Sergeant Major Justin Lehew is a beast among men. At a time where the entire military is absolutely terrified of speaking their minds, he personified moral courage. This man is a leader of Marines, and when it comes to protecting the combat effectiveness of the United States Marine Corps, he let his words speak without the fear of repercussion.

 

Ok, been silent long enough on this. I have been a part of this process from the beginning and I am just going to put it out there. The Secretary of the Navy is way off base on this and to say the things he is saying is flat out counter to the interests of national security and is unfair to the women who participated in this study.

 

We selected our best women for this test unit, selected our most mature female leaders as well. The men (me included) were the most progressive and open minded that you could get. The commander of this unit was a seasoned and successful infantryman. The XO of this unit was as good as they get, so good the USMC made her the CO of the Officer Candidate School. I just selected the SgtMaj of the unit to head up our senior enlisted academy at Camp Lejeune, NC. No one went in to this with the mentality that we did not want this to succeed. No Marine, regardless of gender would do that.

 

With our limited manpower we cannot afford to not train everyone to the best of their abilities. This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in The GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study. They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations.

 

SECNAV has stated that he has made his mind up even before the release of these results and that the USMC test unit will not change his mind on anything. Listen up folks. Your senior leadership of this country does not want to see America overwhelmingly succeed on the battlefield, it wants to ensure that everyone has an opportunity to pursue whatever they want regardless of the outcome on national security.

 

The infantry is not Ranger School. That is just a school like any other school and is not a feeder specifically to the infantry. Anyone can go to that school that meets the prereqs, just like airborne school. Kudos to the two women who graduated. They are bad-asses in their own right. In regards to the infantry….there is no trophy for second place. You perform or die. Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy’s ability to counter what you are throwing at them and in every test case, that person has turned out to be a man.

 

There is nothing gender biased about this, it is what it is. You will never see a female Quarterback in the NFL, there will never be a female center on any NHL team and you will never see a female batting in the number 4 spot for the New York Yankees. It is what it is.

 

As a country we preach equality. But to place these mandates on the military before this country has even considered making females register, just like males, for the selective service is in all aspects out of touch with reality. Equality and equal opportunity start before you raise your right hand and swear an oath to this country. Yes, we are an all-volunteer force at the moment. Should this country however need to mobilize rapidly again to face the threats of the world like our grandfathers did, it will once again look to the military age males of this country to fill the ranks because last I checked, we did not require women to register for the selective service.

 

https://www.funker530.com/sergeant-major-speaks-out-on-women-in-combat/

For the record, I am against women in combat roles in the military.

Absolutely correct on all counts. It would take an SGM to speak out on this issue and I'm glad he did. It will likely not change the direction our armed forces are headed, but at least it is on record.

 

There is no place for women in direct combat. There are entirely too many variables to account for that people's lives depend on.

 

Having said that, there is also no place for any male that cannot meet the standard. The difference is that all male units weed out the non-performers...this is done as a measure of survival, plain and simple.

 

Strong statements. Yes. Gender "biased"...not at all. If you don't want the strongest soldier next to you in a firefight, you are brain dead or have a death wish...

 

I'll hang up and wait for your responses....

For the record, I am against women in combat roles in the military.

 

What is your position on women in law enforcement?

What is your position on women in law enforcement?

 

I am less opposed to women in law enforcement as long as they are physically able to perform at the same level as a man. Even though it's a dangerous job, I don't equate it to the military who are fighting a more barbaric enemy than what Joe Cop runs across on his job.

 

On that note, one of my pet peeves is out of shape police officers (along with fire personnel, coaches, athletic directors and trainers). It absolutely drives me crazy to see an overweight cop drive up to any scene and have to pull himself out of his cruiser. They should be in at least some form of good physical condition.

 

Cincinnati is getting ready to promote a guy to chief who looks like he ate the last chief!

I am less opposed to women in law enforcement as long as they are physically able to perform at the same level as a man. Even though it's a dangerous job, I don't equate it to the military who are fighting a more barbaric enemy than what Joe Cop runs across on his job.

 

On that note, one of my pet peeves is out of shape police officers (along with fire personnel, coaches, athletic directors and trainers). It absolutely drives me crazy to see an overweight cop drive up to any scene and have to pull himself out of his cruiser. They should be in at least some form of good physical condition.

 

Cincinnati is getting ready to promote a guy to chief who looks like he ate the last chief!

 

Just for clarity's sake, you are against women in law enforcement.

Just for clarity's sake, you are against women in law enforcement.

 

Pretty much. LOL

Pretty much. LOL

 

Me too, and privately so are most men but speaking your mind will get you fired...

 

I don't mean to threadjack everyone, I am moving on now.

Women are now draft eligible right?

Court reviews all-male draft in wake of Pentagon women-in-combat decision - News - Stripes

 

WASHINGTON — A panel of federal judges in California heard arguments Tuesday on whether the courts should weigh in on the male-only military draft now that the Pentagon opened all combat roles to women.

 

The case of National Coalition for Men vs. the Selective Service System had initially been dismissed because not all combat positions were open to women when it was first filed in 2013. Tuesday’s hearing in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Pasadena was originally set to discuss whether the 2013 dismissal had been appropriate.

 

However, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter on Thursday opened all remaining combat positions to women, in a move the Pentagon acknowledged “alters the factual backdrop” to the constitutionality of a male-only draft.

 

“It seems to me that there’s no need to argue whether it was ripe [appropriate for review] at an earlier time” given Carter’s announcement last week, Judge Ronald Gould said Tuesday. “The question is, is it ripe now in light of what the Department of Defense said so clearly?”

 

Gould, one of three judges reviewing the case, indicated Tuesday that he was inclined to send the case back to the lower court to have it reviewed now on its merits, given Carter’s announcement.

 

“As far as I am concerned, just speaking as one judge, that is probably what we should do,” he said.

 

Sonia McNeil, the Department of Justice attorney arguing on behalf of the Selective Service System, said the court should avoid a judgment that could impact the law before Congress has an opportunity to review it.

 

“Congress has 30 days to review [Carter’s] proposed policy change,” she said.

 

If the case is dismissed, it must be on the grounds that the outcome does not impact the plaintiff in a specific way or the issue was not timely for review.

 

Marc Angelucci, an attorney representing the Coalition for Men, a national advocacy group representing male interests in a variety of issues, said 18-year-old plaintiff James Leimeister of Houston has been impacted because he had to register for the draft solely on the basis of his gender or face fines, potential prison time and the loss of federal loans.

 

Judge Marsha Berzon questioned that argument, given the remedy would be that women also would have to register, which wouldn’t relieve Leimeister’s requirements.

 

The court adjourned, after both sides presented their arguments, with no indication when the judges would issue a decision.

 

Under the Military Selective Service Act, men must register 30 days after their 18th birthday with the Selective Service System, which could call upon them for compulsory military service in a time of war. They must stay registered until their 26th birthday. Failure to register has consequences, including prison, a $250,000 fine and denial of federal jobs or government benefits.

 

The Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the act in the 1981 case Rostker v. Goldberg. In that case, the court found that since the purpose of a draft in the case of war would be to fill combat positions, a male-only draft was constitutional since women were prohibited from combat roles.

 

In 2011, after a decade of war in Iraq and Afghanistan, Congress directed the Department of Defense to provide a review of its combat exclusion policies. In 2013, then-Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta ordered all remaining combat positions be opened to women by Jan. 1, 2016, unless the services provided compelling reasons to exclude some combat roles.

 

“Thousands of women have served alongside men in Iraq and Afghanistan, and like men, have been exposed to hostile enemy action in those countries,” Panetta wrote in a 2013 memo announcing his decision. “Integration of women into newly opened positions and units will happen as expeditiously as possible.”

 

Once Panetta began the process of opening combat roles to women, the coalition filed suit asserting the male-only draft was no longer constitutional.

 

“Especially now that the ban on women in combat is officially rescinded,” the coalition argued in court documents.

 

A lower California court dismissed the case in 2013 on the grounds that since not all positions were open to women yet, the case was premature.

 

In a legal analysis accompanying the Pentagon decision last week, it was noted the DOD would “consult with the Department of Justice as appropriate on these issues.”

 

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said last week that President Barack Obama’s administration would review the selective service law in light of the Pentagon’s decision on women in combat. A White House spokeswoman said Tuesday that there were no new developments in the review, and referred calls to the Pentagon.

Only a matter of time before women are forced to register for the draft.

Damn women's lib....

I just don't get why a scientific fact is sexist.

I just don't get why a scientific fact is sexist.

 

Because nothing gets in the way of political correctness, not even human lives.

Because nothing gets in the way of political correctness' date=' not even human lives.[/quote']

 

Boom!