| January 24, 2013

Steve Almasy from CNN emailed last night for an interview about Women in Combat. Unfortunately, it was after my bedtime so I missed his email until this mroning. It looks like he just took some quotes from the blog for his article today;

Jonn Lilyea, one of the founders of the military blog “This Ain’t Hell,” wrote that he thinks it was an “ill-considered decision.”

Lilyea, a former sergeant who fought in Desert Storm, wrote that he is opposed to women in combat units, not because women are a distraction but because he thinks the Army and other services will be required to accept more women than are qualified or can be trained.

“If we’re doing this to make the military better, fine, but if we’re doing it just to beat our collective chest and show how just we are, then that’s how a lot of body bags are going to get filled,” he wrote.

Of course, my quotes were embedded in the article between Tammy Duckworth and Kayla Williams, two of the VoteVets alumni. Neither are in uniform. I asked one of my Facebook friends who is also a VoteVets alum if she was going to reenlist now, and she never responded. I noticed the newsies are all getting quotes from women who won’t be serving in combat arms units. I don’t see them asking women who are currently serving any questions – women who potentially might be forced into those combat arms units if the social scientists don’t see the numbers they want to see.

I think that’s where the story is, not with us old washed up former soldiers who aren’t going to have this policy forced down our throats.

Category: Military issues

Comments (17)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Dave Thul says:

    We all know how this is going to play out. 6 months after opening all MOS’s to women, some member of Congress will hold hearings demanding to know why hardly any women have transferred in.

    Within a month after that, each branch will have quotas for females in combat arms positions, meaning standards will be waived in order to meet the quota to look good for Congress.

  2. Stacy0311 says:

    Yep, the military will make all the right noises about “standards aren’t being lowered” then there will quietly be a metric shit-ton of waivers and ‘exception to policy’. Standards will become more of a “recommendation” or “guideline” rather than a hard and fast definition.

  3. Joe says:

    You may not take it lying down, but unless you’ve figured out a way to “unlift” the ban, the it will be shoved down your collective throats.

  4. 68W58 says:

    “… it will be shoved down your collective throats.”

    Nice summary of lefty SOP Joe.

  5. Hondo says:

    Joe: are you really such an idiot that you can’t read and comprehend standard English? Where did anyone say anything above about “not taking this lying down” before you opened your yap?

  6. NHSparky says:

    Joe, he of the never served variety, seems to be all-knowing, all-seeing on all things military.

    Go climb a fucking rock or something, Joey.

  7. bartdp says:

    This is just another step by the left to regain some leverage in our military, when the draft stopped the left lost what ever hold they had on the military. It’s a control thing by them…..they get anal like that. Honestly other than what maybe a dozen or so who can cut it…..lets see how when they get in their mid to late 30’s how well they can handle combat roles. Hell there are waiting lines now to get into elite combat positions, good luck with that. Will they lower the qualifications?……you know they will…lol.

  8. ConcernedCitizen says:

    Gotta love how they’re saying in the iReport link that the four female servicemembers being represented by the ACLU are suing over gender discrimination when that’s totally not what it’s about.

  9. Twist says:

    I made the mistake of scrolling through the comments. It’s scary that there are so many uninformed people in this country.

  10. USMCE8Ret says:

    @6 – For certain, we’ve figured Joey’s game out here. His leftist, progressive rhetoric is never supported by facts or experience, as we all know that he himself and those of his kind almost always spout off about being all knowing about things they know nothing about…whether its about military discipline, guns, politics, or generally anything else.

  11. 2/17 Air Cav says:

    @10. Life is so much simpler when one doesn’t think for oneself or actually weigh and consider different points of view before settling on one’s own.

  12. Cacti35 says:

    Good call Jonn, it sure as hell makes a difference when you have skin in the game.

  13. Ex-PH2 says:

    Hey, guys!! Wait a second! The North Koreans are going to launch nuclear missiles at us. It’s in the news this morning.


    Does anyone besdes me think it’s awfully coincidental with that minesweeper grounding on a reef in the Sulu Sea?

  14. obsidian says:

    Funny how the only two women to go through the infantry course dropped out and there were no other women or girls quite stupid enough to volunteer.
    That means women and girls will BE FORCED to join the Infantry so the liberals and feminist can say their Ideology trumps male soldiers desires to remain all male in infantry units.
    Question is, When women and girls are being forced to go Infantry and do not want to will the ACLU represent them in any suit against the Military for making them take jobs they actually cannot do?

  15. DetCord says:

    I’m not really opposed to it unless they lower or maintain the PT standards for females. If they want to be a Grunt etc, can take and score well in the APFT, can carry the required load/kit, can ruck with the best of them, and can perform every task their male counterparts can, then why not.

    I will say that the women that have served in support role to CA elements have had problems. Physical problems. They all stopped producing estrogen and they ceased their menstrual cycles.

    This was done for political reasons without weighing the negative aspects.

  16. Nik says:


    I don’t know the answer to the second question, but the answer to the first is “Yes, of course”.

  17. FatCircles0311 says:

    So tired of hearing the “well, if they have to abide by the same standards” line. Talk to any male that has served in the United States military and they’ll give you numerous examples of separate and unequal standards in place for females. It’s basically a sign of someone who never served in any true military capacity. This is exactly why so many veterans are against females occupying these jobs because they know the standards are lower already and will be lowered further, except instead of males having to perform more and pulling female service member’s weight for them, people will die.

    It’s cute when CPL. Henz can’t lift a box in supply or can’t run 5 minutes in boots in uts before falling out looking like she’s about to die. It’s not funny when that same CPL. can’t get to the objective the same way as others, carry their own shit for hours, or be required to stay with the pace during sustained combat operations of more physically capable individuals that won’t be waiting for her to catch up.

    Being shot at while standing a post protected by a well defended defense or having to react to limited enemy contact via an ambush because the enemy knows you’re a POG that doesn’t know what the fuck is a lot different than sustained combat operations and the rigors that it entails. Marine Corps has already shown the ineffectiveness of their own Female Engagement Teams which can’t handle simply tagging along with grunts to get places. Instead they ferry them around and give them special amenities in order to complete their mission of smiling at kids and wasting time talking to beaten females that rarely leave their homes.

    Finally for decades the military has apparently had issues regarding sexual assaults with females in the military and their answer to that is more forced coed exposure in even less forgiving circumstances.