Search for...
issues2000

Rush Limbaugh on Defense


No women in combat

What is the whole purpose of the armed forces? It is designed to kill people and break things. We have to look at the military as a separate and unique institution with separate and unique requirements. Itís different from all other institutions in our society, and our only standard must be excellence-no matter whose feelings get hurt. Our only concern should be that the military does what it is supposed to do.

Would an all-female combat force provide our nation with the best possible defense? Clearly, the answer to that question is no. With an all-female combat force, would there be a need for men? Clearly, yes. Now, with an all-male combat force, do we have the best fighting machine we can assemble? Clearly, yes. No one has ever suggested that women are vitally needed on the front line to improve our battlefield performance. So, if there is no need for women in combat as it relates to our purpose and objective, why are we considering it? Obviously, the answer is, For political reasons.

Source: See, I Told You So, p.290 Jul 2, 1993

No gays in army; not a place for social experiments

There will be consequences to lifting the ban on homosexuals in the form of harm to the military & thus, arguably, our national security. If you donít want to accept my judgement in this matter, perhaps you would be prefer to listen to Gen. Schwarzkopf, who echoed what I have been telling you for years: ďThe job of the military is to go to war and win, not to be instruments of social experimentation.Ē Schwarzkopf says that although homosexuals have no doubt served honorably in the military, in every case he knows about, their units have become divided when others learn of their sexual orientation. Every case!

Did anyone notice Les Aspinís report that the military is not in a high state of preparedness? Could it be that the best and the brightest of our young men have no desire to participate in the kinds of social experiments politicians are forcing on the military? Could it be that there is no way to foster esprit de corps when you treat the military like a social laboratory?

Source: See, I Told You So, p.291-92 Jul 2, 1993

Do not subject women to the horrors of combat

Congresswoman Pat Schroeder is leading the charge to have women in the military be given the choice of entering combat. She claims that unless women are allowed to serve in combat roles, they wonít get to climb the career ladder of the military & become generals. Her philosophy illustrates precisely why we have to keep the ideology of feminism out of the military. What will the feminists seek in the military, first and foremost? Equality. Fairness. Gender quotas. Well, the militaryís chief goal is excellence. We shouldnít emasculate (pun intended) the military by shackling it with the demands of every silly social movement that is currently fashionable. The military has a job to do.

I donít believe that women should be in combat roles even if they can do the job. Why? Simple. Women have a civilizing role in our society. They establish enduring values that are handed down from generation to generation. I just donít believe that we have to subject women to the horrors and rigors of war.

Source: The Way Things Ought To Be, p.200-1 Jul 2, 1992

Other candidates on Defense: Rush Limbaugh on other issues:
Pat Buchanan
George W. Bush
Al Gore
Ralph Nader

Political Leaders:
John Ashcroft
Hillary Clinton
Elizabeth Dole
John McCain
Robert Reich
Janet Reno
Jesse Ventura

Opinion Leaders:
Noam Chomsky
Bill Clinton
Jesse Jackson
Rush Limbaugh
Ross Perot
Ronald Reagan

Party Platforms:
Democratic Platform
Green Platform
Libertarian Platform
Republican Platform
Abortion
Budget/Economy
China
Civil Rights
Crime
Defense
Drugs
Education
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Immigration
Labor
Principles
School Choice
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War & Peace
Welfare