Is Our Military Still the Best in the World?

By Joe Ragonese

Can our armed forces defeat China or Russia on the battle field?  To answer that question we must first know when this confrontation will occur.  If a battle began within the next four to six months, America would win.  A year or more from today; however, will be entirely different.  America’s armed forces are charging head long into a non-retractable inferior position; and this is under ‘Mad Dog’ Mattis and President Trump.

The problem is the feminization of the military. Popular culture would have us believe that a 125 pound ‘tough’ girl, in a mini skirt and high heels, can overpower any 250 pound body-builder type male with a few well placed kicks and a chop here and there.  Popular culture; however, is no where near reality.  For 36 years as a policeman, I saw the results of 145 pound men who hospitalized 200 pound women, with ease and without building up a sweat.

Men’s muscles, especially upper body muscles, are much more developed and toned toward violent usage than even women who work out with heavy weights.  No matter what popular culture tries to have us believe, women, generally, are weaker than men.

That weakness does not stop with muscular development, it continues with mental strength.  Women do not think like men.  What is important to men often holds no interest for women.  While both men and women may wish a strong military, only men have the muscular and mental strength to forward that position.

This mental strength only applies to war fighting, and a few other specific areas, as women are equal to, or superior, in other areas of mental toughness.  It is how God designed men and women, each with strengths that augment the other’s weaknesses.  It is how mankind grew and prospered, and how civilizations developed.

Women’s service is important and productive, but it is also counter to the ultimate goals of the military; war fighting.  Wars are said to be won through logistical supply lines, which is a great place for women in the service; however, a study of wars plainly demonstrates that wars are won, or lost, on the field of battle; aka grunts facing off against opposing grunts.

During our Civil War, Gettysburg changed the outcome of the war in the East.  In World War II, D-Day brought about the end of Germany.  In Korea, our tenacity at Pork Chop Hill led to a cease fire, in Vietnam the airmen of Linebacker II brought the Vietnamese back to the negotiation table, in Gulf War I, the twin tank battles at Medina Ridge and 73 Easting put to rest the hopes for the ‘Mother of all Wars’, and the tenacity of soldiers and Marines at Fallujah, Iraq, set the stage for the successful surge that could have ended our Iraq incursion successfully, if not for a new, weak President.

Every one of these battles had one thing in common, not logistics, not generalship, not intelligence, or support, it was the performance of the individual solider, from buck Private to Captain; those company grade, or lower, on the battlefield.  The outcome of each battle relied on the individual efforts of the fighting men involved, which used up all their reserves of both physical ability, and mental desire to win.

Note, there were no women; had there been, chances are good that the outcomes would have been different.  Why, you may ask, because women are different than men.  While a woman has just passed the Marine Infantry Officers qualification, on her third try, it does not mean that she is either mentally or physically fit for the duties.  She was passed because our feckless military leaders are more into diversity than battlefield victory.

That lack of moral courage will cost us our worldwide military dominance only a few short years from now.  Our dominance is already suffering; do you think Russia fighters would buzz our aircraft in international airspace, or China would challenge our Navy in the South China Sea under President Reagan with the greatest military in the world?  They knew our resolve, our ability to defeat them, and our willingness to respond when challenged then.

Today, they no longer fear us.  That is a bad thing.  Why, because we are integrating women into our combat arms.  Russia and China tried it in the past, and learned, the hard way, that it was a bad practice that corroded their combat arms.  They watch as our military is degraded by diversity and political correctness, and our new champion, President Trump, allows it to continue.  It is a sign of our weakness when the MSM proudly proclaims, and our Army pays for, gender reassignment surgery for a gender dysphoric solider, in spite of the President’s order to stop transgenders from service.  It is proof to the world of the downfall of our military resolve, order and a breakdown of discipline.

So what makes integration of women into the combat arms so bad, many may still ask?  The U.S. Marine Corps conducted a rather lengthy and expensive study that found that all female or integrated combat arms units performed at less than 70 percent of all male formations.  They further found that females were more likely to be injured or sick, and that they were more likely to fail at mission completion than all male units.  In other words, women are not made for combat, mentally or physically.  Utilizing them weakens the entire unit structure.  Having women in the combat arms is like going to war with one hand tied behind your back.

Let’s look back at the battle of Gettysburg and what it took to win.  Gettysburg was won on the staying power of Union forces alone.  While there were so many individual fights in that three day battle, the final fight exemplifies the entire battle.  General Robert E. Lee, commander of the Army of Northern Virginia, ordered Major General George Pickett’s division of 15,000 men to attack the Union center, located on Cemetery Ridge. At the start of the battle, the Union forces consisted of around 7,000 men, and many of those defending units were in the process of reorganizing after engagements that left them grievously decimated from earlier fights in this battle.

As the charge progressed, and when the Southerners were close to victory, small pockets of determined men held in the face of overwhelming odds.  The 8th Ohio Infantry Regiment is a case in point.

They were ahead of other units, not protected by the stone fence as were many, yet this Regiment of 160 determined soldiers turned the left flank, consisting of General Pettigrew’s Alabama men and General Trimble’s Virginians, denying their combined force of over 8,000 men access to the Emmitsburg Road.  Men determined to win, both physically and mentally; they were not going to fall back.  According to the Marine study, women do not show that level of determination; it is not in their DNA and they do not possess enough testosterone to have the aggressiveness for battle men do.

By using women in the combat arms we are insuring the collapse of American dominance on the battlefield.  That weakening of our resolve in war fighting is in the best interest of our enemies and in opposition to the premise of Making America Great Again.

We elected President Trump to ‘Make America Great Again’, but he is not.  Until he rebuilds our broken military, America can never return to its former greatness.  He must, by executive order, remove women from the combat arms, and he must do so now, not later.  Obama allowed women into the combat arms with a whisper to Ash Carter, Trump must shout out to Mattis, and if he fails, as he has done with the transgender order, Mattis must be replaced.

The future of America rests on what President Trump does in the next few months, both with the military and through pressing ahead with economic growth.  To Make America Great Again President Trump will have to multitask, while dodging the most hostile mass media in the history of this nation.  It isn’t an easy job, but he knew what he signed on for.

 

3 comments on “Is Our Military Still the Best in the World?
  1. POTUS has to dodge bullets from every conceivable angle, including well-meaning yet misguided advice from some members of his own family.
    Any woman that elects to serve in combat is ABNORMAL to begin with, that should be Gen. Mattis’ first hint. Get a clue General Mattis.
    There are a multitude of supporting roles that women can ‘man’ in an admirable way, there’s no excuse for not segregating and compartmentalizing forces in every branch of the military, the Air Force being a possible exception.
    It is insane to mix men and women on battleships. Given close quarters for sometimes months on end, distractions and diversions will occur as a force of nature, all of which detract from readiness. Again, women who wish to serve on battleships are NOT NORMAL.
    Speaking as a female, I reject all claims that this policy is misogynistic in any way. It’s basic common sense, and no amount of budget increases or additional inventory will strengthen our military while the unnatural goals of some women allow them to “serve” at the expense of military readiness.

Comments are closed.