August 11, 1999
Even though the voters elected a President who said he "loathes"
the military, we couldn't have imagined back in 1992 how much damage
Bill Clinton would actually do. Now we wonder if our once-great
military can survive another year and a half of our most embarrassing
Every service except the Marines is falling short of its
recruitment goals. Our most experienced pilots are leaving in
unprecedented numbers, and even large cash inducements can't prevail on
them to reenlist.
Raising the pay of our service personnel and buying them glitzier
equipment won't remedy the problems any more than additional money
poured into poor schools is improving education.
The most serious problems are the feminization of the military and
U.S. involvement in foreign conflicts that bear no relation to American
national security. Other morale-lowering problems are the court-
martialling of honorable servicemen for such offenses as refusing to
wear a United Nations uniform and refusing to be "shot" with the
experimental, controversial anthrax vaccine.
Add to this list of problems the career-ending punishment of a
serviceman with a superior record because he objected to spending 48
hours secluded with a female not his wife. Whatever happened to common
sense, as well as standards of honor, morality, and patriotism?
For 25 years, the feminists have been demanding a gender-neutral
military. What they really want is for feminists to give the orders,
with the men cowed into submission, and Bill Clinton is helping them to
pursue their goal.
Gender-integrated basic training has resulted in lower standards,
more injuries to women, more resentment among men, and scandalous
examples of rape and sexual harassment. Only the Marines have not yet
fallen for the idiocy of integrated basic training.
In 1997, a Pentagon commission headed by former Senator Nancy
Kassebaum-Baker called for sex-segregated basic training. She served
the ball right up over the plate, but the Republican Congress struck
out, created another commission stacked with feminists, and caved in to
their demand to continue coed basic training.
At Minot Air Force Base, N.D., the practice is to send two
officers down to the base of the missile silo, where they spend 24 to
48 hours secluded in a space about the size of a school bus, with one
bed and one bathroom behind a curtain. The Minot missile force has 250
men and 83 women, resulting in the high probability of mixed-gender
Lt. Ryan Berry, a Catholic and married, objected to being so cozy
for so long with a woman not his wife. He was punished by his
commanding officer, who spouted the feminist mantra that "equal
opportunity" is the Air Force's top priority.
The latest foolishness is the Navy toying with the notion of
putting female sailors on submarines. Navy Secretary Richard Danzig
floated this terrible idea in a June 3 speech to the Naval Submarine
League when he warned the submarine force that it was in danger of
remaining a "white male bastion" and ought to get in step with the rest
The Navy has already sent some female officer candidates on
unprecedented two-day-and-night "career orientation" trips aboard
submarines. The close quarters and psychological strain of submarines
are even more unsuited for coed coziness than the coed tents which the
U.S. Army uses for our "peacekeeping" forces in Bosnia.
On attack submarines, three men often share a single "hot bunk" in
rotation. It's hard to say which option would be more destructive of
submarine teamwork and morale: a "hot bunk" menage a trois or giving
female sailors preferred, exclusive accommodations.
We already know from Lt. Berry's case that "equal opportunity" for
women means indiscriminate assignment that flouts common sense, the
realities of human nature, the dignity of marriage, and respect for the
wives at home.
The purpose of the military is to defend Americans against the bad
guys of the world. The warrior culture, with tough, all-male training,
is what attracts young men into the armed services and motivates them
to sacrifice personal comfort and safety while serving their country in
It's no wonder that the services can't fill their recruitment
goals for a feminized military. Dumbing down the physical and
psychological requirements so that Clinton's political appointees and
the medaled brass can continue to tell us that women and men are
performing equally is destructive of morale for many reasons, not the
least of which is that it is a lie.
Although the Constitution gives Congress the responsibility "to
make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval
forces," most of this destructive social experimentation to create a
gender-neutral military has been implemented, not by law, but by
executive orders and regulations. We need a real man in the White
House with the courage to stand up against the radical feminists.
Which one of our aspiring Commanders-in-Chief will promise to
overturn the feminist agenda and rebuild our once-great military into
what it used to be: a fighting force that can defend America?