About the Author
Opinion Archives
E-mail Scott
Scott's Links

Women in combat, revisited

By Scott Tibbs, February 8, 2013

It is sad that the Obama regime's unilateral decision to lift the military's ban on women in combat has produced so little opposition, especially from Republicans in Congress. The Obama regime is making a fundamental change to our military that will damage military readiness and make us a lot less civil as a nation with almost no real opposition. It is sadder still that a majority of the public supports this barbaric decision.

There are a number of excuses used for this policy, none of which are valid reasons to send women to war.

Yes, women have been serving in combat in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade now, because these are nontraditional conflicts against an insurgency where the concept of a "front line" does not exist. This should never have happened. The Bush administration was foolish to allow women to serve combat missions and that foolishness has led to more support for Obama's barbarism. George W. Bush's foolishness should not be a reason to expand the foolishness further.

Commenters on HeraldTimesOnline.com objected to my use of Scripture as a justification to protect women from the horrors of combat, accusing me of advocating for a "theocracy." This is silly. Many of our laws are already based on Biblical principles. That's why most states do not allow same-sex marriage and why we do not allow polygamy. Laws against murder, perjury and theft are based in the Ten Commandments. Simply because many of our laws are based on Biblical principles does not mean we have a "theocracy."

In my letter to the editor, I cited Judges 19-20 as an example of men protecting women. These chapters are an account of the nation of Israel going to war with the tribe of Benjamin after the Benjamites would not turn over the wicked men who gang raped and murdered a man's concubine so the "sons of Belial" could be put to death.

It is true that the man gave his concubine to the mob so he himself would not be gang raped by them - and this cowardly act was a terribly wicked and evil thing to do. Many times in Scripture, wickedness and righteousness exist cheek by jowl, and the man's wickedness in sacrificing his concubine to save his own skin does not negate the righteousness of the Israelites in seeking justice for the murdered woman.

Implementing foolish egalitarianism in the military does not limit anyone's freedom. No one is denied the right to vote, worship, own firearms or any other protection in our Constitution or our system of laws by keeping the ban on women in combat. Serving in the military - and especially serving in combat - is not a "right." It is right and proper for the civilian leadership to set standards for the military as well as be compassionate and prudent in military policy.

One of my favorite arguments is the foolishness that I should accept the barbaric policy of women in combat so I am not "left behind" as society moves forward. The basic assumption of this argument is that we should simply go along to get along whenever society changes, so that we are not stuck in the past. So if human sacrifice or cannibalism is normalized, should people who oppose it today drop their opposition in the name of progress? No. That would be stupid.

The Obama regime is not even pretending this barbaric policy is about improving military readiness or capability. This is political correctness for its own sake, nothing more. In a culture that has already been coarsened so much, allowing women to serve in combat - and experience the inevitable horrors that will come when women are captured and brutalized by our enemies - will only degrade us further. Christians need to say "no" to this policy.