Thursday, January 24, 2013


 Johann Wagener 1-24-13

Historically, with the exception of a few, men start wars and fight them. Women, up until now, have always played a much more crucial role in having the “men’s backs covered” so-to-speak. Their roles were to save lives, not take them. To keep the family going during the men’s absence. Many times they were forced to permanently take on both roles when the men came home in body bags. 

I wonder if Mr. Panetta and the Generals have ever reflected back to their childhoods and asked themselves; would I have wanted my Mom to go on the front lines as a combat soldier? I’d venture to guess, that there would not be many ayes in the room when it came to voting on what is a foolish and grossly immoral policy to deliberately put women in harms way.

That’s sexist, I know. But this is not a seat in a corporation boardroom we’re talking about. If what I’m addressing is sexist then, what’s even more blatantly sexist, is that there are plenty of women in the military in plenty of important roles that have been continuously discriminated against in pay and rank from the day they signed up to serve their country.

So, if I understand the rationale correctly, what Mr. Panetta and the Generals are saying is, that in order to get ahead in this “mans” army, you need to become a killing machine and get in the trenches because the military places a greater value on those skills than those women are currently performing?  So rather than promoting and raising the pay of women to reward the jobs they do now, the only way they will be able to get ahead is to become proficient at killing people.

I assume that the “see the world” or “we will pay for your college degree” just doesn’t pull in the number of male recruits as it used to so the military is looking for bodies to fill the ranks in what is commonly referred to as “this man’s army.”  Keep in mind that these new policies are being drafted by a bunch of “old white men” from positions where women have not been allowed.

My suggestion to women is, before you run down to your local recruitment center and sign up ask yourself a few questions like; is killing a skill that I want to add to my resume as a skill set? To mothers I would suggest asking yourself; is putting my life at risk in the best interests of my child(ren)?

As for the women who are already serving I would suggest you ask; isn’t there a better way to resolve the inequality in salary and promotion between men and women?

As for our President, the Defense Secretary, and the Generals (who, by the way, are men) I would say; Great idea guys! Maybe you should have run it by the children of these women first? I thought that men went to war to protect the women and children? Oh right! Those were the wars that we were actually defending ourselves against a real enemy.  Those were the wars in which Uncle Sam’s ' I want you" call was answered by both men and women; young and old alike, who lined up to defend their families and country. It was a time when “Rosy the Riveter” was providing a service deemed just as valuable as those in the trenches.

This misguided policy to entice women with rank and money to join their male counterparts in the trenches is another example of how America is losing it’s moral high ground. Even the Taliban, as badly outnumbered and outgunned as they are, avoid putting their women in the trenches to wage these ideological offensive wars. 

READ ABOUT IT HERE;   Pentagon removes ban on women in combat