I just read this article:

Including women in Selective Service could be the best way to prevent unnecessary wars

The author attempts to make the point that apparently once people realize our daughters and young mothers would be subject to the draft, we would rise up in protest against unnecessary wars. She doesn’t say exactly why we would be mad that women could be drafted, and she doesn’t tell us what wars are unnecessary. By using the term “unnecessary wars” she guaranteed that readers would rankle, but I’m not sure she thought through what point she was actually making.

Let me set aside the “unnecessary wars” part for a minute. In order to support this author’s point it requires us to believe that a draft of women would be unpopular because…? She doesn’t say why, but I think she means because as a society we have a deeply held view of what women are – nurturers for one, but also less physically strong – putting women into combat situations through a mandatory draft would be unfair to women because they are the weaker sex and are not equipped on the whole to be in a situation like that. Being in a dirty foxhole living next to death, having to kill as your main function is not a situation we think of a natural made job for a woman.

Then on the other hand, it appears she also supports “combat integration” because she says women have earned it, they are equal, etc. So what came through strongest to me is how her statement completely undermines the decision to put women into combat arms. I think that making women sign up for Selective Service is fair, but I thought it would be fair before we ever talked about combat integration. Now, I think it is absolutely necessary – if women will serve in all positions, there is no further reason not to have them sign up.

So why is the leadership in Washington, DC, hesitating to support this? Because on the one hand they have some fanciful idea that every military women can be some kind of superhuman athlete, but in fact deep down inside they know the inequities between the sexes, and they know that if they forced women to sign up people would revolt against women in combat. They outwardly ignore the differences between the sexes, but when they have to be held to account for how this should logically work, they know they will be exposed for how self-serving they have been. They have done this to be crusaders and SJWs, and want to avoid the consequences of their actions. So long as the entry into combat arms remains voluntary for women, they can continue to remain warriors for equality and women’s rights. If we made this the same for men and women in all ways, the absolute folly of their actions is exposed.

No broad swath of women caught up in a draft will be able to effectively carry out combat missions. It is only a select few that could do the job. Once they are killed in combat, there will be no ready replacements to fill in their spot. The civilian leadership will have shot their wad and they will be exposed for the opportunists that they are, and they will rightfully be blamed for putting women into unnecessary danger.

As far as the unnecessary wars reference – I think the author may secretly be making the case for how stupid combat integration is and simply drawing on people’s predictable reactions to the coarseness of the proposition – we are more ok with sending our sons to die than our daughters. And I think on the whole she is right – it has been culturally acceptable for society to send men into combat – and that presupposition is exactly why we should not have women in combat positions in the first place. All of us with sons are offended that our boys are worth less than girls, so in a sense, this article is able to rile up everyone who would be affected by a draft, not just women. By adding “unnecessary wars,” she draws in the men that would be also be wasted.

Let me try to address “unnecessary wars” directly – a phrase thrown into this article which would guarantee an emotional reaction. We have lost thousands of service members over the last 15 years – our most recent experience with war. On the face of it, it is despicable to imply that they have died in an unnecessary war. But worse, the author just tossed that out there and did nothing to define what wars would be unnecessary.  Just like we have to guess why people would be mad at women being drafted, we also have to make assumptions as to what she means by unnecessary. However, if there are unnecessary wars, this is an exceptionally disturbing thought whether women are drafted or not. In service of a just cause, some sacrifices can be accepted, but if there is an inkling that a war is not fought for the right reasons, this is devastating to families, and to our country, and is probably one of the worst abuses of power imaginable.

The author is unnecessarily careless in making her points, and apparently is also not interested in defending them. I left a comment at the article asking her to clarify some of the things I discuss here, but shortly thereafter all comments on the article disappeared. Currently there is no ability to make any comments. [UPDATE Feb, 6, 2016, 9:18PM: The comments section is now available at the article referenced here, and the author has responded. Please follow this link to see the conversation.]

The author is actually making a case against women in combat whether that was her intent or not. Or she could just have unwittingly stumbled into the liberal talking points about how all wars are to steal the oil and make Halliburton rich. It’s hard to tell, but I for one would welcome any comments.