIntyre, Walter Jones, and other North Carolina stalwarts. Let's ask them. Right now I don't think we know. If we do, let's get their answers for the record.