The recent announcement that changes a policy of excluding women from certain military jobs highlights a fundamental question: Who decides?
Our military is all volunteers. They sign up to protect us from our enemies in the world. Make no mistake, if they did not do their jobs, great harm would come to us.
The military has a tough job to do. They have a whole culture, built up over many years, to support doing that difficult job. Part of that culture is a set of standards - honor, obedience, deference, toughness. Some of those standards are arbitrary. Pilots have to be a certain height - not too short, and not too tall. To win certain positions, you have to get a certain score on certain tests. Sometimes they reject people who have poor hearing or require glasses.
The bottom line is that those who have to do the job have found that they can best do that difficult job by choosing the right people, with the right skills, temperament and virtues to do the job. After all, mistakes cost lives. It is appropriate that those who bear the risks, and do the job get to choose the standards for who will be given the enormous, life-and-death responsibilities of jobs in the military.
This article about combat conditions is an excellent one. It makes a good case that trying to pretend that men and women are the same is unwise. It implies that to pretend to treat them the same will cost lives. I agree.
My point is slightly different.
Our society is becoming a nation of busybodies. In every area of productive endeavor, from child care to health care, from mining to constuction, people who have no involvement and little knowlege of the activity are pushing laws to accomplish their own political agendas on the backs of the people doing the work. Rather than a free society with private property, we have become a society where we believe that a majority of 50%+1 can impose their will on everyone. This is the tyranny of the majority that our founders warned us about.
A nation that is in turmoil over the proper role of the sexes is now pushing a political agenda on our military with little regard to the reality of whether it will help or harm their vital mission.
It's time for the politicians to butt out. The military is not a jobs program or a social club. It does not exist for the "job advancement" of its members. It is a singular institution with a singular and deadly purpose: win wars.
Those who put their lives on the line should be free to determine how the job should be done. They have enough to do without taking on the added burden of political correctness.
We've heard this statement repeated frequently from the right since November 7. But let's remember, many of these same people vigorously supported the two amendments put on our ballot last year. They wanted Minnesotans to decide by 50% + 1 to change our state constitution and our voting eligibility. In fact, prior to the election, I pointed this out to Donald several times, yet he still supported the amendments, as far as I can remember. Those who said the marriage amendment "changed nothing" should be rejoicing as nothing has changed. Let's please consider what this author has said every time either party decides to put a majority vote to the people on items that should be decided by our elected representatives. Regarding women in combat, I will say that I agree with Donald when saying that our military leaders should be deciding, not our politicians. I feel women should be allowed to work in all jobs provided that they qualify for that job. This means intellectually and physically. I heard a good point this morning; if a man and woman are on the front lines and the man get shot, can the woman physically bring his injured body back to safety? It’s only one example, but it does make a person think.
My support for both constitutional amendments this fall was reluctant. I did not like putting these issues in the constitution as an end-run around the Governor, but I believed that the political cost of their being defeated would be unacceptable. The jury is still out on that. Ask me again in May. You can see more detail of my objections to the VoterID amendment here: http://www.mnlea.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/09/2012report.pdf (item 4 - I am an advisor to LEA board) The VoterID amendment did not change voter eligibility. It merely insisted on presentation of evidence of eligibility. Thank you for posting.
Thanks for the link and those on the other thread. You are always a good source of information.
As I was typing the word "eligibility" I knew you would call me out. ;-) We don't need to debate that again, we've done it far too much. You know why I opposed Voter ID and if they had added one more sentence, like they did for free IDs, I would have been comfortable voting yes. It also would have taken away the left's argument of disenfranchised voters. For now, it's probably dead but maybe they will get it right in the future. Thanks for the link and those on the other thread. You are always a good source of information.
http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/01/25/1495681/cnn-anchor-tricks-opponent-of-women-in-combat-to-endorse-racial-segregation/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/01/leon_panetta_lifts_combat_ban_on_women_the_pentagon_s_announcement_finally.html
Well that is a most interesting statement in a writing about the military. It implies autonomy at the INDIVIDUAL level, with each member of the military deciding how they want to perform their duties. Wouldn't that be interesting? We could probably save a ton of money. Who needs training? Who needs leadership?
Said the guy who's political party wants to shrink government to the size where they can drown it in a bathtub...