On January 24, 2013, the Obama Administration set out on a determined, incremental path to impose unprecedented social burdens on our military that will weaken combat capabilities, and will eventually result in Selective Service obligations for young civilian women. 

Anticipating that the administration would announce something radical within hours of President Obama's second Inauguration, CMR published a detailed 42-page CMR Special Report analyzing the Marine Corps' research project on women in land combat.  That report presents information not published previously, and raises questions about the administration's pressures on the Marines to embrace the women-in-combat agenda:

• Jan. 21:  Washington Times, Donnelly: Measuring Risks for Women in Combat
• CMR Special Report: Department "Diversity" Push for Women in Land Combat

CMR took the lead in debunking often-stated misinformation, such as the notion that women could be integrated into all-male infantry, armor, artillery, and Special Operations Forces without standards being lowered:

• Seven Reasons Why Women in Combat Diversity Will Degrade Tough Training Standards

Before and after a Pentagon news conference featuring lame-duck Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey, strong opposition began to emerge in a number of surprising venues.  The following articles, published in January, 2013, include a wealth of common sense and experiences that should have been taken into consideration before the Panetta's parting shot on his way out the door. 

Commentaries & News: Weeks of January 24-31, 2013

Jan. 23:  Wall Street Journal: Ryan Smith: The Reality That Awaits Women in Combat

Jan. 23:  David A. Patten: Ex-SEAL Zinke: Nearly Certain Women in Combat Will Cost Lives

Jan. 24:  William Kristol, Weekly Standard: No Better Critics

Excerpt: "But it is a question. It deserves to be debated. And one good thing about America is that it has lots of rebels against authority and lots of citizens who see through ideology. So there is a debate, and it's coming from the ground up. Republican elites may be intimidated, hoping they can avoid being accused of being a part of a war on women by timidly acquiescing to sending women off to war. But the public is made of sterner stuff."

Jan. 24:  Jed Babbin, American Spectator: The Blood-Smeared Glass Ceiling

Jan. 24:  Lt. Gen. Jerry Boykin, USA (Ret.), USA Today: Combat Shift Ignores Gender Realities

Jan. 24:  Washington Times: Chumley: Casting Doubt on Female Fighters

Jan. 24:  Frank Gaffney: Destroying the US Military From Within

Jan. 24:  Conservative HQ: Elaine Donnelly Has It Right: Obama's Women in Combat Plan Dangerous

Jan. 24   Douglas Ernst, Washington Times, A View From the Infantry

Excerpt: "While the degree to which sexual shenanigans detract from the overall mission may be negligible in support units, it would be absolutely devastating for the light infantryman. The nation’s front-line warriors have enough to worry about; they should not have to deal with the surprises that pop out of Pandora’s Box forced upon them by social engineers."

Jan. 25:  Military.com: Panetta: Women May be Included in Future Draft

Jan. 25:  Kathleen Parker, Washington Post: Combat Puts Women at Greater Risk

Jan. 25:  Heather MacDonald, Chicago Tribune: Wrong on Female Warriors

Jan. 25:  FrontLine: The Diversity Cult's Attack on the Military

Jan. 25:   Washington Times: General Dempsey Hints: Bar Likely Lowered in Combat Arms

Jan. 25:  National Review Online Editors: Sex and Violence

Excerpt: "The administration has promised that there will be no reduction of physical standards to accommodate women in combat roles, but that promise almost certainly is false — and Senator McCain, who has endorsed the move, should know better than to pretend otherwise." 

Jan. 25   Mark Davis, Townhall, Military and Society Threatened by Women in Combat

Jan. 26   Margaret Wente, Toronto Globe & Mail, Women in Combat - Let's Get Real

Jan. 27   Doug Giles, Townhall: Women Serving in Combat Positions is a Batty Idea

Jan. 28:  Politico:  Next Question: Should Women Have to Register for the Draft?

(Quoting Secretary Panetta: “With regards to Selective Service, you know, that’s not our operation,” Panetta said. “I don’t know who the hell controls Selective Service, if you want to know the truth. But, you know, whoever does, they’re going to have to exercise some judgment based on what we just did.”

Jan. 28:  Robert Reilly, Mercator.net: Why Men Fight

Jan. 29:  Jonah Goldberg, Los Angeles Times: Soldier Girl Blues

Jan. 29   Peter Farmer, Family Security Matters, Seeing the Elephant

Jan. 30:  Phyllis Schlafly: Panetta's Cowardly Decision

Jan. 30:  National Public Radio: Adding Women to Selective Service Is Up to Congress

(Interview with Selective Service Director Lawrence Romo, who revealed that Secretary Panetta did not inform him of the policy change announced on January 24.)

Jan. 31:  National Review Online Editors: AWOL Republicans

Jan. 31:  Independent Women's Forum: "Dempsey, Yeah, We May Have to Change Physical Standards"

Jan. 31:  Weekly Standard: Government Report: Women in Combat Will Cost Money

Jan. 28:  Ryan Willard, Washington Free Beacon:               

"Lowering Standards − Gender-Neutral Standards Typically Mean Lower Standards"

Related Topics of Interest:

• Jan. 8:    Reuters: Nearly 75% Navy Pregnancies Unplanned
• Jan. 21:  AP: Sex is Major Reason Military Commanders Are Fired
• Jan. 24:  Inhofe suggests he’ll try to block women from some combat positions
• Jan. 27:  New York Times: Obama on Football and Contemplating a Death On the Field

(Irony: Parents should consider the physical impact of football on boys -- But it's OK to send less-prepared daughters into direct ground combat)

More articles were published in February, which are posted separately.

 * * * * * * *