I get it…"tongue in cheek", but for those who don't do "irony"….
I was actually quoting my senior leadership who said that with a straight face multiple times to the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Obviously not but if you watch the video, the Commandant cites that as being the reason and a number of news pieces talking about women in combat all use that same argument and it does make sense (can send you links to female reporters saying the same thing in their new clips) . It isn't about making rank (used the wrong term, my apologies) but if you want to hold many a command position, you have to have held command at a lower rank, in a combat unit. General Barrow did not become the USMC Commandant without having held command in three wars. The Army is even less centered around infantry than the Marines ever will be, and even then, primarily our forces consist of a damn large number of maneuver units. So if your wickets to the high echelons are, PL, CO, BN, then you can imagine that the opportunities will be limited to female counterparts who are barred from those positions in the first place.
Ok, I'll bite...where is the mass outrage that females can't be in combat units coming from? I log onto my facebook account, I see my wife browse her facebook account, and I see more straight women post about homosexual rights and other issues germane to their daily existance than about military career opportunities in combat units. In fact, I recall absolutely zero posts of any females I know calling for women to serve in infantry units and to be part of the selective service. I have never gone to a public place and overheard a group of women griping about opportunities to serve in infantry units in the USA/USMC. Therefore, this whole ordeal seems to be something that is generated from a select few influential senior officers and politicians. How would the public react if women started dying at the same rate as men in OEF/OIF? How would our allies react? I'd be willing to bet that if a bill got proposed that required women to sign up for selective service along with these new 'career opportunities,' that there'd be mass outrage.
The argument proposed by those stories is "we lack female generals, if females serve in infantry then they will be eligible for more billets, therefore we should have females in combat." That doesn't make any sense in the context of the military's primary function, and it only makes sense from the fairy-tale there is no difference between sexes whatsoever and therefore they should all be equally represented in all jobs perspective.
The military, at its core, exists to fight and win wars. We have moved away from that a bit in the modern era because we employ so much technology to do it, and we need a lot of people to perform maintenance and provide parts so we can continue to employ it. And that has opened up the opportunity for people to serve in non-combat officer roles when they might not have been fit to be an infantry/armor/artillery officer. But the military should not ever sacrifice readiness or standards so that those who are involved in support/indirect roles can have a seat at the operational flag/GO table with experienced leaders who won battles, regardless of gender, race, whatever. You wouldn't make a suppo do an xo at sea tour so he can be eligible to be CNO, would you? That's what they're advocating by moving females into CO/BN command positions so they can be eligible to be Commandant of the USMC.
