PC World

Rick Santorum raised very rational objections to the Pentagon's plan to open up more positions in the military to women. Predictably, he is facing a barrage of criticism from those who are always eager to pounce on anyone who dares to question liberal dogma.

From MSNBC:

The U.S. military wants to open thousands of jobs that could put more women on the front lines of combat, a move Rick Santorum believes could compromise missions.

“When you have men and women together in combat, I think men have emotions when you see a woman in harm’s way,’’ Santorum told TODAY’s Ann Curry Friday. “I think it’s something that’s natural that’s very much in our culture to be protective. That was my concern, and I think that’s a concern with all the military.’’

The orders from the Pentagon issued Thursday — ending restrictions that prevent women from taking certain military positions once considered dangerous —will take effect in 30 works days if Congress offers no opposition.

Santorum cited the Israeli army’s policy of not allowing women on the front lines of combat to support his stance. On CNN Thursday, he said that having women serve in combat was “not in the best interests of men, women or the mission.”

I read an interesting quote from a female veteran who complained that the Pentagon isn't going far enough with its new rule. She wanted to see all military positions open to women, including, presumably, Special Forces and all combat-related roles. All positions should be open to "qualified women," she declared. This is simply absurd. Physically speaking, women are not capable of the incredibly demanding rigors of Special Forces training, something I know a good deal about thanks to a friend who successfully completed such training. It's not a slight against women to say this, but merely an honest appraisal of the limitations of a woman's natural physical strength. So does the military ease up on, i.e. water down, the intensity of the training, so as to better accommodate women, all in the name of equality? So much for equality in that case, as an adjustment in training would represent an admission of a disparity in physical abilities between men and women. Does blind adherence to political correctness or an ideology so override common sense and, in this case biology, that we're going to ignore reality? That's kind of what liberalism is all about, after all.

You often read testimonies from reflective soldiers who claim that the military taught them how to "be a man." Traditionally, serving in the military has afforded a unique opportunity for the soldier to prove himself as a man. I still think this is the case, but where are we headed?