Earlier this year, then-Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey announced they were lifting the ban on women serving in ground combat operations, a move one Army expert and author says is the result of an aggressive feminist agenda and military brass unwilling to stand up to politicians and champion military readiness over political correctness.
“If you look at the chiefs of the services, none of them have direct ground combat, so they really don’t know what we’re talking about here. There’s a radical feminist agenda here, and they never would have been selected by the Obama administration … unless they agreed that they would move forward on these particular agendas,” retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Bob Maginnis, author of “Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women Into Combat,” told WND.
“They know what the facts are, but they’re cowering with a silence, much like the people on the Hill are cowering because they have a constitutional obligation to stop this, but they’re going ahead with it,” said Maginnis, who quickly points out that bowing to politically correct forces was commonplace in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations and is not unique to the Obama presidency.
The most common argument for allowing women to serve in ground combat is one of equality, that women should have the opportunity to serve anywhere men can serve. Maginnis said that may sound like a nice argument, but the facts tell a very different story.
Read the rest here.
Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women Into Combat
The Monstrous Regiment Of Women
Co-Ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight The Nation’s Wars
Weak Link: The Feminization of the Military