Men and women are different. At some point in our national discourse this reality has been lost in the din of those who cry for a false equality while refusing to acknowledge biological and social realities. As a man who swore to “support and defend the Constitution” I am prepared to die to ensure every law-abiding American citizen’s freedom to pursue his/her goals. However, every American’s freedom to pursue his/her goals does not entail equal capability to reach those goals or execute a given task.
A common refrain reads; “There are women who are strong/fast/smart/violent enough to serve in combat arms,” or more recently, “women have already been in fighter jet cockpits for years.” One: the recent historical precedent for placing women in certain occupational specialties is an illegitimate comparison to the combat arms and the infantry specifically. Two: In every people group on Earth women are the smaller/weaker/more compassionate demographic. It defies logic to purposefully integrate women into combat
arms where they would face the generally larger/stronger/more violent demographic (men) in the horror of combat. Combat is killing. And those who propose to put women in combat arms fail to consider this basic tenet of warfare: We actively strive for inequality in combat, seeking to press our strength to exploit any weakness in the enemy.
The notion that “there are no more front lines” is patently false. Some build a case for women in combat arms on the premise that they are present in convoys or patrols taking fire and striking IEDs. Such instances are not legitimate grounds for an argument, as they merely require passive presence in the battlespace. Route 1 near Camp Leatherneck is a very different place than a foot patrol in the Sangin green zone which is a very different place than 2004 Fallujah. Exposure to danger is not combat.
And what about sex? The desire is natural, mutual, essentially continual and unchanging. The truth is that "integration" erodes combat effectiveness--lowering behavioral and proficiency expectations and riddling the force with time-consuming misconduct issues. We put men and women in a position to fail, discipline them when they do, and tell commanders “this is a leadership issue.” Never mind that we have created a reality based on “how things should be,” rather than how they are. Capt Kate Petronio, author of “Get Over It! We Are Not All Created Equal“, operated in the Upper Gereshk Valley during the summer of 2011. She served as the CEB platoon commander tasked to build a post for the Afghan force with whom I was partnered. Despite her incredible competency, professionalism and mature demeanor, she was an attractive woman in an active combat zone. Even though I’m a content and joyfully married man with six years and three sons to my marriage, IT WAS DISTRACTING!
The concern that there are “too few female General officers,” is a faulty extrapolation based on a failed assessment purported as a critical need. It is rank feminism at its most destructive, sacrificing the defensive capability of a Nation to satisfy the selfish desires of a few. Being a member of the United States military does not entitle one to anything other than the service contract and the obligations therein. All members of the Armed Forces are known as servicemembers. Any man or woman who places career desires above that of service to the Nation is a danger to all under their charge. One of the best pieces of advice we receive as brand new Second Lieutenants states, “The moment you begin to think about your career over mission accomplishment or troop welfare, get out of the Corps and allow someone with the proper mindset lead your Marines.”
The Marine Corps has no obligation to be what society thinks we should be, we exist solely to fight and win wars and during peacetime to prepare for the fighting and winning of wars. Anything that distracts us from that purpose or dilutes our ability to enact our mission must be cut from us like the cancer it is.