Senate Democrats made a lot of bizarre remarks on Tuesday during Pete Hegseth’s confirmation hearing for the security minister. However, one of the most bizarre was how unhinged they were to make people fight.
Many of these ( mostly female ) leftist senators vented maniacal levels of outrage over the Army veteran’s prior assertion that female service members should not be permitted to serve in ground combat roles as a result of a policy’s impact on military readiness throughout their hostile interrogation of Hegseth. Democrat Sens. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York were just two of the people who performed these repulsive drama.
However, it wasn’t a political issue to help sending women to the front lines of battle.
During her questioning of Hegseth, Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa — an Army veteran — reaffirmed her belief that women get afforded the opportunity to serve in battle jobs so long as they meet the government’s “very, very great requirements”. Ernst announced Tuesday night that she will be supporting Hegseth’s assurance.
Women who wear the uniform to offer and sometimes sacrifice their lives for their country deserve our respect, Hegseth has always said. This is a significant compromise that should not be taken casually.
But, for all the Democrat kvetching during Tuesday’s reading, Hegseth was right in his original analysis that people should not be deployed to the pits to combat America’s war.
For beginners, it does not make better vision outcomes.
In 2015, under the Obama administration, the Marine Corps conducted a study comparing the effectiveness of all-male and mixed-sex fight units, which according to the Marine Corps Times, found that the original outperformed the former “in almost every power”. The sex-integrated team “performed at lower overall rates, completed things more slowly, and fired arms with less accuracy than their all-male counterparts,” as well as” sustained significantly higher injury rates and demonstrated lower levels of physical performance potential overall.”
In fact, the study confirmed what has been known since antiquity: that males are more physically capable of carrying out physical-requiring tasks than women. Women being positioned in battle positions compromise the effectiveness of military units, which leads to a higher propensity for damage and death among services members.
These statistics aren’t “mean”, as Gillibrand insinuated in her screeching altercation. It’s simple knowledge. All persons may be equal in the eyes of God and the eyes of the law, but they are not identical in the rules of science, as Jesse Kelly, a former Marine Corps veteran, so poignantly stated in these sites.
[READ: A Whistleblower Provides Assurance The Pentagon Holds Female Soldiers To Lower Standards]
Deploying women in a military issue that is on the front lines of a particular issue defies accepted moral standards and societal norms.
The keeper and keeper roles are supposed to be filled by men. Not only for their communities, but culture writ large. Under the pretext of the false claim that a person is “do something a man can do,” sending women into the heat of combat ignores this basic truth.
[READ: Why The Trump Administration Needs To Keep Women Out Of Combat ]
Contrary to some lawmakers ‘ desires, ensuring service-wide “diversity” and “inclusion” should not be the main target of the U. S. war. The only thing our military forces may worry about is winning wars, which means upholding the highest standards to hire the best skills and ensure goal achievement.
Yes, there are roles for women in the military. However, one of those roles is not to fight alongside men in the trenches of war.
The Federalist staff writer Shawn Fleetwood graduated from the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClear Health, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
