On target, Mr. Auster. As with immigration, both parties are all wrong about the most important defense issue: who serves, and why.

The feminist/diversity propaganda runs deep. Probably the red-blooded unquestioning American superpatriot’s favorite novelist is Tom Clancy. I can remember reading, probably in about 1986, an overlong pot-boiler he wrote about a NATO/Warsaw Pact WWIII (then a distinct possibility). One of the most prominently featured heroes was a female Nisei F-15 pilot whom Clancy called, if memory serves, Major “Buns” Nakamura, USAF. An affirmative action two-fer, years before the fools in the Pentagon actually put a woman in a fighter cockpit. HRS

I would not be at all surprised if we see more of this type of article - blaming all of the PC leftist nonsense on Clinton administration policies - as the Presidential campaign rolls on towards November. Expect similar assertions regarding judicial appointments, gay marriage, abortion, etc. Rove is no doubt hoping to push all of the conservative hot buttons in an attempt to get out the Republican base. No doubt Rush Limbaugh & Co. will tune up the attack on the leftist agenda of Kerry, with plenty of refernces to the Clintons, in order to scare us into voting for Bush.

It’s a good letter, Mr. Auster. It’s high time the Republicans’ mouthpieces in the conservative press are told that not everyone is so easily fooled. World Net Daily’s Les Kinsolving had a similarly-themed piece over affirmative action last week. (We have liberal democrats to thank for this mess.) I wrote him a letter asking why there had been no criticism of Bush’s actions on the issue, which were every bit as bad as Clinton’s.

One problem is, as I see it, a failure to challenge intellectually the idea of relying on female warriors. Why should they not be promoted as warriors?

Few enjoy being subservient, if given a choice. Males, in our pridefulness, have attempted making equally prideful women subservient, refusing to accept women as equals. We have failed to accept the nurturing qualities of females as equal to our qualities as warriors and as a special kind of analytical thinker. We know women warriors are inappropriate, but we have not accepted their equal value.

A rational long view includes the fact that we all are limited. Instinctively, males respond to females in a protective manner. Females have the slightness, high voice, clear skin, relative physical limits, and charming mannerisms of a child. I don’t see what makes this an evil situation any more than males being unable to bear children and less able to bear pain and to nurture children. What is evil is failing to treat women as we would treat ourselves, which is failing to take pride in their essential but different role. I am leaving the concept of equal out of the discussion because it might be a stumbling block of our own creation. Is the idea of treating others as would treat ourselves related to the concept of equality?

I wonder if women are not in some cases more likely to participate in this kind of behavior, since their training has necessarily consisted of stomping down more of the natural instincts which one ultimately has to rely on to stay morally balanced in extreme situations. And also because the sorts of women attracted to military service are presumably marginal in a way that the men are not.

The primary difference between the parties is that Democrats initiate the really bad policies, while Republicans are merely the ones who are afraid to roll them back later, even if they did not initially support them. This is true on immigration, women in the military, gun control, etc.

This knowledge is enough to keep some conservative voters voting for Republicans, but I find the difference, although real, rather uninspiring.

The 1998 book, Women in the Military: flirting with disaster, by Brian Mitchell is an excellent account of how Republicans have supported the feminization of the military. This CANNOT be blamed on Clinton alone, which the “rah-rah” GOP seems to be trying to do. The book details a number of fiascos, some little publicized, that feminization has caused.

Mitchell’s book shows that Democrats Sam Nunn and John Glenn held out against women in combat for a long time. Republican John McCain was the most eager Senator for rolling the prohibition back.

Mitchell had written a previous book, Weak Link, on the same subject. He was fired from a job at Texaco in 1998, for his writing. I saw him interviewed on the former NET channel in 1998 discussing the book and losing the job at Texaco. On this program, Mitchell said, “We have a cowardly and corrupt Third World Military. The US Military has become a radical feminist organization.” If you don’t like this statement, Mitchell said it, not me.

Which is the greter risk in sexually integrating the military?
That the military will be feminized, or that large numbers of women will be masculinized? If women are supposed to exercise a civilizing influence on men, then is it wise to put women in a situation which in many cases, will uncivilize them? Not to mention the fact that some people believe that, when stripped of civilization, women become even more brutish than men (perhaps to compensate for their lack of physical strength).

I recall the first time I realized how insane feminism really is. I read an interview with the always provocative Mark Helprin, in the course of which he averred that “only a very sick country sends its daughters and sisters to war.”

We are a sick country indeed.