Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Ted Cruz and the Drafting Women into the Military Kerfuffle

Ted Cruz and the Drafting Women into the Military Kerfuffle

How will progressives get out of this corner they’ve painted themselves into?

Despite studies that clearly demonstrate that women underperform and cause their entire unit to underperform in combat training, the left still seems enamored of the idea that women should be forced upon the military in these combat positions.  Indeed, now all branches of the military, including special ops, are required to accept women.

The next obvious step is selective service.  If men are required by federal law to register for selective service at age eighteen, why not all women?  This is going to be a problem for the femisogynist left who really only wanted that whole equality thing to go so far.  Now, they are faced with the logical consequences of their politically correct nonsense.

Army and Marine Corps chiefs have already stated that it’s time to register women for selective service, so this opens a new can of worms for the progressive left.  While I couldn’t find push back from progressives yet, it will come. Now, though, they are focusing on Ted Cruz who rightly argues that it is “nuts” to draft women into the military because this now includes combat positions.

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Ted Cruz said Sunday a proposal to include women in the Selective Service registration was a product of out of control political correctness and warned against putting a woman soldier near a dangerous “psychopath” in a combat situation.

Mr. Cruz’s remark sets him in opposition to rivals Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush and Chris Christie, all of whom in Saturday night’s debate announced support for registering women in the Selective Service system in case a military draft is ever reinstated.

“As I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was, ‘Are you guys nuts?’” Mr. Cruz told a town hall audience here on Sunday. “We have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous, and the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in combat, I think is wrong. It is immoral and if I am president, we ain’t doing it.”

This tied the progressive left in knots because they do not want any woman to be drafted (they don’t even want men to be), so they had to find another angle of attack against Cruz’s eminently sensible observation.

The progressive site Slate published an article about this as a new “wedge” issue, as indeed it is (but the wedge may well be driven not on the right but on the left).

Slate writes:

It’s not often that you get to see a new wedge issue in the process of being formed. So it’s worth paying attention to how it’s done. First, notice the delay between the debate and the attack. In Peterborough, Cruz said he thought that what Rubio, Bush, and Christie had said in the debate was nutty but that at the time, he “didn’t have an opportunity to respond.”

Sure, Rubio, Bush, and Christie all support the plan to draft women into combat positions, but that’s to be expected from them. Poll readers who put their moistened fingers to the wind, they figured that the politically correct response was the right one.

Slate goes on to cite a variety of polls and concludes:

Why did the Mason-Dixon poll find stronger Republican opposition to female conscription than the Quinnipiac poll did? Probably because Mason-Dixon included the word combat. The questionnaire said: “The Defense Secretary recently lifted the ban on women participating in combat. In light of this, if a U.S. military draft becomes necessary again, do you feel women should or should not be included?” The triple combination of women, combat, and conscription—not just women in voluntary combat, or women in the draft—caused a majority of Republicans to draw a line against equal treatment.

That’s why Rubio, Bush, and Christie didn’t put those three factors together—and why Cruz did. Rubio said the Selective Service should be “opened up” to women. Bush said women should “have the right” to serve in combat. Christie said women should be allowed to pursue any role they “aspire to.” Cruz, by contrast, emphasized that conscription was coercive and would kill women, not empower them. He distinguished equality for his daughters—the freedom to pursue “anything in their heart’s desire”—from the notion that “their government would forcibly put them in a foxhole with a 220-pound psychopath.”

Here, the attempt is to discredit Cruz by implying that he sees our own troops as “psychopaths” and threats to female combatants.  That’s not what he said or what he meant, but the problem for the progressive left is that they don’t want women conscripted, either.  They actually agree with Cruz that the idea is “nuts” . . . but for different reasons.

Here is Cruz’s statement about this issue:

It was striking that three different people on that [debate] stage came out in support of drafting women into combat in the military. And I have to admit as I was sitting there listening to that conversation, my reaction was “Are you guys nuts?” Listen, we have had enough with political correctness, especially in the military. Political correctness is dangerous. And the idea that we would draft our daughters to forcibly bring them into the military and put them in close combat, I think is wrong. it is immoral and if I’m president, we ain’t doing it.

I’m the father of two little girls, I love those girls with all of my heart, they are capable of doing anything in their heart’s desire, but the idea that their government would forcibly put them in a foxhole with a 220 pound psychopath trying to kill them doesn’t make any sense at all. It is yet one more sign of this politically correct world, where we forget common sense. We got to get back to common sense, we’ve got to get back to a president that says, “No, that doesn’t make any sense.” [emphasis mine]

To me, the most interesting part of this debate is not that Cruz makes perfect sense and that his position may be politically incorrect but that the progressive left will have to find a way to weasel out of this corner into which they’ve painted themselves.  That should be fun to watch.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

Always keep in mind that the Left doesn’t like the military, especially ours. A significant number see this as a way to make its use less likely, so this is not as much a corner as it seems.

As for the service chiefs, this is probably their version of a “poison pill” since they must comply with the directions of the civilian leadership.

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to Tregonsee. | February 9, 2016 at 11:53 am

    Always keep in mind that the Left doesn’t like the military, especially ours.

    Right about lefties despising the US military. ‘Girls say yes to guys who say no’, etc etc.

    But dude some guys up in masks and red banners to launch an ‘armed struggle’, and see the lefties all chip in their lunch money for ammo.

The libs are so intent on getting women into combat units without any consideration of the costs. If they really wanted to show that women can do anything men can do, then they should have started with scholastic and team sports. It’s simple. Just ban single sex sports. Think about the benefits – no more Title 9 lawsuits.

I believe you’d find that re-purposing of the military BACK to a FIGHTING force in the traditional (NOT the Gorebal Climate Thingy) sense will happen in short order under Pres. Cruz.

And a LOT of other good stuff, besides…

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2016/02/cruz-or-trump-let-jimmy-carter-be-your.html

    Well Cruz does need to get the forces ready to fight the battle of Armageddon under commanding general Glenn Beck.

    Your link has absolutely NOTHING to do with the subject matter of this thread. Just bold faced hawking of some guy’s thoughts in Christchurch New Zealand of all places.

    There isn’t anything in Cruz’s background as a government bureaucrat to suggest he has the slightest bit of experience in executive leadership to make anything happen in short order.

    Trump on the other hand does have such a background.

    Eric Trump: ‘The Speed of Execution’ of a Trump Administration ‘Would Be Like Something Never Seen Before’

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/09/2979373/

      Ragspierre in reply to Gary Britt. | February 9, 2016 at 1:01 pm

      IF you want a dictator, Donald Ducks is your guy…

      “In a nearly one-hour speech, Trump railed against pharmaceutical companies. He railed against oil companies. And insurance companies. And defense contractors. And he set himself against a political system that he said allows big-money corporate “bloodsuckers” to control the government with campaign contributions.

      “Whether it’s the insurance companies, or the drug companies, or the oil companies, it’s all the same thing,” Trump said. “We’re never going to get our country back if we keep doing this.”

      Trump promised to allow the government to negotiate drug prices — a common position among Democrats but rarely heard at nominally Republican events. He said he would not raise military spending, arguing that the nation’s defenses can be improved without increasing its already huge Pentagon budget. He promised tough sanctions on American companies that move jobs overseas.

      Trump was, in other words, in full populist mode as he wrapped up his New Hampshire campaign, in which he leads the closest Republican competition by about 15 points, according to the RealClearPolitics average of polls.

      There were portions of Trump’s Plymouth speech that sounded like Bernie Sanders, if Sanders had Trump’s sense of showmanship. In fact, Trump mentioned Sanders favorably, saying they agree on trade.”
      http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/byron-york-as-vote-nears-a-more-radical-trump-emerges/article/2582703

      Yeeeeeeup. As I’ve been saying, T-rump is a Progressive populist. If you want BIG GOVERNMENT, he’s your guy.

        There is absolutely nothing in what you quote or in the Byron York article that states, suggests or implies that Trump is for big government. That is your own lie about what Trump says.

        Trump railed against big mega donor money in politics and how it has corrupted BOTH parties and the government. Something many republicans happen to believe is quite true.

        And you left out the best part of the York article (wonder why). Here it is from the same article you link to:

        “But all that misses the bigger picture. The man leading the Republican race is doing so on a platform that would blow up the Republican Party as it now exists in Washington. If Trump is bringing new voters into the party, he’s doing it by promising to make the party virtually unrecognizable to its members today. If he were elected president and did what he says he will do — and many, if not most, political insiders cannot get their heads around even that possibility — Trump would be an astonishingly disruptive force in Washington. Of course, that is exactly what his voters want.

        And despite various reports that Trump is moderating his style and presentation a bit, the fact is, his views remain absolutely radical in a Republican context. That is the Trump who is leading the race in New Hampshire. And the candidate who played “Revolution” a second time as he left.”

        Trump will blow up the GOPe. York says it, and that is why he is so popular with the base. The GOPe NEEDS TO BE BLOWN UP AND ONLY TRUMP WILL DO IT !!!!

        Here are a few other comments from the same York article:

        Trump repeatedly said he would alienate his wealthy friends if he actually becomes president and cleans up government. But it’s worth it, he said. “They come to me and they say, ‘We would like you to use such and such a company — he’s helped your friends,'” Trump said. “I don’t care if he’s helped my friends. I have no friends as far as I’m concerned. You know who my friends are? You’re my friends.” Trump won big applause with that line.

        Trump’s appeal seemed aligned with the thinking of a lot of attendees. Before the speech began — before Trump had made any of his arguments — I talked to a number of Trump supporters and asked why they chose him over other candidates.

        “Because he’s not going to be bought,” said Bob Chapman, of Durham.

        “I feel that he definitely can’t be bought, and is one of the only ones who can honestly say that,” said Phil Pelletier, of Westport, Mass. “I just feel that he’s his own man.”

        “I like that he’s self-funding,” said Derrick Vendetti, of Randolph.

        Trump scares the democrats so much that in Iowa and in New Hampshire many democrats, among the non-declared group of voters, voters who will vote for Hillary or Bernie in the general election will crossover to vote against Trump today. That is my biggest worry about today’s results.

          “There is absolutely nothing everything in what you quote or in the Byron York article what Trump says that states, suggests or implies that Trump is for big government.”

          FTFY, short bus.

          “nothing… suggests or implies that Trump is for big government.”

          If, as you say, that Trump is not for big government then what do you need “big time” executive leadership experience for?

          You want Trumpoon to run the nation as a CEO of a Yuge coporation and yet you deny he wants to do that.

          Do you need someone to plan your day for you, from top down?

          Are you serious? Even a small federal government is still Yuuge

        Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2016 at 1:54 pm

        “Trump will blow up the GOPe. York says it, and that is why he is so popular with the base. The GOPe NEEDS TO BE BLOWN UP AND ONLY TRUMP WILL DO IT !!!!”

        Well, he certainly “blew” the GOPe crony capitalists in Iowa.

        When he wasn’t sucking. See?

        He’s baiting the boobs with what he SAYS. He has never walked that walk. Never in his whole life entire. He’s an obvious Progressive puke. Same as Bernie.

          So you are saying Byron York is a sucker and totally fell for something that isn’t true about Trump blowing up the GOPe, and that you however see the “real” truth that Byron York misses.

          Got it.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2016 at 2:34 pm

          No, you poor cult following dope.

          Count the number of “ifs” in York’s paragraph about his voters.

          That ‘graph is about Duh Donald’s voter’s HOPES.

          What I quoted is about what he actually TOLD them, and you.

          He’s a Bernie Sanders guy on trade, property rights, and the role of the central government in deciding what YOU will do.

          He told you he’s a Progressive. He’s SHOWN you just how Establishment he IS by his conduct in Iowa.

          You won’t get it because you’re delusional. But it’s all there.

          Try to stay calm and avoid slipping into the name calling and then vulgarity.

          Byron York says it quite clearly Trump will BLOW UP the GOPe. He obviously is NOT establishment no matter how many times you repeat that lie ad infinitum.

          Trump is for free trade, but not the insane Obamatrade version of DUMB free trade that Cruz, Ryan, McConnell, and Rubio all support.

          EXCLUSIVE– Donald J. Trump First Candidate to Reply to the ‘Senator Jeff Sessions Test’

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/02/08/exclusive-donald-j-trump-first-candidate-reply-sessions-test/

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2016 at 2:52 pm

          He told you he’s a Progressive. He’s SHOWN you just how Establishment he IS by his conduct in Iowa.

          You won’t get it because you’re delusional. But it’s all there.

          #SuckTrump

          Trump is a pro-American Nationalist Conservative that is the basis for a populist movement. Progressive isn’t in there anywhere nor has Trump ever said anything except he is a conservative since announcing his candidacy. His immigration policy is conservative and approved by Jeff Sessions. His tax policy is conservative and approved by many analysts including Larry Kudlow who picks it as the best of the republican plans. His Trade policy is PRO JOBS SMART TRADE CONSERVATIVE and again is endorsed by Senator Jeff Sessions.

          He’s conservative pro-USA nationalist who wants to make America First in all the federal government does.

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | February 9, 2016 at 4:45 pm

          No. Those are lies, and we know you’re a liar.

          Duh Donald has EXPRESSLY admitted he’s NOT a conservative. But he’s also told the lie that he IS a conservative.

          So have you, liar.

          He told you he’s a Progressive. He’s SHOWN you just how Establishment he IS by his CONDUCT in Iowa.

          You won’t get it because you’re delusional. But it’s all there.

          And you lie about it. And we know you’ll do it some more.

          #SuckTrump

        Are you serious? Even a small federal government is still Yuuuge.

“We got to get back to common sense, we’ve got to get back to a president that says, “No, that doesn’t make any sense.”’

Ah, yes. Music to my ears: the rule of law, the Constitution, and..and common sense! A true “fundamental transformation” back to reality.

I don’t know if this is happening to anybody else, but I cannot read the slate quote because some of it runs behind the “Contributors” section.

As a precursor to “Women in combat” all we have to do is visit “Openly gay” in combat units. This allows men who are gay to be “Together” in units when the straight men cannot be together with a woman. Moral in units with more than the average number of gay men in them suffers. As any thinking person would expect, resentment builds and cohesion falls. We can only imagine the plunge of moral if men and women were thrown together, along with the gays, and the little soap operas that would develop in units. Instead of a Top sergeant we would need a Dr. Phil!

    Dr Phil and his ilk are a major part of the problem that we are now experiencing in this country. The downhill ride started with that crackpot Dr Benjamin Spock.

Putting women in the selective service is nuts. The republican candidates who are for this are nuts. There is no draft right now, nor is there any need for a draft on the horizon.

The USA isn’t a garrisoned country in perpetual war, like Israel. The selective service requirement for men should be removed before women are added.

    Rick in reply to rotten. | February 9, 2016 at 10:29 am

    You don’t have anything to say today about obama’s intent?

    Insufficiently Sensitive in reply to rotten. | February 9, 2016 at 11:57 am

    There is no draft right now, nor is there any need for a draft on the horizon.

    Precisely what American know-nothings said in 1938, and equally far-seeing.

Last cycle, ABC trapped Republicans in the war on women with a birth control debate question. This time it looks like the selective service.

Rubio/Christie/Bush all made the mistake of thinking that feminist thought is internally consistent. Women don’t want to be drafted, nobody wants to be drafted.

American Human | February 9, 2016 at 10:10 am

Sure, watching Libs implode is all fun and games until they get it enacted into law.
(usually via the courts though).

The left is not going to be happy until they have their way, and we prove to them how stupid their thought processes are.

As the father of 2 girls, one 5 the other 10, I abhor the thought of this, but know it is the only way we are ever going to change the stupidity of their thought process.

I say, give them what they want, end all segregation between the sexes from cradle to the grave.

Until they see the public’s response and how it will affect the children that do not have the means to avoid it, nothing we can say or do will make them see reason.

I for one would immediately remove my children from ALL public activities, including school and sports.

The school districts will close within weeks as people take their children out of school.

Sport functions will end as athletes get hurt because of the differences between size and strength.

Male solders will be injured or killed trying to protect weaker female soldiers, and the effectiveness of combat readiness will be dramatically reduced by injuries and many other consequential results from the disparities.

Unfortunately, only after all of that, will you be able to convince any of them the fallacy of their thought process, but even then I doubt you would be able to convince the majority of them.

Opposition to the draft is not a leftist position. On the contrary, every proposal to reinstate it comes from the left. The correct response to the suggestion that women be included in selective service is to repeal it altogether. So long as it exists, women should be included. I’m sorry Mr Cruz, but if other people’s sons are to be forced into combat, then your daughters should be forced there too. Your daughters’ lives are not more important than theirs.

The only approach consistent with liberty is that nobody should be forced into that foxhole. Conscription is slavery. And as Heinlein said, any country that can’t raise enough volunteers to defend itself is not worth defending.

By the way, Israel does not need conscription, and would be far better off without it. It has conscription for only one reason: to indoctrinate impressionable young men and women in the preferred political positions of the entrenched leftist power structure.

My two cents on women in combat. And I won’t caveat this or apologize.

I’d won’t hit a lady. But I expect a lady will not hit me. If a woman, not a lady, hits me I will do us both a favor and teach her a lesson. Maybe she’ll even learn to become a lady.

You’re not helping the country by giving her the p**** pass. Maybe there are Olympic athletes who can give me trouble. But they’re few and far between. And if I can do it, so can an enemy combatant. And that combatant will not be gentle and quit when I will.

No, it gives me no pleasure and I take no pride in what I’ve said. But while I served I had to pack that away and just concern myself with defending the country.

I know a woman who beat the crap out of a guy with a pugil stick. Why? Because he wouldn’t hit back. So, what good came out of the exercise?

She had the best of all possible worlds. On the one hand, she’s a [email protected]$$ and she wins. On the other hand, the bastard hit a girl.

But she wasn’t Buffy the Vampire Slayer and an honest world would have taught her that.

“You’re not helping the country by giving her the p**** pass. Maybe there are Olympic athletes who can give me trouble. But they’re few and far between. And if I can do it, so can an enemy combatant. And that combatant will not be gentle and quit when I will.”

You will be happy to learn that transexuals, even those who haven’t had surgery, will be able to compete in their preffered sex.

I have to modify my argument. In a civilian context I see almost no reason to hit a woman no matter what she does to me. I’ll just walk away.

But if that same woman thinks she has a career in the profession of arms, she deserves everything that comes with it.

Just like the rest of us.

davod, I couldn’t be happier.

Don’t I look happy?

buckeyeminuteman | February 9, 2016 at 12:51 pm

I disagree with Cruz, that doesn’t mean I agree with Rubio or Bush though. The 20-something fem-nazis pushed for the stupid women-in-special-forces thing. Now, let them lie in their own bed. Make a trip over to the post office and fill out the card. Maybe next time they put their foot in their mouth, they’ll put their foot in their mouth and keep quiet. Let the war fighting decisions be made by the generals and admirals who’ve spent 30 years doing it.

I think that it should be libs first for everything that they want. Since libs want to register all for selective service then they should have to do it first. If they want the taxes increased, they should have to pay more first. No matter what they want, they should be the ones who have to be subjected to their policies first and then we shall see if they continue to support those policies.

Change the draft laws to ‘no deferment’ and we’ll see how that works.

Canada didn’t allow dual citizenship when Cruz was born there… and yet he renounced his Canadian citizenship only recently. So, why are we listening to refugee lecture us about anything?

    ebartley in reply to Vince. | February 10, 2016 at 9:38 am

    Canada does not control United States citizenship. Therefore, whether or not Canada believes Cruz is a citizen is irrelevant. Whether or not Cruz considers himself a Canadian should be relevant to the voters but is not an issue at law. Hypothetically Congress could write a law specifically defining “natural-born citizen” so as to exclude people who have dual citizenship, but they haven’t done so and are unlikely to do so because it gives other countries control over our politics.

    As an analogy, say two North Korean escapees married and had a kid here, and raised the kid to hate North Korean like poison and love America with all his heart, and the kid grew up and became a successful politician. When the kid ran for president, we wouldn’t let North Korea force us to throw him out of the race by saying he’s a North Korean citizen.

    Cruz, of course, was born in Canada. The law applicable at the time made him a citizen at birth and he moved to the United States with his parents when he was … four, I believe. There’s no reason to think he has worrisome loyalties to Canada.

Observation from a lifelong independent voter who is still carefully evaluating the candidates. Some of the commenters here have clearly staked out their choice, which is fine. However if you wish to convince me that your candidate is the best choice, try abstaining from the childish name calling and the juvenile corruptions of candidates’ names. I come to LI for decent analysis which includes many insightful commenters. When you employ name calling and other juvenile epithets, it diminishes any argument you are presenting and makes me think that the candidate’s supporters are idiots. I refuse to be in the idiot/sheep crowds which is why I am an independent voter.

Related to this article, and for you Cruz/Trump supporters, I have very little feel for either candidate as to whether or not he would be a good Commander-in-Chief. I’m a combat veteran so it is an issue (one of many) that I feel both Cruz and Trump have done a poor job of convincing me of their qualifications. Please present a cogent argument for your candidate as to his ability/qualification to be our CiC. Demonstrable actions get more weight. Supporters of other candidates are welcome to chime in though I have zero interest in hearing from Hillary or Bernie supporters.

The Matriarch, Mother Nature, created male and female. She established or administers the rules of evolution. The female chauvinists and transgenders are rebelling against both the matriarchy and patriarchy that have acted to increase or conserve inertia (i.e. natural law) opposing transgender progress.

On the plus side, women infantry officers will at least stop at a gas station and ask for directions.

Your typical male lieutenant would rather kill his entire platoon before that happens.

So there is that.

The Army Achievement Medal. What the Army awards lieutenants who don’t **** up land navigation.

Not that I have any room to brag. The Navy gave me a commendation medal for crossing the Atlantic.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend