At a rambling and largely incoherent speech on Monday, March 8, where he forgot the name of his Secretary of Defense and referred to the Pentagon as “that outfit,” Biden made the following bizarre statement:
You know, some of — some of it is relatively straightforward work where we’re making good progress designing body armor that fits women properly; tailoring combat uniforms for women; creating maternity flight suits; updating — updating requirements for their hairstyles.
No one had ever asked the current administration when “maternity flight suits” or “updated hairstyles”—whatever that means—would be ready for women in the military, but our ersatz president volunteered the information anyway, much to the total confusion of the audience at hand.
Be that as it may, Biden’s remarks once again bring to the forefront the entire subject of women and transgenders serving in combat units. What is the goal and what is the benefit to the country that such deployments might deliver?
Proponents of women and transgenders serving in combat feel that the military is the last bastion of undeserved male privilege and if non-males are qualified in all areas, there is absolutely no reason why their desire to serve the country should be denied. Being an all-volunteer force, the U.S. military should welcome additional pools of qualified applicants from which to fill the ranks of front-line combat personnel. Besides, these proponents feel, it is the unequivocal right of any person, regardless of gender or orientation, to have the opportunity to patriotically serve in the armed forces’ most demanding positions, as long as they are physically qualified and possess the requisite military and mechanical skills to accomplish the mission.
Such reasoning, though, does not hold up to logical analysis. The mission of the armed forces is to protect the national security interests of the country. Any change to the nature or makeup of our forces must be done with respect to improving the likelihood of the success of that mission. No other reason for changing the character of our forces can possibly make any sense. To claim otherwise with a snide, condescending tone is risible to the point of utter absurdity. The military’s combat forces are simply not a vehicle for implementing social change or misguided equity policies. Your local DMV is the perfect situation for that; the 101st Airborne is not.
If we have a fighter plane that has a range of 1,000 miles and a top speed of 1,200 mph and there is a new engine available for that plane that gives it a range of 1,300 miles and a top speed of 1,400 mph, and the evaluation of the new engine has determined that it meets cost and reliability targets, then we make the change, since the resulting new fighter plane will better fulfill the military’s objective of defending America more effectively.
A typical argument from the pro-non-male military faction goes something along these lines: “But front-line units will be no worse off with women and transgenders, as long as they are properly trained and physically able.”
“No worse” is worse, because “no worse” is not “better.” The goal is better: any change must result in a quantitatively, measurably, better force. For the security of the country and the safety of both its citizens and our military personnel, only “better” counts. If there is even one potential scenario where the introduction of women or transgenders could lessen the combat effectiveness of that unit, then their presence is detrimental.
Right now, diabetics aren’t allowed in front-line combat service. Their requirements of specialized medical supplies and treatment would hinder the instantaneous mobility and mission agility of their outfits, should the diabetic need specific medical attention at a critical moment. That’s understandable and is widely accepted without complaint or protest. It simply makes perfect sense.
Transgenders who’ve undergone extensive surgery and hormone therapy require ongoing medical treatments akin to those required by diabetics. The same logical restriction must apply to them. Is there any operational situation or mission type where the unit’s combat effectiveness will be enhanced by the presence of transgender soldiers? The very best that can be hoped for is a near break-even outcome. If everything works out perfectly, every single time, every day, every mission, the unit will be no worse off. It will never be better; it just won’t be any worse.
The same bottom-line situation exists with women in front-line combat roles. Serving shoulder-to-shoulder with male infantrymen or tank crews, is there ever a time when a woman’s presence improves the efficacy of that combat unit? Women might be held to a lower skill or physical standard; they might distract their male teammates by the very nature of their being female; their monthly cycles could hamper their presence and effectiveness on a predictable basis, but there is no possible way to claim that their being female enhances the force’s combat effectiveness. Again, as with transgenders, the best that can be hoped for is “no worse.” In practice, of course, it will be worse. The only question is how often it will be worse and what is the cost—both in mission completion and U.S. service people’s lives.
We’ll cut “President” Biden some slack and let his absurd “maternity flight suits” comment pass without criticism. Anyone can misspeak. But his—and apparently all progressives’— undeniable eagerness to see American combat roles expanded well past the traditional male front-line soldier is troubling and dangerous. It needs to be called out and stopped immediately. The safety of the country is not the place for woke social experimentation. ✪