In the midst of a presidential run candidates are asked their take on everything from international security to gender parity. With perhaps the hottest- button topical issue in the race as it presently stands- the extent of legal participation of women in military affairs – both these spheres of concern enmesh creating a potential powder keg in a contest that appears to have reached dead-heat in selection of the Republican who will ultimately vie for the position of Commander in Chief.
Meanwhile, the Pentagon has opened the doors to possible revision of key policies involving service-women as they review in think-tanks present procedure and discuss enhancement of opportunity in regards to positions they may serve. If this new wave of reform is fully determined and is made official policy it will authorize female members to serve closer to the front lines and allow them to perform duties that may be on the cusp of combat though not in it itself which technically has yet to occur although military women have been close to such vicinity in both Iraq and Afghanistan.
What the new suggested policies would introduce is the authorization of assignment of female service persons to operate within battalions performing in medics, intelligence, and as police or communications officers. Females would still be restricted from infantry, armor, Special Forces-- in essence front line combat positions. However, if adopted, the policies would be a clear step in the direction of advancement of female service opportunities and an increase in the number of roles they may seek to fill and opens the recruitment to these roles to an additional gender increasing selection.
So why would a frontrunner in the race to win the primaries and represent his party as candidate in pursuit to become the highest public servant find issue with these new policies? Why would the non-support of this potential president toward the proposal put the candidate at risk for public backlash? And who or what groups would be the prime source of such backlash and why?
To gain greater clarity and insight we need to look to present reality.
Rick Santorum has expressed his disapproval to the proposed measures. There is a real backlash. Yet one must look at the source of this backlash, the main being his very opponents running for the same opportunity as Santorum, to represent the Republican Party as their candidate and to subsequently win the presidency. So if his opponents can create a firestorm of criticism coming his way that is positive for them and being some proportion of the population and most especially some females will be against Santorum’s view the political maneuver is performed with mastery meaning virtually undetected. I mean is it a great surprise Santorum is not for the proposal, he is conservative and Christian; he is a Christian conservative- and if asked on truth serum probably would reveal he thinks women belong in the household raising their children and preparing for the return of their husband the breadwinner. Considering fifty percent of women in America choose such a lifestyle and the other half pursue career and advancement such issue automatically creates cleavage.
Yet, for the Pentagon to even consider such shift in policy to me is an indicator it is feasible and can be accomplished. Why limit the authorization of females in these higher positions? Why not expand the future potential paths for the female service person? The individual would still have to prove they are fit for the position, female or otherwise. There is no reason for implementation of quota to be filled. Even if there are no qualified female candidates for a certain role in a battalion then there is no female during that stretch of time fulfilling such role. Yet the authorization of possibility creates prospects of successful implementation either now or at some future time when qualified females will fill the role.
Comments