Nearly one in four males in the U.S. Marine Corps said they would leave the service if women were involuntarily posted in combat positions, according to the executive summary of a little-known survey commissioned by Marine Corps leaders and obtained by the Free Beacon.
A similar number of Marines of both sexes said they would not have enlisted in the corps if this had been policy at the time.
Twenty-three percent of both male and female Marines “said that they would not have joined” if women were involuntarily placed onto the front lines of combat, such as in the infantry, according to a summary of the surveyprovided to the Free Beacon.
Retention rates also could be affected at a time when the Marines areshrinking the force to cope with budgetary constraints.
Twenty-two percent of males who were surveyed said they “likely would leave the corps at their next opportunity” if women were involuntarily placed into primary combat roles.
On January 23, news broke that outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta had issued a directive that the military's ban on women in combat would be lifted.
In his ongoing zeal to remake American society according to the playbook of those who reside in the faculty lounges of the nation's most liberal colleges, President Obama now wants to engage women in combat with no apparent thought of the wider societal effects of such a decision. It therefore falls upon Republicans -- senators, congressmen, and governors alike -- to do the thinking that Obama is eschewing, and to make the case to the citizenry why this is such a terrible idea not only for America's military preparedness but for American civilization as a whole.
Ever since outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced a week ago that the U.S. military would lift its ban on women in combat roles, the debate, which has been simmering for decades, boiled up again. Much of the argument has centered on cultural, social, and morale-related effects that such a change would bring about, though other practical issues have been raised as well. However, a Government Accountability Office (GAO) report released just this week may bring some other considerations to the fore, among them, the financial impact.
The case for women in combat units has been, on the whole, a case made from ideology ("Equality requires it!") and from authority ("The Joint Chiefs signed off on it!"). Ideologues and authoritarians tend not to welcome debate on whatever issue it is they're applying their ideology to or invoking their authority on behalf of. The question of women in combat units is no exception, as the proponents have gone out of their way to discourage honest debate on the question.
President Obama has released a statement supporting Secretary of Defense Panetta's decision on women in combat units! "Today, by moving to open more military positions—including ground combat units—to women, our armed forces have taken another historic step toward harnessing the talents and skills of all our citizens." Indeed, the president is confident this decision "will strengthen our military, enhance our readiness, and be another step toward fulfilling our nation’s founding ideals of fairness and equality."
On Thursday, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced that the U.S. military would lift its long-standing ban on women in combat. The national media, as can be expected, is popping the champagne corks in celebration.
Just a couple minutes ago, presidential advisor Valerie Jarrett, who is personally close to President Barack Obama, tweeted, that "If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's protecting women from violence."
If there's one thing we should all agree on, it's protecting women from violence. Congress needs to pass the Violence Against Women Act.
Facebook
Twitter
