Robert, thanks for the explanation. I think I kind of get it. It was after I learned to handle firearms that I fully got the hang of this very nice defense (about the ethical lessons from bearing firearms) of the 2nd Amendment; but extending those ideas I can see how the training and responsibilities of the cadets can make them better persons, and as a result the hierarchy of ability could indeed play out nicely in the military. I agree, brain-dead is not the right adjective to describe the choice to join the military.

The bad oranges, e.g. John Kerry (and pretty much all those who try to enter politics), do tend to stick out in the minds of civilians though.

"I extrapolated what can happen in an employment hierarchy (of say an IT company) to the military chain of command."

It's a common mistake to compare apples and oranges this way. The Blue Rinse brigade often marvel at the ability of the army to take unfit 17 year-olds and turn them into confident, fit, obedient men with six weeks of early morning cold showers, route marches, inflexible routine and regulation and a river of threatening profanity.

The army seeks and excels at simultaneously instilling discipline and obedience into its trainees. The need for discipline - an ability to be calm under all types of pressure - is obvious in a battlefield situation. The effect of discipline is to get the individual to use their initiative and intelligence successfully under pressure, to control their fear and think clearly.

In the military context, the extent to which obedience is required depends on the speed of information exchange throughout an army.

Prior to the invention of the radio, battlefield communications relied on semaphore and trumpets thus only the Generals – perched behind and above the battle – could see the whole picture and react intelligently to a change in plan. It doesn’t matter how intelligent you are, if you act on insufficient information you will make mistakes and in war, the side that makes the least mistakes wins.

As technology has improved the speed, security, reliability, portability and range of battlefield communication equipment, the speed with which good information can perculate through an army has increased. In response Armies have also sought to encourage individual initiative in its lower ranks, to encourage individuals to exploit the available information and react as they see fit. The reason? A team full of individuals able to think on their feet and act appropriately can react faster and more effectively simply because less time is wasted in committee – in modern mechanised warfare, speed is life.

By contrast, civilian business works at a far slower pace and typically your competition isn't attempting to degrade your intra-company communication systems with radio-jamming equipment, artillery fire-missions and air-strikes.

There will come a time when technology erases what used to be known as the 'Fog of war' and it will be possible to give the Private the same information as the General. When that happens you will see the military evolve into another form just as it did when gun-powder was invented and again when combustion-engines were perfected. The need for instant obedience will become an anacrohnism as much as the Life Guards Trooper is today as he sits astride a horse with his polished breast-plate, plumed helmet, and sabre all glinting in the morning sun.

Successful armies have always sort to improve the balance obedience and initiative in their soldiers & officers as far as available technology will let them. And that process continues today! The US, UK, French, German, and Italian, armies are doing their damndest to improve the information flow to their front line troops, back to their commanders and sideways to their comrades in the next foxhole.

In the business world, there is time to keep people in the loop and the business can benefit from the input of many minds without suffering from the time it takes to get that input. Hence instant obedience isn't vital in civilian life. But in yesterday's and today's military, the reverse is true.

This need for obedience is probably the least understood aspects of military. This is especially amongst objectivists who judge it from the civilian context. They forget that civilians aren't often simultaneously blinded, deafened and under mortal threat and conclude that soldiers are "clearly collectivist cannon fodder, often irrationally giving in to peer pressure and 'orders'"

Thus any 'objectivist military' will face the same technological restrictions as their supposed 'collectivist military' opponents. And unless the organisers of this 'objectivist military' recognise this immutable fact of reality they won't be be creating a military at all, but a huge mound of corpses.

Your father, grandfather, and great grandfather sound very courageous and fascinating; and I, for one, am curious to read their accounts/thoughts while on the frontlines.

I have to admit, I do not know anything about how the military (of any country) works, nor have any knowledge of war history (the current Iraq war being the first I am following), so I extrapolated what can happen in an employment hierarchy (of say an IT company) to the military chain of command. It is possible to have an incompetent boss, but rather than question him/her or move on to a new job, in the military one could potentially pay with ones life during a war. How can signing on to such a job be squared with rational self-interest (except in cases when things outside of the war/military are FUBAR)

You say: The hierarchy of ability is played out beautifully in the military.

Is that the case in the current military (say US), or are you talking about the Objectivist military? If you do mean now, can you say more on why that is the case. I am genuinely curious how that works out.


Robert: "America, Land of the Free, Because of the Brave."

Very nice, indeed.

"America, Land of the Free, Because of the Brave."

Closely followed by:

"Martyrs or Marines - Who Do You Think Will Get The Virgins?

"Except for Ending Slavery, Fascism, Nazism and Communism, War Has Never Solved Anything."

Alongside

"US Marines -- When It Absolutely Must Be Destroyed Overnight"

"but I can't help thinking that he should’ve spotted the futility of his head-long-into-the-Maxim-machineguns tactic a couple of years and a few million lives earlier."

True. Which is why I called him mediocre. You have to remember that nobody else was exactly covering themselves in glory either. The German and French tactics in the opening months of the war were just as suicidal.

Advancing across open fields in dressed ranks against dug in English troops capable of 15-40 aimed shots/minute with their quick firing Lee Enfields buried a hell of a lot of Germans in the first years of the War. As did the plan to bleed France white at Verdun.

And Haig's offensives were often tied to the situation in the French side of the line. For instance the 3rd Battle on the Somme - Passchendaele as it is often called - was preceded by a mutiny in the French Army after their army lost 40,000 men killed in a single day of the 2nd Battle of Aisne. The French Generals - Robert Niville in particular - were even worse than Haig!

In addition, the 3rd Somme had to go ahead while the Russians were still in the war, because to wait would only allow the Germans to get stronger.

And it isn't as if there were a lot of advantageous areas for Haig to attack through. He couldn't give ground because that would be a political disaster -- even though it would make sense militarily because it could free up troops for an offensive.

And it wasn't as if Haig ordered his men to attack without support. The 3rd Somme began with 3,000 guns lobbing 4.25 million shells (a large percentage of the British Munitions production for that year) onto the German lines. He gave up the element of surprise, but hoped that so much high explosive would blast a hole in the lines. And he was right. Initially the offensive worked well by WWI standards. The attack faltered when unseasonally heavy rains came and turned the battlefield into a sea of mud.

At this point Haig continued the attack. And it was decisions like this that he is rightly castigated for. Once is meticulously planned assaults failed, he didn't halt them and find another way. For instance, he wasn't very quick at promoting capable officers, especially if they weren't British.

But he did embrace new tactics. Gas was used, without much positive effect at Loos in 1915 - and the British didn't even have effective gas masks at that stage. Undermining was used. But until 1917, the most practical means for breaking fortifications remained artillery. And as the statistics will show - Haig demanded heavier and heavier bombardments despite the fact that poor quality ammunition softened their effect on more than one occassion.

But remember, the most successful assault in 1917 - the attack on Cambrai led by the Canadian Julian Byng - was sanctioned by Haig when the battle for Passchendaele flagged. He was open to new tactics. And Cambrai, despite being a failure (the British were repulsed) showed a glimpse of what could be achieved with combined arms tactics, surprise, subterfuge and camouflage.

It was a lesson that the Allies, Haig included applied with great effect to end the war.

So when you judge a WWI general, always remember that there were no real sign-posts to guide them. It was the largest mobilisation of troops in history. Only the later years of the US Civil War came close to the savagery and scope of the combat seen. And even there, the battles were fleeting because the armies weren't large enough to fortify an area so as to prevent the opponent from out-flanking the defences either by land or sea or river.

Remember too, that much of the venom spewed at Haig comes from the pen of Lloyd George who lacked the testicles to go against the King & the public and sack Haig - as Lincoln did when HIS generals screwed up royally. The buck must stop with Haig's masters.

Instead George was forever looking for ways to diminish Haig's power by investing troops and materials away from what was the decisive theatre of the war. A plan that left the BEF desperately short of riflemen and vulnerable to the opening attacks of the 1918 'Luddendorf' offensive that just could have won the war for Germany save heroic stands by the ANZACs & Canadians at Amiens and Hazebrouck.

Like I said. The true cause of the slaughter on the Western front is much more complex than many realise. Many Anglo-centric accounts of the war forget that the French Army suffered more casualties than the British (4.2 million to the UK's 1.6 million) and were often called into reinforce British offensive efforts. Haig's detractors underplay the fact that the French army was holding 50% or more of the line and had at least as many, if not more troops committed than Haig did.

Keeping France in the war was a priority, and as I pointed out above, there were times when the French Army was tettering on the brink of quitting. That's why sitting and waiting for the Tank to arrive was not a starter. And Haig couldn't know that the Tank would work. More likely he would have been waiting for the Naval Blockade to bite. Unfortuntately the German U-boat campaign was hitting Britain in the goolies too...

Had there been one, sane, overall commander of the entire Western Front, things might have been different. Simultaneous attacks on the French and British fronts combined with a combined reserve for counter offensives would have more seriously challenged the Germans - especially if offensive action was co-ordinated with the Russians...

Sadly those lessons, plus a PM with the balls to sack under performing generals, had to wait 30-odd years.

is not quite the issue we are discussing, but I would rather leave it there as I fully understand what a touchy subject this is.

With regards to the North Vietnamese...

if only Barry Goldwater had won in 1964...he would have sorted those ghastly chaps out in a couple of weeks!

My American Vietnam Veteran Father always used to tell me the joke about the 1964 US Presidential Election...people warned [him] that if [he] voted for Goldwater the Country would be at War with Vietnam within 6 months.
He voted for Goldwater and sure enough, within 6 months the troops were sent in

Following an order to jump off the SkyTower and following an order to defeat an evil are not even in the same universe. I maintain, I think you should thank those who died for the freedoms you now enjoy, rather than calling them facile names like "brain-dead". If you like I'll let you read you my great-grandfather’s war diary to show you just how alive and conscious they were in the Somme. ANZAC Day is not a commemoration of ill-conceived battle tactics; it's to honour those who fell in the worthy and necessary wars against the Huns, the Nazis, the North Koreans, The North Vietnamese etc...

realise I am pissing in the wind with this sort of thing because of how history has been written, and the resulting axioms which have developed over generations....(rather like defending Joseph McCarthy or having Richard Nixon as my Number 1 Hero).

A reinterpretation of ANZAC Day is about as likely as Prime Minister Darnton taking office in 14 months time.

The 'Battle of the Somme' I was referring to was the one which commenced on 1 July 1916.

All I can say is there seems little rational thought in "going over the top" to certain death, especially when that action is in response to someone else telling you to do so.

If I were to tell you to jump off the Skytower you would not do so.
Why? ...because it would lead to certain death, and you are master of yourself and I am not.

You are in a trench, it is 1 July 1916, and 100,000 people with guns pointed in your direction are 200 metres in front of you.
You are told "go over the top and attack the enemy".

If a person proceeds to do so, clear in the knowledge of certain death, I ask...why?

The answer is because it was an order from an Officer...and the "orderee" is obedient of the "orderor", to beyond the point of certain death.

Call me old fashioned if you like, possums....but that sounds suspiciously like collectivism, it also seems suspiciously irrational.

It may be that Haig's blunders have been exaggerated, but I can't help thinking that he should’ve spotted the futility of his head-long-into-the-Maxim-machineguns tactic a couple of years and a few million lives earlier. Five and a half million allied soldiers killed is a sickening figure in any age. It’s telling that the Germans lost fewer men, making WWI the greatest Pyrrhic victory of the last millennium. Churchill noted that Haig had taken the British Army to the edge of destruction. And when Haig’s Chief of Staff saw the muddy quagmire of the battlefield he wept, asking his driver if they'd really sent their men to fight on it, to which the driver replied, “It’s worse further up.”

He was a classic general fighting the previous war; his love of the cavalry was idiotic in the new context, a fixation that continued a decade after the war was over, despite combat experience demanding a rethink. His orders to “slow walk” into the machineguns was the act of a butcher without invention, a tactic Andrew Jackson exposed a century earlier in the Civil War when he slaughtered more than 7,000 Yankees in under half an hour – without machineguns.

Easy to say from the comfort of my office in the 21st century, but if I was Haig I would’ve made the enemy come to me while I spent all my resources developing the tank. Especially in the face of a numerically superior German force...

"What sprang to mind when I used the term 'brain damaged' was the battle of the Somme."

(1) Which Somme? There were 3 engagements on the Somme
(2) What was brain damaged exactly? Be specific.

I'm afraid that one of the greatest travesties in History happens to be the misconception that the stalemate on the Western Front in WWI and the brutal casualties were all General Haig's doing.

Make no mistake, I think Haig was a mediocre General. But I can hardly blame him for the fact that when WWI began nobody had thought of a way of unlocking deep entrenched positions defended with interlocking fields of machine gun fire and oceans of barbed wire.

Nor could he be blamed for the fact that there was no technology available that would allow him to control his million man army once it left the trenches. As soon as the troops went over the top, they might have well have been on the dark side of the moon. At that stage it was up to the junior officers to take the staff work (and that's where Haig fell down IMHO) and carry the attack.

The only problem there was that the million-man 1916 regular British Army was formed from scratch without the 100,000-man, battle hardened prewar British army forming it's base, it's cadre.

That's because the British government committed basically the entire prewar British army (7 infantry and 3 cavalry divisions) to France in the opening months of the war. And by the time the BEF had stopped the Germans cold along the Menin Road, 70% or more of them were dead.

The sargeants, corporals, junior officers and colonels who should have planned and led the assault on the Somme that fateful day were killed parrying numerically superior German forces at Mons, Marne. Asine, and finally Ypres.

These battles were necessary because the Bloody French decided that the only way to respond to an attack by a German army nearly 3-times the size of their own, was an all out attack... That suicidal opening gambit just about handed the war to the Germans in 1914!

But the biggest problem for Haig and every other General on the Western Front was the fact that the train & conscripted Public buses & taxis could reinforce a battlefield faster than the most reliable manouver element of the day -- the horse -- could exploit any breakthrough made by the infantry and artillery.

The Tanks of late 1916 had Ford-like reliability in those days and a top cross-country speed not much faster than a man jogging. After the first day of the Battle of Cambrai (the first battle where sufficient tanks (476) were available for a true armoured assault & remember this was November 1917) 180 tanks were out of action. Only 65 of them were shot-up, the rest were breakdowns.

And when you consider the number of tanks at Cambrai, remember that 476 was LESS than the total number of armoured vehicles given to one US Armoured Division in WWII. And the US deployed ~10 Armoured divisions to Western Front in WWII.

'ANZACs were collectivist cannon fodder...'

Utter, context-free, unsubstanciated bullshit.

The ANZACs entered the war in 1915 and by 1918 were considered the elite amongst the Allied forces precisely because they were well led by hand-picked officers (as opposed to officers chosen from a narrow social-class as was the case initially with the New British Army). The Australians NEVER allowed conscription in WWI. Their men were ALL volunteers. And after Gallipoli, no one could claim to be ignorant of the realities of modern warfare.

Conscription was introduced in NZ in June 1916.

As for 'what was NZ & Australia' doing there. Maybe you should read what the German Army did on it's march through Belgium before you judge every one of ANZACs of that time to be moronic warmongering collectivist gits.

I think you should rephrase that remark to "The brain-dead WWI British High Command" so not as to right-off all those brave and brainy soldiers who have fallen in the many wars before and after the Great War.

General Haig deserves special mention: with mass-murderers like that who needed enemies?

I've been to many a rainy ANZAC Day parade to commemorate those who fell in the name of the liberty. I think you're being rather shallow in your interpretation of the service - indeed, doing a disservice to my great-grandfather who died in the Somme (killed rescuing wounded in No Man's Land), and my grandfather who fell on the beaches of Dieppe. You should be thanking them for the freedoms you now enjoy, not calling them facile names.

own Father served in the US Military in Vietnam and was fortunate enough to escape with his life from his tour of duty.

What sprang to mind when I used the term 'brain damaged' was the battle of the Somme.

Not wanting to get into a great debate about why 'we' were fighting the Germans (long term friends of the NZ/Australia kind) in the first place, rather than the French (long term enemies of the NZ/ ummmm...France, kind) ...the mindless slaughter of mindless, obedient soldiers is so idiotic I simply cannot understand why we keep honouring these chaps.

None of the ANZAC Day or November 11th carry on has ever impressed me in the slightest. We are commemorating brain damaged stupidity on a grand scale. Nothing more.

One further point...

Whenever one of the handful of New Zealanders with half a brain, realising the likely consequences of being part of the trench warfare taking place, declared themself to be a 'Conscientious Objector' they were subjected to all manner of collectivist peer pressure.

It is quite ridiculous to suggest the Anzac soldiers were 'Individuals' making rational decisions when they were clearly collectivist cannon fodder, often irrationally giving in to peer pressure and 'orders'.

"I'm with Elijah on the brain-damaged aspect of being a soldier. "

My father Lt. Col. Michael McRobie Jameson (Ret.) would be offended by that statement: he flew with the U.S. 1st Air Cavalry in Viet Nam and did so with skill, honour, bravery and a full recognition of the fact he might not come home to his family. He was an exceedingly intelligent soldier, who as a cadet passed his exams with honours and earned the highest rank of Staff Sergeant. Among his many accolades, he received a green letter of commendation for an incident over the impenetrable Malaysia jungle when the throttle cable snapped on his chopper. With nowhere to land and knowing that his fuel would burn out in quick time he searched the map for a possible clearing. Spotting a school that was out of range he headed toward it, taking the chopper skyward, gaining as much altitude as he could. When the fuel ran out he went into auto-rotate and managed to glide the chopper onto the playing field. It was a lateral solution to a sticky problem, which earned him the respect from his comrades - and a well deserved welcome home kiss from his wife.

Brain-damaged soldiers die young – if they even make it through boot camp.

When a rationally selfish man (or woman) signs up to defend himself, his family and his country, he does so with the full cognition that he will have to take orders from those who know more about the job than he does. Taking orders in a war is a very rational thing to do; a democratic committee of individuals wouldn’t get very far very fast. The hierarchy of ability is played out beautifully in the military.

One may look at this subservience as slipping into the role of “unquestioning drone”, but that’s far too simplistic. The fact is, soldiers have a lot more latitude than you realise – especially in the American forces. One of the major factors of their success in WWII was their somewhat decentralized structure. American company commanders and their formidable sergeants were credited for their flexibility in tactical engagements, often achieving the objective without necessarily following the order of battle to the letter. Their ability to change tactics in a shifting context not only prevented unnecessary casualties, it gave them the free-range to take advantage of opportunities that presented themselves.

Conversely the rigid central command of the totalitarians (the Germans and especially the Russians) often shot themselves in the foot – the clearest example being the Nazi’s delayed response to Normandy, which handed the allies the beachhead, all because they were too afraid to wake Adolph up to change the standing orders.

Suma: "Is it possible to be an objectivist and also a soldier in an army larger than a handful of people?"

I doubt it, and I'm not volunteering to find out. I think the Objectivist view of the military is fine (volunteers who join together for a common cause). I don't think a military in a mixed premise country can be ideal, though. And I am no one's unquestioning drone.

************************************************

Spaceplayermusic.com

I'm with Elijah on the brain-damaged aspect of being a soldier. I can definitely see: the need for a military, things worth fighting for; but following orders without questioning them or without understanding the bigger picture - not really. Is it possible to be an objectivist and also a soldier in an army larger than a handful of people?

is quite correct.

Females should be Wives and Mothers. Nothing more.

You only have to look at the 'Decade of Decline' which has resulted from females as Prime Minister in our Country.

We have seen all sorts of nondescript people..(whose forebears were quite rightly sweeping the streets and ignored in the days of Keith Holyoake)..given Treaty settlements, University educations, home ownership, foreign holidays and undeserved importance!

However, back to the topic...

isn't there something a bit brain damaged about being in the Military in the first place?
It is hard to imagine what could be more collectivist, non thinking, life ending and moronic than being a Soldier.

Since when did fixing inequality before the law become a 'complication' not worthy of addressing wherever it arises?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

So you think that women are incapable of controlling their emotions in infantry combat, but somehow become able to do so under the incredible stresses of special warfare?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

I have seen no evidence that men are any better at keeping their heads under extreme stress than women. Historical evidence suggests that women have done particularly well in combat - IIRC, many members of the Maquis were female, and fought despite the terrible abuse perpetrated upon them by the German army if captured.

Again I ask you: by what criteria do you judge suitability for infantry combat, and of those criteria, which are simply unattainable by any woman?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

You'd go *there* to keep humanity going?

Certainly not. I'd leave all that sticky stuff to you.

Then make sure you got satisfaction from every angle.

You'd go *there* to keep humanity going?

[PS Yes... or as my best mate in Canada used to say, "Can't live with them; can't make soup out of them!"]

Keep a select few in cages for breeding purposes and shoot the rest. There is no cure for women known to man.

Had to don the leather mask with the zipper mouth when you got out of line, eh?

when push comes to shove they're ruthless. I should know, I've been married three times and divorced.

Jameson, I'm referring to open soldier to soldier combat which is the majority of war tactics with armies in battle, not terrorist special ops which are done under cover of stealth which is what MacDonald is referring to in her book.

[click to buy: US$9.99 @ Amazon - the KASS chick flick of all time]

Eric: "And then there is what is extremely crucial in matters of warfare combat; mental stability and focus. Men, by their natures, are much more able to deflect and deal with the emotional trauma and intensity during combat and fighting, whereas most women would crack."

Not according to tactical commanders of anti-terrorist teams...

Why not?  If a woman can meet the same criteria as a man for membership in a particular infantry unit, why should she be denied?  What criteria do you have in mind that would exclude all women?

---
Buy and wear InfidelGear - 100% of all InfidelGear profit goes to SOLO!

I know that historically women have been considered unfit for certain jobs, although Plato thought they could be in leadership roles. Aristotle quickly denounced that. There have been times, however, when women have shined in combat. There was Saint Joan of Arch and a few others. There are also women who are ruthless, believe me.

Anyhow, I found a reference to Ayn Rand's attitude about women. I'd read it before in Nathaniel Brandon's book, Judgment Day, but I don't have that book with me. I found another reference to it in my copy of William F. O'Neill's book, With Charity Toward None. It's in a lengthy endnote on page 24, and it refers to where she said it. I'll copy it here:

Rand takes a particularly interesting stance with respect to women. On the whole, she is a staunch advocate of women's rights. On the other hand, she adds that she would not vote for a woman for President of the United States on psychological grounds. (Rand, "An Answer to Readers About a Woman President)", The Objectivist VII, 12 (December 1968), page 1). As she explains it, "The essence of femininity is hero-worship-the desire to look up to a man." Such worship, she notes "is an abstract emotion for the metaphysical concept of masculinity as such-which [the woman]experiences fully and completely only for the man she loves, but which colors her attitude toward all men." (Ibid.,page 2). Since the President deals only with inferiors in terms of status and responsibility, as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating torture."

Gosh, I don't agree with that.

bis bald,

Nick

Nick, it has unfortunately been that way between the sexes since time immemorial; zaney. That's just how it is. The military is the wrong place to work on sex relations. It needs to be an institution dedicated to ruthless strategic precision and lethal execution against enemies of freedom, not a breeding ground for solving or having to 'work out' issues between the sexes. And you know as well as I that it would happen if you put them side by side in combat regardless of physical or mental acumen.

It's hard enough with men in the military now who are physically and mentally not up to the task. The last thing the US military needs is to have to deal with another complication between the sexes. And let's face it, allowing women full combat privileges with men will cause tensions, lawsuits, and sexual encounters which would cause major sources of conflict during combat, etc. etc. etc. It's just not worth the risk.

People once said this about mixing the races. There are still problems here. Should we go back to segregated units in the military?

There are problems with change, but they work out and sometimes get better.

bis bald,

Nick

and women have been in combat. I've been in combat and seen men who cannot handle their emotions. Again, I'm not advocating that all women be forced into combat. It is not for everybody, but if they want to do it and can do it, they should be allowed to do it. They are human, just like I am, and should have the same human rights.

bis bald,

Nick

It's hard enough with men in the military now who are physically and mentally not up to the task. The last thing the US military needs is to have to deal with another complication between the sexes. And let's face it, allowing women full combat privileges with men will cause tensions, lawsuits, and sexual encounters which would cause major sources of conflict during combat, etc. etc. etc. It's just not worth the risk.

Also, passing a physical test and actually engaging in warfare are two different things. And then there is what is extremely crucial in matters of warfare combat; mental stability and focus. Men, by their natures, are much more able to deflect and deal with the emotional trauma and intensity during combat and fighting, whereas most women would crack. In war, If your head isn't working, but your emotions are, you're a cooked goose, which also means so are the ones around you.

75 percent is not good enough. Again, lives are at stake. In fact, the military should raise the physical requirements of the bar higher, again.

Remember, I've been in combat. I've also worked with women, not in combat but in factory jobs. They can be competant doing things men do traditionally. I've even supervised women working on dirty dangerous grinding machines, and some did better than the men, after adjusting to it. Of course, not all women can do these things.

bis bald,

Nick

Here's the first plank in my plan:

1.Effective immediately, combat MOS's shall be open to all soldiers, without regard to gender, who otherwise meet all current physical and academic standards. This can be accomplished with a simple adjustment of military regulations.

Also, here is the study that says they can do it:

Harman, Everett. US Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine. Natick, MA 1995. (4.6.27)
"You don't need testosterone to get strong," Harman concluded. Through a regimen of regular jogging, weight training, and other rigorous exercise, more that 75 percent of the 41 women studied were able to prepare themselves to successfully perform duties traditionally performed by males in the military.

bis bald,

Nick

Nick, if you had to choose between a mixed army of women and men, and an army of just men (with both of these groups passing the same physical tests) who would you feel safer and more confident with?

I did not propose to put women who do not pass the physical standards on the front lines. If you read my case carefully, you will see that I require that they pass all existing physical standards, and I cited a study that says many women can do this. Please cite some credible studies which contradict them, more than just your opinion.

I think Rand did say that a woman's role is to submit to a man. It is also the reason she wouldn't vote for a woman for President. I'll try to find the quote if someone else doesn't find it first.

bis bald,

Nick

As long as the military doesn't soften its rigorous exercise routine one iota, that's fine. But remember, we're talking about soldiers very lives here, there can be no wiggle room for political correctness. In fact, the tougher and more difficult the training in the military the better. Personally, I wouldn't feel safe having a female combat soldier protecting me, the same as I don't feel safe now when I see a 5'2" female police officer with no upper body strength. Lives are not worth being PC.

"The fact is, the vast majority of women do not have nearly the physical stamina, physical strength, or mental 'toughness' to be able to be effective and lethal as infantry combat troops. Since the military should be an instrument of total and lethal force, putting women on the front lines is foolhardy and dangerous."

Nor is he talking about putting the 'vast majority' of women there either. Just the ones who self-select, and who can presumably pass the same stamina, etc. qualifications as men. I agree it would be foolhardy and dangerous to have a separate standard, like doing 'girl pushups' or some-such, but if certain individual women pass the same objective gender-blind qualifications as for men, why not?

Black and white men in combat cannot be compared to men and women in combat. Ayn Rand did not say that women should submit to man, but rather that men and women both had certain sexual differences that were part of their inherent natures, i.e. men being masculine and women being feminine. The fact is, the vast majority of women do not have nearly the physical stamina, physical strength, or mental 'toughness' to be able to be effective and lethal as infantry combat troops. Since the military should be an instrument of total and lethal force, putting women on the front lines is foolhardy and dangerous. A veritable bloodbath waiting to happen.

seems a rather odd proposition, rather like having gay chaps in combat.

I can understand someone like Barbara Boxer...(from the "Campaign To Abolish Femininity")...advocating it but am surprised to read all this on SOLO.

Women do not belong in infantry combat. Flying missions; yes. Tactical central command; yes. But putting women on the front lines would cost who knows how many lives, and lives should not be trifled with in warfare to appease political correctness.

So, you believe that women and men should not have equal rights?

Ayn Rand did argue for equal rights for all humans, but she also said she wouldn't vote for a woman for President. She thought a woman's role is to submit to a man. Do you agree with this?

People once argued that blacks would not mix well with whites in combat. It would cost lives. Is your argument the same sort of thing?

bis bald,

Nick

Women do not belong in infantry combat. Flying missions; yes. Tactical central command; yes. But putting women on the front lines would cost who knows how many lives, and lives should not be trifled with in warfare to appease political correctness.