Friday, June 03, 2005

Women In Combat-What Happened In The '90's?

The American Thinker:Another Clinton legacy - Douglas Hanson

Found this information very telling. Douglas Hanson does a great job of explaining how this all came about:
<....>Regardless of what one thinks about women in combat, the bottom line is that Congress has had legal restrictions on women in units that directly support combat operations since the early 90s, and the Inside-the-Beltway Army has been busy trying to circumvent those restrictions. Even Max Boot, a knowledgeable and sensible commentator, makes the unfounded assertion that Rummy’s generals somehow caused the problem, ostensibly because they decided to reorganize into modular and operationally agile Units of Action. Boot is simply wrong.

In reality, this farce has its genesis in the Clinton administration, where the pressures of excessive troop cutbacks resulted in a shell game approach to eek out every last dollar for the military services from budgets drastically cut to produce the so-called “peace dividend.”

Go read the article for the details of how this developed.

But I have to end with this little bit:
In one of life’s great coincidences, a political mover and shaker from the 90s who promoted an increased role for women in the military has stepped forward to stop any effort to further restrict assignment of women in combat zones. Senator Hillary Clinton stated that she,
…would try to put the Senate on record opposing further restrictions on military rules regarding female soldiers.

Now that the Army has no choice but to send women to the front in supply and support roles, given manpower shortfalls that originated during her husband’s administration, the junior Senator from New York proudly rides to the rescue to take political advantage of a serious military policy situation.

WWW MyView