MAY 11

  Page 1 News
  Page 2 News
  G2 Bulletin
  Classified Ads
  People Search
  TV Guide

    J.R. Nyquist J.R. Nyquist
WND Exclusive Commentary
Should women be trained for war?


A few weeks ago I wrote a column on intelligent idiots. One of the chief idiocies listed in the column was that of putting women into combat. To make my point, I ridiculed the idea of the female warrior as depicted on television. Not too surprisingly, some of my readers took offense. They wanted me to apologize for such an insulting and insensitive commentary. And they are right. I regret my insult to the idiots of the world. Even idiots know better than to put women into combat. I was wrong to blame idiocy. The blame in this case belongs to a category of evil. It belongs to the egalitarian left.

The idea of women in combat weakens the military efficiency of our republic. It also epitomizes our modern nihilism. It signifies a rebellion against nature, against traditional usage and common sense. To put women in combat is uncivilized. At the same time it is worse than savage (for even savages know better). And those who disagree with this common-sense assessment are but pebbles rolled and rounded by the politically correct stream that flows about them.

If the father of our country, George Washington, were brought back from the dead, he would denounce the idea of women in combat. He would cry shame at our indecency -- which consists in putting mothers, daughters and sisters into warships and regiments, into bombers and missile silos.

But even stern words from the father of our country would not affect us. Despite the verdict of ages, despite the ongoing demoralization of our armed forces, there are people in this country who think that women should be admitted into combat units, trained for war, and sent into battle. As it now stands, anyone who objects to this madness is labeled a reactionary. Political correctness has become our new God. And political correctness teaches that the sexes must be equal in every sense. Therefore, to mock the female warrior -- as I have done -- is no ordinary error.

It qualifies me as a pig.

But before I emit a squeal or an oink, I'd like to thrust my snout into the leftist muck by asking a question. Why should feminists want to place women into the previously all-male fraternity of mass slaughter?

The answer lies in the basic facts of our political existence. The modern state has emerged from the dark and bloody womb of war. Our nation, like most nations, was founded by a military hero and refounded after a civil war. In other words, history shows us that the military thing is father to the political thing. In this context, a female incapacity for war stands to weaken claims of absolute political equality between the sexes. After all, how can women claim an equal share in state power if they cannot shoulder the state's military burdens?

The feminists therefore anticipate the following argument: that men have fought and bled for a thing that only a warlike spirit could have created. This same warlike spirit must stand at the ready if the state is to survive. And if that warlike spirit is compromised or diluted, the state and the nation could not long survive. Therefore, the radical feminist must push for women in the military. Even more, she must push for women in combat.

To achieve an undisputed political equality, women must be given an equal shot at heroism on the battlefield. They must be permitted to fly combat aircraft, to command warships and perform other military duties. If it was openly acknowledged that women are unequal to these tasks, the admission could unravel the left's program of social rearrangement and gender-confusion. In that event the modern egalitarian movement would be compelled to admit the wisdom of human tradition, which calls for a sexual division of labor

It must be understood that the revolution of the left is not merely against the rich. It is against nature and nature's God. It is a nihilistic doctrine, which denies the given order of things. It conceives of man and woman as entirely plastic and infinitely alterable. In taking this position, the left denies the very essence of woman even as it denies the nature of man. The left's quest for "liberation" is therefore misguided and destined to meet a tragic end.

Those who are familiar with military reality as opposed to feminist fantasy know this to be true. Soldiers are beasts of burden who must be able to carry heavy loads over great distances. They must possess sufficient strength to navigate obstacles, to crawl through barbed wire, to climb steep inclines. They must be able to dig trenches and foxholes on short notice, to carry wounded comrades to safety, to throw grenades from a prone position, to withstand fear and pain and the loss of comrades.

It is time that we men stopped being nice about this. We need to tell the ladies to get out of our business -- the business of war. The female body is not equal to the male body in performing the tasks demanded by combat. To say otherwise is to admit one's ignorance of military life.

When I was in boot camp more than twenty years ago, my platoon sergeant told of his experiences training women Marines. The idea, at that time, was to subject the best and most motivated women to the same training as men. "They were great women," he said, "but after a few days they were all in tears."

Women cannot endure the same training that men endure.

The United States Army was created for one purpose -- the defense of our country. It was not created as a laboratory for social experimentation. It is not an arena for correcting nature's inequities We already know from common observation that women lack upper body strength. Furthermore, the very advantages that women possess over men -- emotional intelligence and sensitivity -- work against them on the battlefield. At the same time, the very emotional cluelessness and blockheaded insensitivity of men serves them well in the most brutal of all human activities.

Last week I interviewed a retired U.S. Army sergeant. He told me that female recruits often lack the strength to pull the pin on a grenade. No women that he has trained can throw a grenade beyond its blast radius. He said that women give out during forced marches at a much higher rate than men Women cannot carry the heavy gear that men carry. Worse yet, it is unacceptable for military personnel to complain about the danger that women pose to the combat readiness of their units. According to the sergeant, the imperatives of basic military toughness and discipline have been sacrificed in the U.S. Army so that women can get through the training. This cannot fail to have a negative effect on the male troops. Sexual harassment is another difficulty that arises. Disruptions of all kinds mount on every side. In addition, women cost more than men do. Health costs for women are greater and injuries are more frequent. In truth, the military budget is taking a colossal hit.

I know that some readers will be offended by these comments, but they should stop and think. Imagine an essay opposing the insertion of wombs into men. Imagine an essay opposed to men who nurse babies from their own breasts. In other words, imagine that I have opposed offering motherhood to men.

Then ask yourself: If motherhood is not a man's right, why should manhood be a woman's right?

J.R. Nyquist, a WorldNetDaily contributing editor and a renowned expert in geopolitics and international relations, is the author of "Origins of the Fourth World War." Visit his news-analysis and opinion site,

   E-mail to a Friend        Printer-friendly version

Saudis behind attacks on U.S. troops in Iraq?
'Explosive' 9-11 report: Saudis fund terror
Escapee: U.S. afraid to risk Saudi relations
Liberian president escaped U.S. prison
Author John Lott on Farah show

Naked forgery in State of the Union
By Patrick J. Buchanan
Disposable kids
By Michelle Malkin
NEA: Politicizing 'education'
By David Limbaugh
Free speech absurdity
By Jon Dougherty




2000, Inc.
Contact WND
Co-Located at Fiber Internet Center