by Les KinsolvingWorldNetDaily
Posted: August 25, 2009 1:00 am Eastern
In its Page One story in the Sunday New York Times on Aug. 16, headlined: "G.I. Jane quietly breaks the combat barrier," reporter Lizette Alvarez notes in her ninth paragraph: "Women need separate bunks and bathrooms."
I am unaware of even the most militant feminist organizations contending that it is sexual discrimination for our armed forces not to assign any of their minority females to bed down in barracks along with an overwhelming majority of males.
The U.S. Navy's submarines are also non-co-ed in their being confined to all-male crews. This is understandable given the weeks â€“ and sometimes months â€“ of submarines' ultra-confinement.
If our armed forces ever begin bunking females in the same barracks with much larger numbers of carnally hungry males, can we imagine how rapidly the recruiting of females would plummet? Not to mention, the rise in pregnancies?
This same question should be applied if Congress ever allows a so-far promising (but still reluctant-to-act) commander in chief to order acceptance into our armed forces of open homosexuals.
President Obama may well have delayed (or forever postponed) any such action. Since more than 1,000 retired generals and admirals expressed their strong and well-reasoned opposition, he may well have been advised â€“ and properly concerned â€“ about what recruitment, and possible promotion to sergeant or officers, of such militant sodomists would do in substantially reducing recruitment of young men and women.
Their consenting parents would be appalled to have their sons and daughters sexually targeted or raped by what would be the equivalent of mixed-bedding barracks of a few women with a much larger number of sexually hungry men.
If publicly announced lesbians and male homosexuals are ever permitted recruitment into our armed forces, it would be just as essential to separate them from the sexually normal as it is to separate the rooming of men and women.
The New York Times reported: "Women are barred from joining combat branches like the infantry, armor, Special Forces and most field artillery units, and from doing support jobs while living with those small units. Women can lead some male troops into combat as officers, but they cannot serve with them in battle."
This, let me note, raises the question: How can a woman officer "lead some male troops into combat" â€“ but "cannot serve with them in battle"?
Does this mean that female officers may lead troops to the edge of the presence of combat â€“ but she must then retreat?
The Times also reports:
"Iraq has advanced the cause of full integration for women in the Army by leaps and bounds," said Peter R. Mansoor, a retired Army colonel who served as executive officer to Gen. David H. Petraeus while he was the top American commander in Iraq. "They have earned the confidence and respect of male colleagues." Their success, widely known in the military, remains largely hidden from public view. In part, this is because their most challenging work is often the result of a quiet circumvention of military policy.
Nonetheless, as soldiers in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, women have done nearly as much in battle as their male counterparts: patrolled streets with machine guns, served as gunners on vehicles, disposed of explosives and driven trucks down bomb-ridden roads. They have proved indispensable in their ability to interact with and search Iraqi and Afghan women for weapons, a job men cannot do for cultural reasons. The Marine Corps has created revolving units â€“ "lionesses" â€“ dedicated to just this task.
Let me express our gratitude that only our female armed personnel body search Iraqi and Afghan women for weapons â€“ "a job men cannot do for cultural reasons."
But aside from the traditional story of Molly Pitcher's artillery combat in our Revolutionary War, where is this "cultural tradition" of women warriors firing machine guns in combat?
And what may our U.S. armed forces combat women expect in case they are captured by Islamist terrorists, other than gang rape, which horror went unmentioned in this New York Times Page One story?
The Times also reports: "Elaine Donnelly, president of the Center for Military Readiness, a group that opposes fully integrating women into the Army, says women are doing these jobs with no debate and no congressional approval.
"'I fault the Pentagon for not being straight with uniformed uniform,' said Ms. Donnelly, who supported unsuccessful efforts by some in Congress in 2005 to restrict women's roles in these wars. 'It's an "anything goes" situation.'"
Continues the Times story: "Poll numbers, however, show that a majority of the public supports allowing women to do more on the battlefield. Fifty-three percent of the respondents in a New York Times/CBS News poll in July, said they would favor permitting women to 'join combat units where they would be directly involved in ground fighting.'"
Then the Times, in yet another display of its bias in favor of legalizing buggery, reports the following:
"The successful experiences of military women in Iraq and Afghanistan are being used to bolster the efforts of groups who favor letting gay soldiers serve openly. Those opposed to such change say that permitting service members to state their sexual orientation would disrupt the tight cohesion of a unit and lead to harassment and sexual liaisons â€“ argument also used against allowing women to serve alongside men. But women in Iraq and Afghanistan have debunked many of those fears.
"'They made it work with women, which is more complicated in some ways, with sex-segregated facilities and new physical training standards,' said David Stacy, a lobbyist with the Human Rights Campaign, a group working for gay equality. 'If the military can make that work with good discipline and order, certainly integrating open service of gays and lesbians is within their capability.'"
But if the U.S. armed forces were to be opened to self-announced homosexual and lesbians, how could other sexual orientations â€“ from polygamy to bestiality and many other alternatives â€“ be denied to exist?