The Military’s Mission is National Security, Not 'Equality'
Article by Steve Feinstein in The American Thinker
The Military’s Mission is National Security, Not 'Equality'
President
Biden—or whoever is making the actual policy decisions for the country
these days—is damaging the national security of the United States by
allowing women and transgenders to assume an ever-increasing role in
front-line combat operations. “Biden’s” policy weakens our military
preparedness by putting misplaced considerations of gender neutrality
and political correctness ahead of the best military strategy for
protecting American interests.
At
a rambling and largely incoherent speech on Monday, March 8, where he
forgot the name of his Secretary of Defense and referred to the Pentagon
as “that outfit,” Biden made the following bizarre statement:
You
know, some of — some of it is relatively straightforward work where
we’re making good progress designing body armor that fits women
properly; tailoring combat uniforms for women; creating maternity flight
suits; updating — updating requirements for their hairstyles.
No one had ever asked the current administration when “maternity flight suits” or “updated hairstyles”—whatever that means—would
be ready for women in the military, but our ersatz president
volunteered the information anyway, much to the total confusion of the
audience at hand.
Be
that as it may, Biden’s remarks once again bring to the forefront the
entire subject of women and transgenders serving in combat units. What
is the goal and what is the benefit to the country that such deployments
might deliver?
Proponents
of women and transgenders serving in combat feel that the military is
the last bastion of undeserved male privilege and if non-males are
qualified in all areas, there is absolutely no reason why their desire
to serve the country should be denied. Being an all-volunteer force, the
U.S. military should welcome additional pools of qualified applicants
from which to fill the ranks of front-line combat personnel. Besides,
these proponents feel, it is the unequivocal right of any person,
regardless of gender or orientation, to have the opportunity to
patriotically serve in the armed forces’ most demanding positions, as
long as they are physically qualified and possess the requisite military
and mechanical skills to accomplish the mission.
Such
reasoning, though, does not hold up to logical analysis. The mission of
the armed forces is to protect the national security interests of the
country. Any change to the nature or makeup of our forces must be done
with respect to improving the likelihood of the success of that mission.
No other reason for changing the character of our forces can possibly
make any sense. To claim otherwise with a snide, condescending tone is
risible to the point of utter absurdity. The military’s combat forces
are simply not a vehicle for implementing social change or misguided
equity policies. Your local DMV is the perfect situation for that; the
101st Airborne is not.
If
we have a fighter plane that has a range of 1,000 miles and a top speed
of 1,200 mph and there is a new engine available for that plane that
gives it a range of 1,300 miles and a top speed of 1,400 mph, and the
evaluation of the new engine has determined that it meets cost and
reliability targets, then we make the change, since the resulting new
fighter plane will better fulfill the military’s objective of defending
America more effectively.
A
typical argument from the pro-non-male military faction goes something
along these lines: “But front-line units will be no worse off with women
and transgenders, as long as they are properly trained and physically
able.”
“No worse” is worse, because “no worse” is not
“better.” The goal is better: any change must result in a
quantitatively, measurably, better force. For the security of the
country and the safety of both its citizens and our military personnel,
only “better” counts. If there is even one potential scenario where the
introduction of women or transgenders could lessen the combat
effectiveness of that unit, then their presence is detrimental.
Right
now, diabetics aren’t allowed in front-line combat service. Their
requirements of specialized medical supplies and treatment would hinder
the instantaneous mobility and mission agility of their outfits, should
the diabetic need specific medical attention at a critical moment.
That’s understandable and is widely accepted without complaint or
protest. It simply makes perfect sense.
Transgenders
who’ve undergone extensive surgery and hormone therapy require ongoing
medical treatments akin to those required by diabetics. The same logical
restriction must apply to them. Is there any operational situation or
mission type where the unit’s combat effectiveness will be enhanced by
the presence of transgender soldiers? The very best that can be hoped
for is a near break-even outcome. If everything works out perfectly,
every single time, every day, every mission, the unit will be no worse
off. It will never be better; it just won’t be any worse.
The
same bottom-line situation exists with women in front-line combat
roles. Serving shoulder-to-shoulder with male infantrymen or tank crews,
is there ever a time when a woman’s presence improves
the efficacy of that combat unit? Women might be held to a lower skill
or physical standard; they might distract their male teammates by the
very nature of their being female; their monthly cycles could hamper
their presence and effectiveness on a predictable basis, but there is no
possible way to claim that their being female enhances the force’s
combat effectiveness. Again, as with transgenders, the best that can be
hoped for is “no worse.” In practice, of course, it will be worse. The
only question is how often it will be worse and what is the cost—both in
mission completion and U.S. service people’s lives.
We’ll
cut “President” Biden some slack and let his absurd “maternity flight
suits” comment pass without criticism. Anyone can misspeak. But his—and
apparently all progressives’— undeniable eagerness to see American
combat roles expanded well past the traditional male front-line soldier
is troubling and dangerous. It needs to be called out and stopped
immediately. The safety of the country is not the place for woke social
experimentation.
