Did they learn that from the Right Wing, because they are proficient at it, LOL.
Thanks, Mr. Bravo. "I know you are but what am I?"
Modern warfare is always evolving as the use of infantry is less focused on the human wave.
Combined Arms tactics have been in development and practice since the later days of World War One. It has been a long time since instructors at West Point have promoted a "human wave" attack. However the essence of offensive operations has been and still is to put as many guys as necessary into the attack to achieve the objective.
The body armor is lighter and is already being adjusted for smaller soldiers.
Size isn't the issue, the ability to endure extended combat operations is.
Weaponry is changing and sheer brute strength is not as necessary as in the past.
But endurance is. Why do you think such a high percentage of men wash out of the various training schools? The standards are there for a reason, so that those who achieve them can be depended on to operate at that level of proficiency.
Women may be much better suited to some roles where a smaller person is either better suited or where size doesn't matter. That's why they've done just fine as pilots and drivers.
Lowering the standards to allow for women to occupy a particular military position has been tried before. In the wake of Tailhook the Navy was pressured to pass female pilots along and into the F-14 program. The two most notable were Kara Hultgreen and Carey Lohrenz, who between them racked up a total of eleven "downs", or mistakes which would have served to wash out any pilot candidate. But they were passed through training, much at the insistance of particular congressional members.
As a result Kara Hultgreen is dead, having flown her F-14 into the ocean during a landing attempt. Carey Lohrenz was removed from flight status, being described as "dangerous", "unsafe," "undisciplined," and "unpredictable." According to her commanding officer she "scared everyone but herself."
Women in combat roles isn't the issue. Lowering the standards to achieve this social outcome is the issue. And it has begun already:
Gen. Dempsey: If Women Cant Meet Military Standard, Pentagon Will Ask Does It Really Have to Be That High?
Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded and, if women cant meet any units standard, the Pentagon will ask: Does it really have to be that high?
Source:
Gen. Dempsey: If Women Canât Meet Military Standard, Pentagon Will Ask âDoes It Really Have to Be That High?â | CNS News
I don't think anyone is suggesting women will have combat roles in as great a number as men. The idea is to not rule them out soley because they are women.
The idea is they not be passed through simply because they are women.
Prove it. Liberals are as diverse a group as any. They're not a hive mind all thinking the same way.
I said the liberal group is dominated by groupthink. And they are. You explain why any proclamation made by Obama is instantly revered by liberals at large, or why abortion is such a sacrosanct issue with the left, or why reduction of the US military is the only government reduction liberals support.
But the overall question is addressed here:
CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION, (Issue dated November 12, 2004), Liberal Groupthink Is Anti-Intellectual, By MARK BAUERLEIN
Source:
CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION
Rush and Ann said so. It must, therefore be true.
And groupthink on display again.
