Sapper!
Excuse the BS...
No you are absolutely correct sir. I was never saying that it was REALITY, merely that for some reason the "glass ceiling" has been a center piece for this argument. Notice how the subject of female progression is brought up every single time while watching a discussion on it and the dialogue immediately moves into how everyone "feels" about women in combat. Almost like there is an attempt to avoid discussing it in any detail.
What you are saying is precisely what General Barrow was saying: this is a select few insiders bemoaning their standing because they feel limited from not holding combatant commander positions, it isn't the outcry from women trying to enter into a combat MOS.
So just to kind of restate what I was saying: in the first post I mentioned "I think what is lost on most is that even currently, all this change is about is allowing officers to be promoted to higher levels within the military ranks." What I really meant by that was the whole front about women's rights camouflaging the true intention of what is trying to be achieved behind closed doors (self serving purpose, not suffrage bullshit). My apologies I didn't really state that very well.
BUT my take is from the US Army side of the house, it isn't much different from how the AF covets their rated pilot positions. If you open up combat arms for females (only for the covert purpose of getting commissioned officers in those MOSes) you open up a large percentage of command billets. Never said this was necessary, just that it does make sense if you are that person trying to progress up the ranks. We need less officers in the army that are there just to gain rank and more that care about the health of the army in general.
Funny, someone from a local newspaper interviewed me about this subject. In about 30 minutes I had laid out a very logical argument how A) women were not asking for this and B) there is no operational necessity for it. Went on to say it is unfair to ask a commander to have to deal with these integration issues while trying to fight a battle or operate on the battlefield. Ironically, the reporter's husband was a Naval Aviator of the rotary type and tried explaining to her that when he was shot down he couldn't walk. Turns out his crew chief had a busted up arm and carried him a few miles on his back. She admitted that for the most part women could not perform that type of physical duty. She wrote the article and basically made it sound like men in the military hate women and mis quoted me very badly. My very liberal boss was in our office when I gave the interview. Being pretty hard core women's rights supporter she even said that what was put in the paper was not in fact what I had said. So this thing is going to be distorted to fit the narrative no matter what, if my experience is any indicator.
Does anyone else think that the real tragedy of the women in combat outrage machine is that people with no relevant experience and will never have to live with the consequence of this change in policy are the ones behind this (non) issue? Why are unelected civilians the driving force for this?
