Women in the Military: Flirting with Disaster

For those of you who see the military services as a corporation of employees pursuing "equality" for women in their careers, then this book is "anti-feminist". If you see the services as a separate entity with its own culture from that of the civilian sector (by its very nature which is prepared to kill people and break things), this book is dead on. Some years ago Mitchell wrote the book's predecessor "Weak Link - The Feminization of the American Military". It has been propetic. In that book he addresses the expensive, logistical problems of women in the service. Recently, the services had to develop and will house cockpits for aircraft because women flyers cannot fit comfortably in the current planes - in essense "his and hers" aircraft. As Mitchell points out, we are the only MAJOR military power that employs women in record numbers. I have been in the army for over 20 years and have seen the changes. I served in Bosnia and worked with some women who were professional and cared for the service. However, I question the survivablity of women I see in the field literally wearing "hair-do's", makeup, and painted nails, while wearing their battle gear and carrying their M16s. Mitchell's books are NOT against women in the service but rather points out the "push" from Washington with the silence from the brass (they will not jeopardize their careers) to fully integrate women in the combat arms.

As someone who was once one of those who was brain-washed by the media and liberal politics into believing women could serve in the armed forces, I can say this book was enlightening. Mitchell has not just blown holes in the feminist theory that women can serve, he throws it into the depths of oblivion. Mitchell has done all his homework on the issue with cold hard facts that shoot down every argument that can be made for women in the military and then some. Particularly good is the chapters on the decimation of the academies, due to the uncanny parallels that I witnessed at The Citadel. I have in fact offered to loan my copy to a couple of staunch feminists I know. They have refused to even read the inside flap. Could they be afraid that their argument for women in the services will evaporate into thin air right before their very eyes? Mitchell leaves no ground for the liberals to stand on the issue of women in the military. A thousand praises for Brian Mitchell!

The sound you hear is the explosion of all the myths put forward by the feminists for increasing the role of women in our military. Mitchell happily hammers away, always keeping the reader focused on the fact that there are no MILITARY reasons (defined as enhancing our ability to defeat our enemies) for women to be in the service at all. He also takes the time to carefully catalogue all the disasters that have resulted from this POLITICAL policy (especially good is the chapter on the destruction of the 174th fighter wing from Syracuse NY by a single disgruntled female pilot). Mitchell has carefully researched all the events and issues that have given us the sorry, feminized military we have today. Someone order copies for the Joint Chiefs.

What's more important when the two following goals are in conflict: Good of the military versus good of women in the military? Mitchell frames his argument explicitly supporting the former. As a current Air Force officer, I agree with Mitchell that, no matter where you stand with regard to women's contribution to military readiness, the military's needs MUST come first. One-armed-men are not allowed to enter Navy SEAL training. Why? Because they can not do the job given their physical limitations. Is this discrimination? You bet it is. Is it necessary to maintain efficiency of our military? You bet it is. Quotes Mitchell in his book, "there is no equal opportunity in war." Feminist proponents of "GI Jane" fantasies like to first pretend that women can do any job that men can do. Hit in the face that this is not the case, their fall back position is that most combat is now of the Nintendo, push-button-only variety. Hit in the face that this is not true either, they simply rest their case on the need for women's advancement, no matter the cost of readiness. To follow their chain of reasoning, one-armed-men deserve the opportunity to advance to the rank of general as much as women do, since being able to do the job is irrelevant. Mitchell makes a good case that we may be close to having feminists admit they feel this way (openly admitting that readiness should be secondary to careers of women in the military), if only because there is no other justification for the widely ranging roles women play in the military today. Other than opportunities for women, there is NO SINGLE SUPPORTABLE REASON for women to be permitted into jobs they are physically incapable of doing. This is why feminists NEVER frame their argument for the inclusion of women into combat positions "because it will help the service" because, no fools they, feminsts know the argument holds no water under a myriad of research studies showing the deleterious effect women have had on readiness. Mitchell shows the dearth of information available on the political left to substantiate a position justifying the need for women in combat, or in the military for that matter. Though he will no doubt be castigated as a misogynistic Nazi, he calmly asks questions that feminists and other far left leaning radicals would rather leave unasked. Bravo to Mister Mitchell; would that general officers in my service lived by one of our three Core Values (USAF)--"Service above self." If we had more, the dead silence regarding the harsh reduction in readiness caused by unthinking incorporation of women into almost all jobs in the military might have been broken, and the weakening of our national defense prevented.

Brian Mitchell's book deserves but, probably won't get the serious attention it deserves, due to its politically incorrect theme. Nevertheless, this book is a compelling and well-written study of a controversial policy which needs to be reviewed top-to-bottom. Once congress required the military to apply civilian "equal protection" standards to jobs in the military, the foundation was laid for an "Allice-in-Wonderland" transformation which got "curiouser and curiouser" the more it was enforced. Mitchell minces no words, and backs up what he says with enough detailed information to convince all but the most hardened that America's incomprehensible move toward androgyny is a mistake of fatal proportions. Highly recommended. A fast and troubling read.