Quantcast
Opinion

Letter: It's good to foster equality and opportunity in the military, but victory is paramount

Comments

Return To Article
  • Res Novae Ashburn, VA
    Jan. 28, 2013 4:08 a.m.

    Does this mean that women need to register with the Selective Service and be eligible for the draft? Otherwise I feel discriminated agianst!

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 8:54 a.m.

    Right on... We haven't won a war since the WW II conclusion in Japan. What we have for leaders in the Military are a bunch of politically appointed "yes men".
    Generals the like of Patton or MacArthur are ahcient history. Admirals the likes of Burke and Nimitz can't be found. If we were truly supporting our men/women in univorm, we would be electing people to high office that would only use them for defense and then give them the tools to "win" the argument decisively!

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Jan. 28, 2013 8:59 a.m.

    We could save thousands of lives, male and female, by only engaging in wars that remove a REAL threat to our country or, in some circumstances, to its allies. The substitute for victory? - Staying out of certain conflicts altogether.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    We should have started learning at about the time of the Korean conflict that the concept of 'winning' a war was changing. Yet somehow we still expected the hollywood outcome in Iraq, and it didn't happen. I think women in military can bring it when it comes to combat. I hope they can also bring some smarts and realistic expectations, too. That way we can either stay out of these stupid skirmishes, or know what the outcome is when we jump into a quagmire.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 9:49 a.m.

    For me, the sad part is the attitude of military officers that promotion and power are more important than the mere defense of our nation. One of the reasons given for women wanting to serve in combat was the requirement that promotion to higher military positions required it.

    Actually I can’t think of any reason for anyone wanting to serve in combat for other than ulterior motives.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Jan. 28, 2013 9:58 a.m.

    "There is no substitute for victory."

    Does anyone even know what constitutes "victory"?

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 9:59 a.m.

    Women have been serving in "combat" roles for years; they have just never received the the career advancement credits nor the benefits for doing so. This is not your grandfather's war; "front lines" are very different than what you see in WWII movies.

    As far as putting something else ahead of "equality and opportunity," what else, exactly, would we possibly be fighting for?

  • Eric Samuelsen Provo, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    GZE is right; women have already been serving in combat roles. This is frankly kind of a minor change.

  • lost in DC West Jordan, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 10:33 a.m.

    whether it's economics or military matters, liberals do not care about victory, they only care about us all being equal. If that means equally poor and miserable and under the rule of some foreign power, so be it, just so long as we are all equal (except for the liberal elite, who know SOOOOO much better than the rest of us)

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 10:38 a.m.

    Didn't we just have this discussion a year about about gay men only for absolutely nothing negative to come out of letting them serve openly?

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 11:16 a.m.

    I am not sure where the letter writer and many of the posters have been for the last 50 years but not only has this been an ongoing discussion for a very long time, there has also been a substantial amount of research on the subject. A quick google search would have rendered this letter unnecessary. I started with Dr waggeners research on the subject for the Army but feel free to start where you would like since it is better to get informed later then never.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 11:18 a.m.

    @lost

    That chip getting heavy yet?

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 28, 2013 12:35 p.m.

    I heard this the other day, and wonder what your opinion is.

    Is the American public ready to deal with having their daughters captured and gang raped for weeks on end?

    If US journalists covering the "peaceful" demonstrations in Egypt were raped, what will happen when our enemies get their hands on female soldiers?

  • Maudine SLC, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 12:38 p.m.

    A failure on your part to perform due diligence regarding a subject does not render the research on said subject moot.

    Additionally, a failure in your part to look at reality instead of feasting on sour grapes, does not change reality nor does it validate your point.

  • Dart-02 SLC, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 1:14 p.m.

    @GZE
    Do you know what the front lines are? A vehicle patrol on the front lines is one thing, and it does entail danger, and yes women have fought in our current wars, but to say that our frontline Infantry has not fought similar fights to our fathers and grandfathers is an insult. It may not be on the same scale number wise, but the house to house fighting in Fallujah or Ramadi were no walk in the park (at least our grandfathers were allowed to use flamethrowers to clear bunkers and tunnels - they could have been quite useful in Fallujah). Infantryman humping the mountains of Afghanistan carrying all their equipment(weapons, body armor, ammo, food, water, communications equipment, gps, spare barrels, first aid kit, and any other material the mission requires), have to be in extremely good physical condition and have the necessary strength and mindset to do so. You don't know what future wars we may fight and it is true that the decisions were made with politics in mind and not our ability to win battles.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 1:31 p.m.

    America has over 30,000 troops in S. Korea since the 1950's.

    Today is 2013.

    We occupied Iraq for over a decade with no tangible results.

    Still in Afhganistan.

    The concept of 'victory' in this story is based on a false premise.

    Allowing blacks, gays and now service women into the military, did not change that.

  • ProSteve Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 2:39 p.m.

    It is a victory if we can avoid conflict altogether. War often times doesn't determine who is right......only who is left.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 2:53 p.m.

    Dart,

    No one is suggeting that anyone without the "necessary strength and mindset" be permitted to do anything.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 28, 2013 2:56 p.m.

    ‘Letter: It's good to foster equality and opportunity in the military, but victory is paramount’

    ========

    Steve Fillerup should go watch the movie "Lincoln".

    The first scene involves 2 soldiers addressing the President about Vitory and equality and opportutnity while serving valiantly in the Unions Army.

    They dreamed of their people one day becoming Sergants in 10 years,
    Officers in 40 years,
    Elected officials in 75 years,
    and maybe even President of the United States in 150 years.

    Women have been serving in combat roles for 65 years.
    I know - I served with them when I was in the Military.

    Military service is 100% voluntary service.
    Combat roles are 100% voluntary as well.

    It's about time we allow equal opportunity.

    Unless you in the Military,
    or are a woman -- you really have no voice in the matter.
    Since it doesn't concern YOU.

  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 3:14 p.m.

    @Redshirt1701
    "Is the American public ready to deal with having their daughters captured and gang raped for weeks on end?"

    No, but since when was the American public ready to deal with having their sons murdered or tortured for weeks on end? In the end though, these soldiers, male and female, are volunteering to serve their country despite the risks to themselves. It's their decision, not mine. I'll just support them having the equipment they need, decent pay while they serve, decent veterans care, and by opposing the use of our soldiers in unnecessary wars.

  • Open Minded Mormon Everett, 00
    Jan. 28, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    Q: What is the Republican definition of Military Victory?

    A: Waving a banner saying "Mission Accomplished".

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 3:19 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: So because some men don't know how to behave properly, we should take choice from women?

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 3:46 p.m.

    To "Tolstoy" what do you expect when we are fighting enemies that view us as inhuman, and not deserving of any sort of decency?

    Again, if a US reporter can be gang raped during a peaceful protest, what will happen when militants get ahold of our female soldiers?

    To "atl134" as a society, we are more prepared to see and hear of our male soldiers being tortured and killed.

    If you want our soldiers to be properly equiped, why are you allowing Obama to cut our funding to the military?

  • airnaut Everett, 00
    Jan. 28, 2013 3:47 p.m.

    Perhaps if more Neo-Cons who never served in the military had actually "manned" up,
    then women wouldn't have needed to fill in the void?

    Am I right? Mr. Fillerup, Mr. Bender, RedShirt, Mike Richards, Mountanman, JThompson, patriot, LWhite, lost in DC, ect.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 4:10 p.m.

    Is it possible for you to consider that the reason we have our military spread all over the world is for the same reason Utah would not like Hill Air Base to close? Is it possible that our military is simply an extension of the commercial greed of capitalism?

  • Tolstoy salt lake, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 5:21 p.m.

    @ Redshirt: "... why are you allowing Obama to cut our funding to the military?"

    Because we don't need horses anymore?

    Top military officials have publicly stated that there are many things being funded that they do not need or want and that do nothing to make our military safer. Those things can be cut - thereby cutting military spending - with no adverse effects on soldier readiness or safety.

    And I have read your comments - you are in no position to be casting aspersions on anyone else.

    Not only is your comment the casting of aspersions, it is a deflection and not an answer to my question. I will ask it again and frame it more fully. Do we, as a society, have the right to remove the choice from women to serve in combat roles in the military because they may be mistreated? As a follow-up question, since women are already in the military and since, as you comment, civilian women are not safe, do you really think not allowing them the choice to serve in combat roles keeps them safe?

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 7:14 p.m.

    RedShirt To "Tolstoy" what do you expect when we are fighting enemies that view us as inhuman, and not deserving of any sort of decency?

    You mean like urinating on corpses? If your honest their are bad folks on both side of the line.

    I agree with airnaut, The boldest defenders of war never seem to do the fighting.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 28, 2013 7:42 p.m.

    I served in South Korea.

    We are still there.

    When I went into Basic Training, there was a lovely young lady who was very effeminate...

    who could do more push up than any man in my company.

    FYI? That's almost 200 men.

  • Noodlekaboodle Poplar Grove, UT
    Jan. 29, 2013 8:26 a.m.

    The only difference between now and before is women in combat actually get credit for the combat duties they already performed. Nothing to see here.

  • Redshirt1701 Deep Space 9, Ut
    Jan. 29, 2013 8:35 a.m.

    To "Tolstoy" I hate to break it to you, but horses only recently returned to the US armed forces as a result of the war in Afghanistan. The horses have been quite useful at hauling equipment into areas without roads. By getting rid of horses, you are putting people's lives at risk.

    There are more reasons than just mistreatment. You also have the propensity of lowering the requirements for specific jobs, and I have even heard arguments about the damage to soldier moral as the women in a unit avoid deployment by getting pregnant.

  • Pagan Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 29, 2013 10:40 a.m.

    You also have the propensity of lowering the requirements for specific jobs, and I have even heard arguments about the damage to soldier moral....

    Propensity.

    That's alot like say...

    you do NOT have any evidence or facts.

    FYI? The claim that 'damage to moral'?

    Was also used as more fiction when black and gay Americans wanted to serve our country.

    What happened?

    Nothing.

    As per the Pentagon study released in 11/30/10.

    Facts only, please.

  • DougS Oakley, UT
    Jan. 29, 2013 1:37 p.m.

    @ Joe Blow.. If you don't know the meaning of "victory", you have never played chess, checkers, poker, or any other game where the "winner" is Obvious. Either than, or your vocabulary is very limited. Your comment is akin to Obama questioning the meaning of "the" in an amendment to the constitution.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Jan. 29, 2013 3:27 p.m.

    DougS
    Oakley, UT
    @ Joe Blow.. If you don't know the meaning of "victory", you have never played chess, checkers, poker, or any other game where the "winner" is Obvious. Either than, or your vocabulary is very limited. Your comment is akin to Obama questioning the meaning of "the" in an amendment to the constitution.

    1:37 p.m. Jan. 29, 2013

    ===========

    or like questioning Bush's aircraft acrrier landing with ballons and parades, and a banner stating; "Mission Accomplished" declaring victory or winner

    vs.

    Obama's "Osama bin Laden is dead" announcement, turning about face and quietly walking away from the podium.

  • 1covey Salt Lake City, UT
    Jan. 30, 2013 5:48 p.m.

    "since when was was the American people ready to have their sons murdered..." Since the beginning of our country, the man was expected to bear the brunt of the brutality of war. Civilization demands the protection of women, but our modern society has been failing to do so in the name of progress and putting women in war zones is a continuation.