It’s an Obama world.
Even the military is changing its rules to make sure that everybody feels good inside and nobody’s feelings are hurt.

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told reporters this week that now that women will be serving on the front lines that the military may have to look at requirements and ask,
“Does it really have to be that high?”
Here is the press briefing on the Women in Service Implementation Plan:

CNS News reported:

Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Thursday that with women now eligible to fill combat roles in the military, commanders must justify why any woman might be excluded – and, if women can’t meet any unit’s standard, the Pentagon will ask: “Does it really have to be that high?”

Dempsey’s comments came at a Pentagon news conference with Defense Sec. Leon Panetta Thursday, announcing the shift in Defense Department policy opening up all combat positions to women…

… Dempsey replied: “No, I wouldn’t put it in terms of operations, Jim. What I would say is that, as we look at the requirements for a spectrum of conflict, not just COIN, counterinsurgency, we really need to have standards that apply across all of those.”

He added: “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”

UPDATE: Allen West disagrees.




Disable Refresh for 30 Days

Cookies and JavaScript must be enabled for your setting to be saved.

Facebook Comments

Disqus Comments

1 2 3 4

  1. “Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high? With the direct combat exclusion provision in place, we never had to have that conversation.”


    You were setting qualifications to weed out the unqualified from a homogenous source.

    What a political ass kisser. He could have said…”Yep. We set it that high because that is what is needed. Meet it and you’re in.”

  2. It’s the silliest question I have heard. Have it to be high standard to sacrifice women to demons?

  3. Does the fool of a General think the enemy will lower their standards? Does he think the laws of physics will change to accommodate a woman who can’t carry a wounded 180 pound man back to safety? How did morons like this ever reach flag level?

  4. Under Obama no standard will be high.

  5. If standards are lowered, then men who meet the new standards but not the old will be called to duty. Yeah, that’ll happen. I can see the establishment of two different standards, one for men and one for women, to ensure a certain percentage of women and men meet the standards.

  6. Will women be subject to the draft now? Will they be subject to INVOLUNTARY assignment to a combat arms position like men are now?

    Let’s lower standards. Everyone meets the same one.
    Of course, evaluations are based upon physical fitness scores too. So, again, women will be at the lowest scores when men exceed the maximums.

    So, then, evals will then be changed so physical fitness is NOT a qualifier.

    And let’s explore how everything else will interact? Will the last person on a hump now need to be politely requested to hurry or will “MOVE YOUR SORRY ASS!” still be acceptable? When women’s bodies begin to break down under the strain of continually patrolling….will there be lawsuits because the “military should have known?”

    This a a major cluster f##k.

    And I say, MORE POWER TO THEM! Because stupid should hurt and the the only way to get this changed is for the American people to feel the pain of their choices. And the people voted for this.

    Time to put your daughters on draft notice.

  7. We must sacrifice our brave soldiers on the altar of Political Correctness.
    It is for the good of the Collective. //////

    It makes me ill thinking about it.

  8. The same Democrats:

    “Do we really have to teach black people to read and write? I mean, come on, man! They’re subhuman and cannot learn to speak and enunciate and elaborate with words that Mychal Massie was using when he was TEN YEARS OLD.”

    This is the same as that. No less. No more.

  9. Michael Savage describes people like Dempsey as “political generals.” This guy doesn’t have a clue and is little more than a suckup, like Panetta, to Obama and the liberal Democrat elites who are now all hell-bent on radically transforming our once great society, and if making cannon fodder out of little girls is called for to accomplish this, then so be it. Been there, done that as an Infantry officer myself. Yep, you will lower the standards. What was YOUR PT Test Score Dempsey?? You wimp! I can imagine what Panetta’s was–or would have been if he ever took it! This current leadership is itself a threat to our national security.

  10. We have to lower the “bar”. In all cases. “Social Justice” is all about outcome, not input.

    We’re all Soviets now.

  11. For every one female that deserves a place at the tip of the spear there are probably a couple of thousand who don’t. They will be allowed to slide and when the lead starts flying they will be sacrificed on the altar of Progressiveness. That means there are thousands of little girls growing up right now who are being sentenced to rape, mutilation and death by this line of reasoning. It’s not their fault but because of their genes they don’t stand a snowball’s chance in Hell in combat. Lying about it changes nothing.

    Hug your daughters and granddaughters.

  12. I watch a lot of war porn and documentaries on soldiers. I’ve seen numerous examples of soldiers being severely injured in combat and their fellow soldiers having to carry them hundreds of yards to safety. Sometimes in ditches full of water and mud. Sometimes over huge mud walls. This is no place for females (or weak males). Frankly, I don’t think the requirements for getting into the military are high enough. The idea that they should be lowered even more than they already have is criminally irresponsible. The military already has way too much affirmative action as it is. We should be removing it. Not adding more.

  13. Awards (Wikipedia)

    1966 – Army Commendation Medal

    Leon Panetta

    Just as I thought. No wonder they have no trouble in lowering the standards!

  14. “Women in Service Implementation Plan”

    Yes, that is a key part of the overall Women In Military Plan.

  15. When did Army generals start wearing that ridiculous uniform? All that gold looks like it belongs on a Broadway stage. Or on a tinpot dictator.

    Women belong in combat. All of them. No conversation necessary, General. Any chance they will bring back the draft? Take my wife. Please.

  16. I am female and this is just embarrasing. If I, or any other woman can’t meet the same standards men do then either work until I can, or I’m out.

    This is no different than dumbing down employment tests because not enough minorities are passing.

    And it always seems the same group of women, who whine about inequality, are the first ones to think they should lower the standards.

    Well, no thanks. I don’t need somebody’s ” politically correct charity”.

  17. y’knowww, at some point I’d think you’d stop debating the symptoms of the disease and realize that a super-virus is killing the country. They mean to destroy America, y’understand yet?

    DIVORCE now, sooner or later you’ll agree… probably after it’s too late

  18. The filthy left succeeded with the vile “outcome based education” agenda, lowering standards so everyone can feel good and no one gets a decent education. Now they want the same result in national defense.

    What the hell is wrong with leftists? Leftism is truly a mental disorder of some sort.

1 2 3 4


© Copyright 2015, All rights reserved.
Privacy Policy | Terms and Conditions