- The American Conservative - https://www.theamericanconservative.com -

Drafting Daughters To Fight America’s Wars

USA Today reports: [1]

A federal judge in Texas has declared that the all-male military draft is unconstitutional, ruling that “the time has passed” for a debate on whether women belong in the military.

The decision deals the biggest legal blow to the Selective Service System since the Supreme Court upheld the draft in 1981. In Rostker v. Goldberg, the court ruled that the male-only draft was “fully justified” because women were ineligible for combat roles.

But U.S. District Judge Gray Miller ruled late Friday [2] that while historical restrictions on women serving in combat “may have justified past discrimination,” men and women are now equally able to fight. In 2015, the Pentagon lifted all restrictions for women in military service.

The case was brought by the National Coalition For Men, a men’s rights group, and two men who argued the all-male draft was unfair.

Men who fail to register with the Selective Service System at their 18th birthday can be denied public benefits such as federal employment and student loans. Women cannot register for Selective Service.

Read the whole thing.  [1]

Here’s a link to the text of the judge’s decision. [2] I’ve read it, and it seems to me (I welcome correction) that the judge is saying that because the government in 2013 deemed women fit to serve in combat roles, there is no longer any justification for exempting women for the draft, given that the purpose of a military draft would be to raise an army to fight a war.

I can put up with draft registration, but the day the United States Government attempts to draft my daughter is the day that I take her abroad to dodge this unjust law. The idea that the US Government would compel our daughters — not “offer them the opportunity to,” but compel — to go into combat because of egalitarian cultural madness is dangerous and offensive.

Israel is alone in the world in having mandatory conscription for young women as well as young men, and I understand why Israel, given its extraordinarily vulnerability (that is, it’s tiny, and is surrounded by enemies), has this policy.

But America is not Israel. You have to wonder if an American government that would frog-march its young women to the front lines is an American government worth obeying. Well, maybe you have to wonder it; I damn sure don’t.

https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js [5]

UPDATE: A friend writes:

”Girls, let’s do a refresher course: If you’re going to play a sport (including wrestling) you’ll have to do it against people with a Y chromosome and a penis, and you’ll also have to share bathrooms with those people, and you’ll be drafted into the armed forces to fight the forever wars caused and led almost exclusively by those same people — so when are you going to thank us for rescuing you from the evils of patriarchy?”

UPDATE.2: Reader Chuckie (not our dear Uncle Chuckie) writes:

Former Marine here and current father of a beautiful athletic 17-year-old daughter who would be impacted by this. I’ll come at this pragmatically. I wouldn’t mind including females in the draft. Just because one is in the military doesn’t mean that one is in a combat role.

Forcing females into combat roles for egalitarian purposes is a different, even if related, issue. There are two issues at hand here.

1) The physical issue. Physically, a few women might be strong enough to perform well in infantry and other related combat roles, but most are not. I’ve been at the PT course. Most women can’t do 3 unaided pull ups much less carry a 200+ pound wounded man off the battlefield (Marines don’t leave wounded behind), carry a heavy pack and weapons 20+ miles, or successfully survive hand to hand combat with another male. In my opinion, if women are allowed in combat roles, they need to pass the same rigorous physical fitness tests and other high-stress mental tests as men. This might work especially if those special men and women in combat roles receive materially higher pay (combat pay, hazardous duty pay, etc.) and notoriety.

2) The mental/emotional/morale issue. This issue is harder for me to reconcile while remaining politically correct. It can’t be emphasized how important morale is to be effective in a high stress environment. Face it, these are mostly 18 to 23-year-old men and women at the peak of their hormonal/sexual lives. Throw young men and women together in extremely close quarters, and under enormous stress, and weird things happen whether you like it or not. They just do. Throw in the increased probability of women getting raped if captured (or even while in unit of young men under stress) and this issue makes me extremely squeamish. However, a highly trained and disciplined fighting force could probably get over most mental/emotional issues.

Say my daughter actually desired to be in a combat unit, passed all the tests and accepted all the risks that go with it (including sexual); while also receiving higher pay and higher notoriety for performing in a combat unit. I would accept that situation even if I’d hate it personally. Sure, allow women to be drafted, but ensure that rules and policies are in place to ensure our fighting force standards aren’t lowered to accommodate civilian political purposes.

Advertisement
195 Comments (Open | Close)

195 Comments To "Drafting Daughters To Fight America’s Wars"

#1 Comment By DennisW On February 25, 2019 @ 11:40 am

Why only the anger at the thought of the government forcing your daughter to join the military and fight Washington’s perpetual wars for empire, Wall Street financiers, and arms manufacturers, but not your sons as well?

Mass conscription and the creation of huge standing national armies was one of the many things at the root of the great wars that so menaced the world in the 20th century, and forcing of men into military service against their will is no more justifiable than the forcing of women.

On the merits, this case was decided properly. Once the government and military have decided that women should be allowed in combat roles, why exempt them from the draft any more than men? The root problem is (1) the existence of the draft in the first place, and (2) the allowing of women in combat roles. The case in question is merely the logical consequence of those two.

#2 Comment By Rusty On February 25, 2019 @ 12:03 pm

If America is going to continue with its imperial wars, it will have to do so with volunteers.

It’s been observed that our all-volunteer force is what enables our imperial wars.

We learned in Vietnam that an all-volunteer military is more effective

And far less domestically controversial. When confronted with dicey military proposition, folks kick back a lot less when it’s not their kin in the game.

Having a class of citizens who vote, but are not subject to the possibility of conscription, increases the likelihood of a more bellicose foreign policy.

Fair point, but it’s the all-volunteer force that really sustains a bellicose foreign policy.

For the record, I don’t think any U.S. soldier, of either sex, should be sent to the front line of a stupid war.

Most Americans agree with Rod here, which is why the all-volunteer force; you don’t have a say. Some of us just sign up for the stupid wars.

This “war is men’s business!” virtue signaling is deeply silly, and is silly twice over when it comes from civilians.

Thank you.

(Though I’ve always held the view, apparently in a tiny minority, that the country needs a draft — for various reasons.)

Kind of with you here. Not for combat roles, but I do wish there was a compulsory one- or two-year civil service regime; deliver meals, clean up neighborhoods, highways, whatever. Just young people spending a year with their fellow young Americans from all walks, serving the common good. Probably all kinds of potential for it to go pear-shaped, but still a nice idea.

If y’all haven’t read Drift by Maddow, you oughta.

#3 Comment By Chuckie On February 25, 2019 @ 12:11 pm

Former Marine here and current father of a beautiful athletic 17-year-old daughter who would be impacted by this. I’ll come at this pragmatically. I wouldn’t mind including females in the draft. Just because one is in the military doesn’t mean that one is in a combat role.

Forcing females into combat roles for egalitarian purposes is a different, even if related, issue. There are two issues at hand here.

1) The physical issue. Physically, a few women might be strong enough to perform well in infantry and other related combat roles, but most are not. I’ve been at the PT course. Most women can’t do 3 unaided pull ups much less carry a 200+ pound wounded man off the battlefield (Marines don’t leave wounded behind), carry a heavy pack and weapons 20+ miles, or successfully survive hand to hand combat with another male. In my opinion, if women are allowed in combat roles, they need to pass the same rigorous physical fitness tests and other high-stress mental tests as men. This might work especially if those special men and women in combat roles receive materially higher pay (combat pay, hazardous duty pay, etc.) and notoriety.

2) The mental/emotional/morale issue. This issue is harder for me to reconcile while remaining politically correct. It can’t be emphasized how important morale is to be effective in a high stress environment. Face it, these are mostly 18 to 23-year-old men and women at the peak of their hormonal/sexual lives. Throw young men and women together in extremely close quarters, and under enormous stress, and weird things happen whether you like it or not. They just do. Throw in the increased probability of women getting raped if captured (or even while in unit of young men under stress) and this issue makes me extremely squeamish. However, a highly trained and disciplined fighting force could probably get over most mental/emotional issues.

Say my daughter actually desired to be in a combat unit, passed all the tests and accepted all the risks that go with it (including sexual); while also receiving higher pay and higher notoriety for performing in a combat unit. I would accept that situation even if I’d hate it personally. Sure, allow women to be drafted, but ensure that rules and policies are in place to ensure our fighting force standards aren’t lowered to accommodate civilian political purposes.

#4 Comment By Erdrick On February 25, 2019 @ 12:22 pm

I think the idea that there will ever again be a draft is far-fetched. True existential threats (e.g. China hell bent on conquering the US with hundreds of millions of soldiers) will be dealt with through strategic nuclear weaponry. World War 3 would last an hour.

Meanwhile, the military is utterly opposed to conscript armies. No way would the military, military contractors, or politicians advocate for a draft to support one of these quasi-colonial wars- doing so would end the gravy train, as people would start caring that we’re still in Afghanistan. When President Gillibrand invades Syria, she won’t call a draft to do so.

Maybe an ill-advised war against a large regional power like Iran would go so poorly that the military would ask for a draft to support the regulars, but I doubt it. The fact that there was no draft during the worst of Iraq and Afghanistan speaks volumes about the level of opposition the military has for the draft.

Frankly, the most realistic case for a draft I can see (and I think this is very remote) is in the event of massive internal crisis / civil war. And in the unlikely event that happens, I think the odds are decent that the draft will be called to put down people like the right-wing traditionalist populists who support publications like The American Conservative. In that case our daughters might be fighting, but not for Uncle Sam (likely Aunt Samantha at that point- freedom demands that Uncle Sam be trans, or else “Love” won’t win).

#5 Comment By EarlyBird On February 25, 2019 @ 12:31 pm

“The idea that the US Government would compel our daughters — not “offer them the opportunity to,” but compel — to go into combat because of egalitarian cultural madness is dangerous and offensive.”

It’s a matter of whether women can effectively serve in combat. That it’s formally been determined they can, the follow-on ruling they can be drafted like any man is not madness, but consistency.

But it makes you wonder if this ruling will suddenly breathe some real life into the nearly dead peace contingent in American politics.

#6 Comment By Rob G On February 25, 2019 @ 12:49 pm

“Any nation that sends its daughters and mothers to bleed and die on the battlefield is not worth defending in the first place.”

+100

~~I could not care less about equality on this issue, both from the left (“Women can do anything a man can!”) or the right (“Haha, you dumb feminists played yourself and you deserve this!”).~~

Both show high degrees of idiocy, one observational, one moral.

For those saying that implementation of this will never occur, I’d argue that if there’s a judge who’s enough of a dumb-ass to rule this way, there may very well be a judge or politician in the future who’s enough of one to implement it.

“Look, I weigh 120 soaking wet, I’ve never been in a real fight in my life, and I grew up in a rural community, where lots of girls played sports and worked on family ranches. I have no doubt that many women could be better soldiers than me.”

Entirely…not…the…point. No one argues that some women aren’t stronger, faster, tougher, etc., than some man. But generally speaking it simply isn’t true.

Funny how all this feminism stuff has come around to making women more like the men they despise. The haters of patriarchy appear to be more and more turning into patriarchs themselves every day.
They have to act like men first in the workplace, then in the boardroom, now on the battlefield. You go girl!

#7 Comment By YM On February 25, 2019 @ 1:49 pm

I didn’t read all of the comments above, but my understanding is that Israel does not compel women to be in the Army and offers national service as an alternative.

#8 Comment By Stephen On February 25, 2019 @ 1:56 pm

Israel is alone in the world in having mandatory conscription for young women as well as young men…

Not according to Wikipedia.

“Currently…nine countries have laws allowing for the conscription of women into their armed forces: China, Eritrea, Israel, Libya, Malaysia, North Korea, Norway, Peru and Taiwan.”

It adds that: “In 2014, Norway became the first NATO country to introduce obligatory military service for women as an act of gender equality.”

From:

[6]

Welcome to the Brave New World of the 21st Century, Rod!

#9 Comment By Cecil XIX On February 25, 2019 @ 2:10 pm

Moe speaks the truth. This is the result of feminism, meaning you can’t have an honest criticism without criticizing women themselves. This is what happens when traditionalists can’t tell women “no.”

[NFR: It is possible, believe it or not, to believe that women should have the opportunity to go to college, but be denied the opportunity to go into combat, and certainly not be compelled to go into combat. But it’s not a point I feel like arguing, for the same reason I believe it is possible to believe that men born blind deserve the right to a college education, but should neither be allowed nor compelled to engage in military combat, for which they are biologically unsuited. — RD]

#10 Comment By BD On February 25, 2019 @ 2:42 pm

Rod, I’m not really getting why you’d be so upset about them drafting your daughter compared to drafting your son. I have a daughter myself (and no son) and while I oppose the draft generally, I don’t really see why she should be exempted from it. After all, the military is simply not going to put female draftees against their will in front line combat situations, and most slots to fill will be in clerical jobs far from combat zones. You really think they’d be parachuting 110 lb girls into Somalia while 200 lb guys are filling out requsitions in Missouri? There’s a lot more to serving our armed forces than going under hostile fire.

#11 Comment By Oscar Peterson On February 25, 2019 @ 2:55 pm

RD: “It is possible, believe it or not, to believe that women should have the opportunity to go to college, but be denied the opportunity to go into combat, and certainly not be compelled to go into combat.”

If we don’t want to include women in the draft, then we should certainly not be putting the in the infantry AND debasing physical fitness standards to accomplish it. Women’s rights “advocates” want unlimited OPPORTUNITY for women regardless of its negative impact on combat arms units but no RESPONSIBILITY to serve when the ballon goes up. Self-serving hypocrisy plain and simple.

#12 Comment By Steve Naidamast On February 25, 2019 @ 3:08 pm

I believe that if the Women’s Army Corp or WACs was re-established (along with its sister services) a lot of issues now facing the US military services could be handled much better and more efficiently.

A newly formed WACs wouldn’t mean that women in the service would be treated like second-class citizens but that they would be simply under a different command structure. Thus, instead of sending out mixed units into combat as is now the growing concern of many active duty service members and veterans (and rightly so), women-only combat teams would be sent on missions that they could adequately handle.

In the WAFs (Womens Air Force), women would still become combat pilots for example but may be assigned to women-only combat squadrons.

Face it; men and women are different physically and emotionally from men. However, if a young woman wants a career in the military she should have all the opportunities that her male counterparts have. However, with the realities of raw combat in mind, women should be used under such circumstances where they are best suited not just simply because they are to be treated equally as men.

And I also agree with the Marine responder here. If our daughter were currently in the same situation as this veteran’s younger daughter I would feel the same way as he…

#13 Comment By Adam On February 25, 2019 @ 3:35 pm

Here’s what I had to say about it a couple of years ago (I am a veteran…):

The crux of this issue, although somewhat disguised by the nature of the all-volunteer force, is that men are not ALLOWED to serve in the infantry; men are REQUIRED to serve in the infantry. Therefore, there is only a pretense of gender equality until women are required to serve, too. This has two implications that become unavoidable after the demise of the combat exclusion: 1. Women will be drafted, and ultimately forced into the infantry; and 2. “standards” will be recalibrated to permit this to happen.

A major war will require a draft; when body bags come back in streams rather than trickles, our strategy of bribing working class kids with college money and tax-free reenlistment bonuses to risk life, limb, eyesight, and psychological wellbeing, yet another time, will fail.

If we have a draft, we won’t be able to avoid drafting women: An attempt to do so, makes short work of our pretense toward gender equality. Moreover, we would not be able to sustain it. The first male draftee with an elementary knowledge of probability, who determines his likelihood of death or dismemberment decreases by forcing more people (women) into the draft pool, will file suit in federal court and the obvious inequities will force the issue.

Once the draft begins, we can’t allow women to choose infantry service and require men to serve. Again that implies a short end to our pretense of equality. Again, that smart male draftee will go to federal court, and the result will be that women will be forced into the infantry in such numbers that average women, not merely the exceptionally fit and physical ones, will be competing physically with men (ultimately in contests to the death). The end of the combat exclusion will inevitably result in compulsory infantry combat for average women.

Moreover, given the proportion of men and women in the population, any fair draft will result in half men and half women. This will greatly alter military demographics (currently 15-16% women) and increase the pressure for female infantry.

Also, a policy that “we will require all prospective infantrymen/women to meet these high standards” will work only as long as the prospective infantryman actually wants to be an infantryman. In a major war, where infantrymen are killed and maimed with great frequency, this desire will be greatly suppressed. Holding a “pass/fail” standard will allow a soldier—male or female—to avoid infantry service by failing the test.

The great irony of this whole, frequently one-sided debate is that a change billed as increasing choices for women may end up compelling them, in large numbers, to their deaths. A policy likely to benefit a tiny number of women currently serving will be “chosen” by those few on behalf of all women without any real consultation.

Women inevitably will be either in or out when it comes to infantry service.

#14 Comment By Adam On February 25, 2019 @ 3:42 pm

A little more about what I had to say a couple of years ago:

Unlike most of the opinions I have seen published on this issue, I actually know something about ground combat service. I led a light infantry platoon from 1990 to 1992 in the 7th Infantry Division (Light) (so I’ll talk specifically about the infantry). I completed my active service in 1994, but joined the National Guard where I served as a Bradley infantry company commander. My Guard service also included a tour in Iraq in 2004-2005 in a non-infantry capacity. Let me describe my experiences briefly. The thing I remember most about infantry service—in addition to being hot, cold, hungry, thirsty, rained-on, bug-bit, filthy dirty, sweat-drenched, and exhausted from walking, running, jumping, crawling, shooting, getting down, getting up, climbing, sleep deprivation, etc.—is carrying a lot of weight on my body over all sorts of terrain, frequently in the dark. The one time my unit weighed our equipment was before starting an exercise at the Joint Readiness Training Center (JRTC), then at Fort Chaffee, Arkansas. My gear—weapon, helmet, protective mask, radio, ammo, batteries, water, food, clothing and sleeping gear (if I was lucky), platoon equipment, ammo for crew served weapons, and so on—weighed 106 pounds. My load was not the lightest (about 95 pounds) and not the heaviest (about 130 pounds), and that was before heavy body armor became ubiquitous. Frankly, I am skeptical that many women can do what we did.

Moreover, my experiences, arduous as they were, do not include “locating, closing with and destroying the enemy” in actual combat, which is the infantry’s primary mission. No women have done this yet, and this is a greater burden than accompanying patrols to talk to local national women or returning direct fire when attacked, which women have done…

I fear this is what will happen: in response to a male draftee’s suit, a federal court will rule that women are also required to serve, the standards will be recalibrated to allow that to happen (or dispensed with completely), less physically capable soldiers will go into battle, and we will pay for our folly with our blood.

The great irony of this whole, frequently one-sided debate is that a change billed as increasing choices for women may end up compelling them, in large numbers, to their deaths. A policy likely to benefit a tiny number of women currently serving and seeking high rank will be “chosen” by those few on behalf of all women without any real consultation.

Women inevitably will be either in or out when it comes to infantry service. There will not be a choice for those that want it and a quiet opt out for those that don’t. I, for one, am against allowing women to serve in ground combat, because I believe it will ultimately require women to serve, where they don’t have an equal shot to survive, and may hurt the chances of their close comrades, too. The only way to keep women out of involuntary combat is to restore the combat exclusion.

All citizens need to weigh in on this—especially civilian women. If the new policy holds, the fact that someone you care about is unlikely to volunteer does not mean she can stay safely at home.

#15 Comment By james On February 25, 2019 @ 3:43 pm

Rod’s response demonstrates precisely why I would support a draft that applies equally to young men and young women. The only reason the Vietnam War finally ended was because enough American families finally recognized and objected to how many dead and maimed bodies came back without any benefit whatsoever to our nation’s security or freedoms.

The wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria have similarly benefitted nobody other than the military contractors and arms suppliers (war profiteers and their shareholders), at a cost that is still almost impossible to calculate in both lives lost or ruined—-and tax dollars wasted. Too many American families simply put a yellow ribbon on the car and blithely say they support and honor the troops, without a further thought about who we are fighting or why we are fighting—-which is of course enabled and encouraged by the lies that come non-stop from politicians supported by the war profiteers. When every family risks losing sons and daughters through a draft, this era of all-war-all-the-time would hopefully come to an end, and not a moment too soon.

#16 Comment By BD On February 25, 2019 @ 3:44 pm

“One sub-zero day on the Korean front, my father got lucky. He was looking for a good place to sit and eat lunch and happened upon a recently deceased Chinese soldier who was not nearly as cold as the ground! Yay! Jackpot and a (relatively) comfortable lunch!”

Your dad ate a Chinese soldier? I have to ask, did he get hungry again in a half hour?

#17 Comment By Haigha On February 25, 2019 @ 3:50 pm

“The root problem is (1) the existence of the draft in the first place, and (2) the allowing of women in combat roles. The case in question is merely the logical consequence of those two.”

I agree that both of those are root problems. But this decision still doesn’t follow. The determination that women can be *eligible* to serve in combat is not a determination that women and men are *in general* the same with respect to their suitability for combat (and, therefore, with respect to their desirability as potential draftees).

If, for example, the government determined that 5% of women and 60% of men meet or could be trained to meet the standards for combat soldiers, a rational government might determine that (i) combat roles can be open to that 5% if they volunteer for it but (ii) it makes sense to conscript men but not women because of the much higher likelihood that they will be combat-eligible and you won’t waste nearly as much time separating the wheat from the chaff.

We can play with the figures I’ve given, and we’ll all have our own estimates, but I don’t think there’s any serious doubt that, if we were to use neutral standards to select the most effective soldiers from the entire population, 90%+, conservatively, would be men.

That’s why this ruling is bad jurisprudence, and not merely bad policy or the inevitable result of things we’ve already swallowed.

#18 Comment By Just_Dropping_By On February 25, 2019 @ 3:59 pm

My take on the ruling is that, if you have a problem with it, you should work to repeal the draft. There’s no *legal* rationale for continuing to exclude women from it even if you want to contend there are social or psychological rationales for excluding them.

#19 Comment By Andy On February 25, 2019 @ 4:03 pm

Rod, I swear…some of your commenters are wonders. To hell with reasonable discourse with these people. Sometimes I want to just ThunderDome the whole lot. Women on the battlefield in combat roles; give me a break. They weren’t made for that. It’s as foreign to their psyche and physical nature as is my ability to lactate. Keep pushing progressives…just keep pushing. Keep celebrating abortion, drag-queen reading hour in our schools, and now women in combat. I’m going to be sick.

#20 Comment By Sagrav On February 25, 2019 @ 4:09 pm

”Girls, let’s do a refresher course: If you’re going to play a sport (including wrestling) you’ll have to do it against people with a Y chromosome and a penis, and you’ll also have to share bathrooms with those people, and you’ll be drafted into the armed forces to fight the forever wars caused and led almost exclusively by those same people — so when are you going to thank us for rescuing you from the evils of patriarchy?”

Was it somehow okay to have our young men wasting their lives in pointless forever wars? Is the possibility of dead daughters so much worse that we as a society finally rethink our pro-military fetish and begin to redirect our attention and wealth towards solving our many ongoing domestic problems? If that’s what it takes for us to change course, then bring on the selective service.

#21 Comment By Andy On February 25, 2019 @ 4:12 pm

As a follow-up. I am a father of a 12 year old boy and an 11 year old girl. I’ll be damned if I let my son fight in a war over oil or some other bullcrap and I will be double dog damned if I let my daughter fight in any situation. You see…I am a reasonable man (as I imagine many of your readers are) but this can be seen as a real threat to the safety of my children. Those who are saying “yeah, but this will never happen” are whistling past the graveyard. There are about a dozen things that I can rattle off that were never going to happen here that have happened in the last 5 years. This country has already codified that the life of the unborn is of no value, now those who can bring forth life are also of no value. They are just cannon fodder. Reasonable, peaceful people can quickly become unreasonable and violent when forced to protect their kids. We are rapidly approaching a time when civil discourse is impossible. Maranatha!

#22 Comment By Matth On February 25, 2019 @ 5:36 pm

I see no reason why the judge’s ruling is improper, incorrect, or unjust. If we as a society have decided that it is OK for our women to serve in the military, and go so far as to open combat roles to them without restriction, then on what grounds can we say that the draft should not include them?

It is logically inconsistent to condone (and especially support) women serving and not require the same responsibility that we demand from our young men in times of dire national stress.

That said, this is the most backwards discussion I remember ever seeing on this blog. This ruling is OBVIOUSLY immoral, unjust, and even antihuman. It goes against the very core of the human experience, that men are the physical protectors of society while women are the ones who grow and rear that society.

No woman should be allowed in the military, let alone a combat role. The fact that people are debating this from some sort of gender equality standpoint is insane. No, none of our daughters should be able to join the military, except in a narrow band of positions. Medical care is an obvious example, where women nurses have a centuries-old tradition at or near battlefields. With modern warfare being so heavily reliant on science and engineering, women with exceptional skills in those areas should also be welcome.

But a woman should not be driving a truck in a supply convoy in a war zone outside of the most dire circumstances. They should be at home, maintaining the structures that the men are fighting and dying to protect.

Besides, no woman wants to go and fight on the front in a real war. Even in the absurdly pro-egalitarian Soviet forces of WWII, women were limited to an extremely small number of front line positions.

The fact that we have allowed the feminist revolt against our common, shared humanity to advance farther than the first generation of Soviets should be raising alarm bells for all of us who claim to be even moderately conservative.

#23 Comment By Luke On February 25, 2019 @ 6:34 pm

The natural result of “progressivism.” Thanks post-Cold War Republicrat Establishment.

I was grieved when during the Iraq operation we were taking mothers away from their children to send them to a desert in the Middle East, for George W. Bush. But I was in a minority at the time it seemed. The zeitgeist was “payback” and to hell with the meaning of it all.

Again, trying to see the longer view, I suspect that the USA is not capable of waging a sustained, major struggle a la WW-II. We’re too divided, devoid of the the common moral/ethical and social qualities that such a commitment requires. More specifically, PC social engineering has made our armed forces weaker. It has nothing to do with strength, preparedness, and capability. It’s just like in Norway..purely an act of ‘gender equality.’

I’m a proud veteran of the Cold War but like others that have said so, I would not send my two military-aged daughters to be sacrificed on the altar of a corrupt, self-serving government.

#24 Comment By Matth On February 25, 2019 @ 6:34 pm

“If we have a draft, we won’t be able to avoid drafting women: An attempt to do so, makes short work of our pretense toward gender equality. Moreover, we would not be able to sustain it. The first male draftee with an elementary knowledge of probability, who determines his likelihood of death or dismemberment decreases by forcing more people (women) into the draft pool, will file suit in federal court and the obvious inequities will force the issue.”

That will not happen. No man could live with the shame of being such a coward, and you know it. I doubt I’d even let such a man make it to his court date, if it were in my power to stop him.

The problem here is not that men are so unbelievably cowardly that they won’t take on the burdensome responsibilities of fighting, but that women and their feminist supporters are demanding access to the exclusive world of men for no reason other than to destroy that world in the name of a false conception of equality (which isn’t even truly equal, as you point out, since men will always be required to serve in the infantry, while it will never be more than a choice among many for women, unless we barbarically enforce a draft requirement on women).

It’s why I call it: the feminist revolt against our common, shared humanity.

#25 Comment By JonF On February 25, 2019 @ 7:25 pm

As with others on this thread I have to wonder why we make the equation of “draft = combat”. As many have pointed out the preponderance of military rolls are not combat rolls.

#26 Comment By JonF On February 25, 2019 @ 7:29 pm

Re: Those who are saying “yeah, but this will never happen” are whistling past the graveyard.

“Never” is a very long time and one should avoid the word unless one is talking about basic physical realities, like “the sun never rises in the west”.
However there are things that are unlikely quite to happen and you can’t base your reactions on unlikely things. Most of us, for example, have to go to work somewhere removed from our homes. Any number of mishaps, including lethal ones, could befall us, but it’s unlikely that that will happen and so we go to work.
Shorter JonF: You can’t let fear rule your life.

#27 Comment By Ampersand III On February 25, 2019 @ 7:45 pm

“Entirely…not…the…point. No one argues that some women aren’t stronger, faster, tougher, etc., than some man. But generally speaking it simply isn’t true.”

I couldn’t care less, to be honest with you. Maybe one percent of women can hack combat; maybe ten or twenty percent can. I have no idea. I just don’t want to see either gender take advantage of unfair double-standards. In this case, the double-standard is shielding women.

#28 Comment By Brendan from Oz On February 25, 2019 @ 9:08 pm

My Father, a retired Air Marshal of the RAAF, used to opine that democracy is defended by a most un-democratic institution – the Military. But he has also acknowledged that after his tenure, modern corporate managerialism has taken over and now permeates the Department of Defence and the services.

It was always a bit odd. I recall the Duke of Wellington writing from Spain that he could count horseshoes or fight Napoleon – your call. The British Army now flies the Rainbow flag to celebrate diversity.

He is also somewhat alarmed at the revolving door from military to corporate boards and the rise of Private Contractors or mercenaries. Microsoft Office controls the battlefield and field operations are stalled or cancelled for using the incorrect Font. (see Joe Rogan podcast with ex Navy Seal)

One can only imagine what Arthur Wellesley would think.

#29 Comment By Chuckie On February 25, 2019 @ 9:56 pm

“Americans can always be trusted to do the right thing, once all other possibilities have been exhausted.” Winston Churchill

If and when women get infused into direct combat roles en masse via the draft, it would take only one or two annihilations in battle before policies changed. Ineffective stupid uptopian ideas get pushed aside quickly for effective practical tactics once lives are truly at stake. Just hope that it’s not yours or your kid’s unit that’s the guinea pig.

I truly don’t think things will ever get that far though. Deep down, even the craziest most hypocritical feminists (who would never allow their daughter’s to fight) know it couldn’t work. This judge’s ruling just might force the issue into daylight.

#30 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On February 25, 2019 @ 10:27 pm

I just don’t want to see either gender take advantage of unfair double-standards. In this case, the double-standard is shielding women.

That is such vapid prose as to amount to nothing at all. We all have opinions.

My take on the ruling is that, if you have a problem with it, you should work to repeal the draft.

Its only a federal district court ruling. There is appellate review. District judges spout the most god-awful opinionated nonsense, including that the Supreme Court is wrong about X, Y or Z and precedent will not be followed if Mr. District Judge disagrees.

#31 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On February 26, 2019 @ 1:09 am

You really think they’d be parachuting 110 lb girls into Somalia while 200 lb guys are filling out requsitions in Missouri? There’s a lot more to serving our armed forces than going under hostile fire.

Equality demands that combat troops be made in equal parts of men and women. So yes: if you want to be true to femist egalitarianism, 110 lbs girls must be parachuted into Somalia while 200 lbs guys paint their toenails behind the lines. After all, isn’t gender a social construct? The girls just need to convince themselves they are 200 lbs guys and everything will be okay.

#32 Comment By WorkingClass On February 26, 2019 @ 2:15 am

@JohnF

I have to wonder why we make the equation of “draft = combat”.

In Vietnam draft did not equal combat. It included combat. Approximately half of enlisted army casualties were draftees. Maybe people expect a future draft to include combat because all past war time drafts have included combat.

[7]

#33 Comment By Rob G On February 26, 2019 @ 7:02 am

“I just don’t want to see either gender take advantage of unfair double-standards. In this case, the double-standard is shielding women.”

Please get back to us when the NFL drafts its first pygmy.

“women and their feminist supporters are demanding access to the exclusive world of men for no reason other than to destroy that world in the name of a false conception of equality”

I’m not so sure they want to destroy that world so much as they want to carve out artificially a place for themselves in it, which has destructive side-effects. “Eff the patriarchy!” is one thing. “Let us be a part of it!” is quite another, although the long-term effects might very well be the same.

#34 Comment By JonF On February 26, 2019 @ 8:16 am

Brendan from Oz, “military intelligence” has always been number one in the Big Book of Oxymorons. Some of the flubs and failures of the American Civil War would make one wonder how anyone won it.

#35 Comment By Erdrick On February 26, 2019 @ 9:02 am

Matth says:
February 25, 2019 at 6:34 pm

The problem here is not that men are so unbelievably cowardly that they won’t take on the burdensome responsibilities of fighting, but that women and their feminist supporters are demanding access to the exclusive world of men for no reason other than to destroy that world in the name of a false conception of equality (which isn’t even truly equal, as you point out, since men will always be required to serve in the infantry, while it will never be more than a choice among many for women, unless we barbarically enforce a draft requirement on women).

It’s why I call it: the feminist revolt against our common, shared humanity.

Matth, you’re about 20 years behind the times with this argument. The true activists now don’t even believe that there are things as “men” and “women” that exist in an objective sense. Every person is what they subjectively believe themselves to be, even if their subjective claims conflict with objective biological realities. So they say with straight faces that there are such things as pregnant men (with biologically male uteruses) and women with (biologically female) penises.

So the women you’re railing against joining the military might be to objective observers 6′ 4″ 250 pound muscular, athletic people with penises. But our society says those men are women, because they say so and the term no longer has any true meaning.

It’s a sick society that doesn’t really deserve to go on. That’s why I’d encourage my sons and daughters to avoid the military and dodge any draft that might try to take them. There’s little about the current system worth fighting for.

#36 Comment By Ed On February 26, 2019 @ 10:34 am

“Bush-appointed judge.”

I can’t help thinking Cheney and Rumsfeld are behind this, waiting in the wings for their comeback.

#37 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On February 26, 2019 @ 11:34 am

Good Reason

I don’t get if you are ironic but if you aren’t, you manage to be right from the wrong perspective.

But you are right: by giving birth, a dangerous endeavor indeed, women already fulfill their duty towards the nation. That’s a very good reason for not being drafted.

#38 Comment By furbo On February 26, 2019 @ 12:34 pm

I lay this fully at the feet of our current leadership in the Dept of Defense. What’s more, I’ll name James Mattis, recently departed SECDEF, and those of his ilk, but it goes all the back to ADM Mike Mullins utter capitulation on the issues of homosexuals in the military. Leadership rolled over on gays, trans, and finally opening all positions to women. There is no finer example of the ‘Law of Unmerited Consequences’ than this legal ruling. SEC Mattis even fought the President on re-banning trans soldiers. But – LEAVING SYRIA – Then…then he got serious and resigned with a huff! The American people and particularly the American military deserve far better Generals than they currently have.

#39 Comment By A Texas Libertarian On February 26, 2019 @ 1:04 pm

It’s hilarious to see self-styled conservatives here in the comment section, and in America generally, defending conscription, a military program that came as a result (for the first time in the modern world) of the seed of all leftist totalitarian creeds of the 20th century (Communists, Progressives, Fascists, National Socialists): the French Revolution.

Congratulations conservatives. You’re now Jacobin leftists.

It isn’t a voluntary force that leads to a more hawkish foreign policy, it’s just the combo of democracy and centralized monopolistic authority.

#40 Comment By wmwa On February 26, 2019 @ 1:37 pm

Do you have an actual argument against this ruling, or do you just not like the idea of your daughter being drafted?

Maybe you feel differently, but I know plenty of folks who wouldn’t want their sons drafted, either.

It’s not as if the US’s record is stellar when it comes to having good reasons to force its citizens to fight and die for our country.

#41 Comment By JonF On February 26, 2019 @ 2:11 pm

Giuseppe, we don’t send physically unfit men into combat either. Back in WWII my grandparents expected my father to escape the draft because of his asthma (a condition I seem to have inherited). But dad was drafted anyway. However he was assigned to vehicle maintenance and repair (for which he had a knack) and so never served in a direct combat role. I don’t doubt for one minute that something similar will happen with women who are not combat capable and in fact already does with volunteers. As I said above , military intelligence is a famous oxymoron, but the military is generally not stupid enough to deliberately lose battles by using unfit troops when an alternative exists.

#42 Comment By Siarlys Jenkins On February 26, 2019 @ 4:30 pm

conscription, a military program that came as a result (for the first time in the modern world) of the seed of all leftist totalitarian creeds of the 20th century

What crass ignorance of history. Not only did you leave out the reliance of the British Navy on press gangs during the 18th and 19th centuries, you overlooked that the confederacy couldn’t have continued its war against the United States past 1862 if it had not instituted conscription. Southern newspapers excoriated the fickleness of young southern manhood — willing to vote in a referendum, but not to actually enlist and fight for secession. And. since we’re talking about pre-20th century, non-leftist, precedents, the federal government had to institute conscription in 1863, because confederate conscription had been very effective.

#43 Comment By Brendan from Oz On February 26, 2019 @ 5:34 pm

JonF: I always enjoyed having Dad’s copy of From the Jaws of Victory by Charles Fair, quoting Lincoln about Ambrose Burnside.

General:

Forget the Draft in the era of Outsourcing. We have already outsourced far to much and rely on technology easily hacked to an astonishing degree – especially when we hire Chinese and Russians to write the code. Disrupting Office on the battlefield is easy as.

And we insist on having all Defense and Intelligence systems hackable for the 5 Eyes!

How many women and gays in Blackwater? How does one force them to wave the Rainbow flag? Is that a volunteer national military force in any traditional sense and to whom are they loyal?

Like everything else in the world, it is corporatized.

#44 Comment By Giuseppe Scalas On February 26, 2019 @ 6:28 pm

Jon

Giuseppe, we don’t send physically unfit men into combat either. Back in WWII my grandparents expected my father to escape the draft because of his asthma (a condition I seem to have inherited). But dad was drafted anyway. However he was assigned to vehicle maintenance and repair (for which he had a knack) and so never served in a direct combat role. I don’t doubt for one minute that something similar will happen with women who are not combat capable and in fact already does with volunteers. As I said above , military intelligence is a famous oxymoron, but the military is generally not stupid enough to deliberately lose battles by using unfit troops when an alternative exists.

Of course mine’s a paradox. But it shows how absurd the idea of equality when not construed as of equal dignity.

By the way, I was drafted too even though I had asthma: as you say, military intelligence etc…

#45 Comment By Platte R. On February 27, 2019 @ 8:28 am

I fear that the old requirements made of human soldiers are about to seem quaint. World War II / Vietnam / Iraq War era soldiering will soon be a thing of the past, its practices and requirements as dated as the armored knight exhibits in museums.

I rather doubt we’ll have much “combat” of the kind people tend to think of when they think of war. We’ll have much, much more war-as-video-game, genetically engineered bugs, robots, probably nuclear weapons too.

The emerging post-treaty, post Geneva Convention, post international law world being created by Trump and others won’t require upper body strength. It will require a strong stomach. But given our reaction to what our allies do in places like Yemen and Gaza, it looks like we’ve already got what it takes.