A Petticoat Military: Comedy in Uniform

The military, once again, puts women into jobs the cannot do–this time, the Army’s Rangers–to advance the careers of political generals–among others, Maj Gen. Scott Miller, who oversees Ranger School. Or what used to be Ranger School.

Writes Susan Keating in People magazine: “A woman will graduate Ranger School,” a general told shocked subordinates this year while preparing for the first females to attend a “gender integrated assessment” of the grueling combat leadership course starting April 20, sources tell People. “At least one will get through.”

And two did, by being given special treatment. Again, a general’s career takes precedence over the good of his troops. An old story.

The Army cheated, says Keating: lowered standards to be politically correct and keep feminists happy. This, as the Army knows, and everyone who has been in combat knows, as well as most people who have been in the field military, is a terrible idea. But the Army exists to keep feminists happy. The services are in the hands of what Dave Hackworth, whom I knew before his death, called the Perfumed Princes. These are peace-time officers more interested in their own advancement than in their troops. Being politicians, not soldiers, they are afraid of women.  They allow the feminists to make fools of their men:


The Army  forces soldiers to wear pregnancy-simulators to teach them empathy–or so say feminists, but clearly the dykes enjoy humiliating the poor suckers. What must the Taliban think?

The public perhaps assumes that officers are honorable, which they are not, that they tell the truth, which they do only when convenient, and that they are interested in military effectiveness. Sure.

I have seen a great deal of the military and know whereof I speak. Having gone to Vietnam in 1967 with the Marines as an Amtrac crewman,  I proved a mediocre warrior but apparently a talented target. I spent a year at Bethesda Naval Hospital and later returned to Southeast Asia as a stringer for Army Times for the last year of that war. This launched me on decades of covering the military for various publications. It was a fairly common career track in those days. Been there, done that.

I was pretty much the grunt’s reporter. I had little use for political officers, which is to say all officers beyond their first tour.  (e.g., if interested, A Broken-Down Dumpster.) For years I was military correspondent for the Washington Times, wrote for Army Times  and Harper’s, wrote a syndicated military column, Soldiering, for Universal Press Syndicate, and so on. So I will say to General Miller, “You can bullshit the fans, but you can’t bullshit the players. You are an embarrassment to the Army and a danger to your men.” 


Aren’t they just adorable? The Army exists to  promote empathy. Attrition is grave as men get out. Officers don’t care. They get paid anyway.

Brig. Gen. Malcom Frost,  chief of the Army’s public affairs office, responded that the story is false—that is, that Keating is lying. She is not. For one thing, while some reporters will grossly bias stories, they do not make up complex stories from whole cloth. Second, friends of mine in military journalism know Keating and vouch for her. Third, what she has written is perfectly consistent with what I have seen, over and over and over, as the brass try to keep feminists happy. Keating is not a liar. General Frost is.


A soldier puts on darling high heels at the orders of a dominatrix–female general, I meant to say. It’s to make them sympathize with women. The Army exists to sympathize with women.

Why do officers put up with this? Because they are—you can’t lapse into the Anglo-Saxon in a polite column, so maybe–female-dominated catamites, moral milquetoasts, or (certainly accurate) politicians. Would they risk their benefits so as not to make a laughing stock of their men? You have got to be kidding.

“Neither Gen. Miller nor Fort Benning responded to questions asking about allegations of altered standards,” says People.

You bet he didn’t respond. I’d love to question him under oath. I dealt with generals and military flacks for years. They embody the attitude of the entire officer corps, which is that the press is the enemy, that right and wrong, truth and falsehood, do not matter, only positive and negative spin.

The PR types have to lie. If a flack  confirmed Keating’s story, he would be calling General Miller a liar, not a career-enhancing move. Anything a flack says should be taken only as an indication of what the command wants you to believe.

OK, to the female Rangers. I don’t remember exactly when the campaign to put women in the combat forces began, but as years went by the push grew. From the beginning, it was fraudulent. At first the services made small, whimpering noises of dissent, and ran tests. (If interested in the subject, read here.) Every experiment failed. The main problem, though not the only one, is that women are weaker, far weaker, than men. This had to be hidden, and was. Standards were lowered and lied about.

Instead of real pushups, women could keep their knees on the ground. Instead of pull-ups, they could hang from the bar with their elbows bent. My friend Kate Aspy, a Harvard grad who enlisted in the Army, called the idea a disaster after going through Army boot. The Navy found women  to be useless at damage control, and then hid the results. Military Medicine, then available only in the Pentagon’s library, noted that women had four times as many training injuries as men, usually sprains and stress fractures. They peed in their pants in jump school. Female medics couldn’t lift stretchers. The officer corps went along with this. Why? Their careers.

Things got positively silly. Female “soldiers” avoided drinking water on field exercises because they were afraid that the men would watch them peeing through TOW sights–which in fact they would have, armies not being genteel; consequently they suffered dehydration. Female helicopter mechanics couldn’t carry their tool boxes. Female troops in Afghanistan suffered skeletal damage because their joints are lightly built and they can’t handle the weight of a combat load. Always–always–when there was heavy physical work to do, the men did it and the women watched. They couldn’t lift crates of 81 mm mortar rounds, much less unload a six-by under fire. On and on and on.

The sexual problems were endless. I encountered scandal after scandal. Enlisted male instructors used their rank to take advantage of females under them, so to speak. A squad of thirteen men worked together as a team, but add a female and they all began trying to get into her pants–which women frequently used. A general in the Pentagon told me that he wouldn’t allow a woman in his office unless the door was open and a witness was present: If she claimed he harassed her, he was in trouble. (The editor of a major newspaper once told me the same thing.

Why do alleged warriors cave to any feminist they meet? Here is an essential  rule for understanding the military.

Officers often have physical courage, but they never have moral courage.

If they do, they are quickly kicked out by a Darwinian selection with fangs. They come up through a system requiring absolute obedience and loyalty to the group. They think what they are told to think. More accurately, they don’t–they can see what is happening–but know better than to say it.


Girls enjoy a good laugh while feminizing what looks like a soldier. Roll over. Bark. Beg. They don’t even need riding crops. Hey, it’s not a job. It’s an adventure.

Comments are closed.