National Review: Putting Women in Combat Is an Even Worse Idea Than You’d Think

Guest ColumnGuest Column 1 Comment

Share

Local writer Mike Fredenburg is a past contributor to National Review, the California Political Review, and the San Diego Union Tribune, and was the founding president of the Adam Smith Institute of San Diego, a conservative think tank and PAC.  His article on women in combat was published yesterday in National Review:

No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country. — General George S. Patton

What may be Old Blood and Guts’ most famous line is more than just colorful, it’s a great working definition of a warrior’s duty: killing the enemy and surviving to fight another day.

That truth is particularly relevant in light of the recent failure of all 45 hand-picked, highly fit women to complete Ranger training and Marine-officer combat training.

Read the article at NR.

Share

Comments 1

  1. More and more, we seem to be forgetting the purpose of the military. Putting the argument aside for WHEN we should fight, it USED to be the purpose of the military was to WIN such wars — usually by killing the enemy early and often.

    More and more today the primary purpose of today’s military is to provide employment, and equality for all — especially women. But the truth is, VERY few women can perform as well as men in combat. So to get the women in combat units, the military is looking to lower the standards for ALL combat members.

    This is an excellent article on this PC degradation of our military by my old political ally Mike Fredenburg. It’s well documented. If this offends you, I’m sorry. But read the article first — it deals well with the usual reasons given for including women in front-line combat units.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.