U.S. freelance Writer Steve Feinstein says the Army should not be a testing ground for leftist political correctness. (Photo credit: U.S. Army)
The left is sacrificing the U.S. military’s combat effectiveness by engaging in gender neutrality and political correctness in the U.S. military and using the military as a place for social experimentation, American freelance writer Steve Feinstein wrote in American Thinker on Monday (March 15).
A translation of Feinstein’s article follows.
President Biden, or whoever actually holds real power in this country today, is undermining U.S. national security by allowing women and transgender people to play an increasingly important role on the front lines of combat. By putting misguided considerations of gender neutrality and political correctness ahead of the best military strategy to protect U.S. interests, Biden’s policies have weakened our military readiness.
In a careless speech on March 8, Biden forgot the name of the secretary of defense, referred to the Pentagon as “that outfit” and made the following bizarre statement.
“You know, some of these, some of these relatively simple efforts, we’re making good progress in designing body armor that fits women; tailoring uniforms for women; making maternity flight suits; updating, updating hair requirements.”
No one has asked the current administration when “maternity flight suits” or “updated hairstyles” for women in the military will be ready, but our lame president volunteered this information anyway, which left the audience baffled.
Regardless, Biden’s comments reignited the conversation about women and transgender people serving in combat units. What are the goals that might be achieved by such an approach? What would be the benefit to the country?
Proponents of women and transgender people serving in combat units argue that the military is the last bastion of male privilege and that there is absolutely no reason to deny non-males their desire to serve their country if they qualify in all areas. As an all-volunteer force, the U.S. military should welcome more qualified conscripts to supplement the ranks of front-line combatants. Moreover, these proponents argue that anyone, regardless of gender or sexual orientation, has a clear right to serve patriotically in the most demanding positions in the armed forces, as long as they are physically qualified and have the necessary military and technical abilities.
However, this reasoning is not logical. The mission of the Armed Forces is to protect the security interests of the nation. Any change to the nature or composition of our forces must be predicated on improving the likelihood of successful mission accomplishment. Changing the nature of our forces for any other reason is not justified. It is even more absurd to declare it in a condescending tone of brutality. The operational arm of the Army is simply not a vehicle for implementing social change or misguided equality policies. Your local Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) is the perfect choice, but the 101st Airborne Division is not.
If we have a fighter jet with a range of 1,000 miles and a top speed of 1,200 miles per hour. Now there is a new engine that will give that aircraft a range of 1,300 miles and a top speed of 1,400 miles per hour, and the new engine is determined to meet the cost and reliability requirements, then we can change it because the new fighter will better meet the military’s goal of defending the United States more effectively.
A typical argument in favor of non-males joining the military is that “as long as women and transgender people are properly trained and physically qualified, the front-line troops will not be worse off.”
“No worse” is “worse” because “no worse” is not “better.” The goal is “better”: any change must result in a quantifiably and measurably better force. Only “better” counts for the security of our nation and the security of our citizens and our military personnel. It would be detrimental to include women or transgender people in even one situation that might reduce the combat effectiveness of the force.
Currently, people with diabetes are not allowed to be on the front lines of combat. If diabetics require special medical care at critical times, their need for specialized medical supplies and treatment will impede their flexibility and agility to accomplish their mission. This is understandable and widely accepted, without complaint or protest. This makes complete sense.
Transgender individuals have undergone extensive surgical procedures and hormone therapy and need to have ongoing medical treatment similar to that of a diabetic patient. The same logical limitations must apply to them. If there are transgender soldiers, does it improve the combat effectiveness of the unit in any combat situation or type of mission? Is the best outcome that can be expected close to staying the same? If all goes well, every moment, every day, every mission, that combat branch will never be in worse shape. But it will never be better, it just won’t get worse.
The same situation exists for women in front-line units. Has the effectiveness of combat units been improved in any situation when women are fighting alongside male infantry or tank soldiers? The skill or fitness level required of women may be lower; they may distract their male comrades by being women themselves; their menstrual periods may predictably impede their performance and effectiveness, but there is no way to be sure that as women, they enhance the combat effectiveness of the force.
Likewise, the best one can hope for with transgender people is “no worse. Of course, in reality it will be worse. The only question is, how often does it get worse and at what cost to mission accomplishment and to the lives of American service members?
Let’s give President Biden a break and not criticize him for his ridiculous “maternity flight suit. Anyone can say the wrong thing. But his, and apparently all progressives’, undeniable desire to see America’s front-line soldiers as much more than traditionally male is troubling and dangerous and must be called off immediately. National security is not the place to use for social experimentation.
Recent Comments