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.
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?
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.
|Other candidates on Defense:||Rush Limbaugh on other issues:|
George W. Bush
War & Peace