President Obama is dead set on eviscerating our military by pushing women to the frontlines. He isn’t the only one to blame, however—this policy is the product of a naïve culture that blindly embraces government-hosted violence in the name of equal opportunity.
But there is no evidence women are clamoring for ground combat assignments. Worse yet, there is significant reason to believe that women in combat will lead to a wide range of devastating consequences, many unforeseen and unintended by proponents, but no less dangerous.
Pentagon insider Robert L. Maginnis exposes the cold truth behind this contentious topic, debunking barefaced myths about "gender equality" in combat situations in his new book Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat.
Civilian feminists view ground combat as a glass ceiling for women’s equal opportunity. They could not care less about our fighting ability or the threat it poses for women and for the men they serve with.
Women in the U.S. Armed Forces are regularly held to lower training standards than men. That means that when they’re called into active combat situations, they won’t bring the same physical strength and skills training as men do. In training, male Marines are required to lift 40 pounds, while female trainees must only lift 20. If a ship is sinking and the only way to save it is to lift a 40-pound piece of equipment, the female Marines will be less qualified for the task.
On top of this disparity is a looming draft. Security experts foresee another American draft within this generation; if women can serve in combat, every male and female over the age of 18 will be in danger of being called up.
Controversial and starkly factual, Deadly Consequences is a resounding indictment of a policy that is bound to erode not only the American military, but jeopardize American security and society as well.
|Product dimensions:||6.10(w) x 9.10(h) x 1.00(d)|
About the Author
Robert L. Maginnis serves as the Senior Fellow for National Security at Family Research Council (FRC). Maginnis is a Pentagon insider, from 1990-1993 as Inspector General and member of the task force that wrote Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell ; and currently, for more than 10 years, serving as a senior strategist for the Department of the Army, working international issues. Maginnis is a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel, a national security and foreign affairs analyst for radio and television (including Fox News and CNN), a columnist for Human Events and the VP for operations with MESMO Inc.
Table of Contents
Chapter 1 How We Got Here 1
Chapter 2 Why Put Women in Combat? 43
Chapter 3 Myths about Women in Combat? 55
Chapter 4 The Risks of Putting Women in Ground Combat 97
Chapter 5 Hat Should We Do? 163
Conclusion What Kind of Country Are We? 193
Most Helpful Customer Reviews
Mr. Robert Maginnis’s book “Deadly Consequences” is a straight forward military block of instruction on the faulty logic of removing restrictions on women in combat. In a linear and logical discussion Mr. Maginnis provides historical, scientific, empirical data on how he comes to a well informed opinion on the rational for his position; women are not an equal substitute for men on the battlefield in the direct fire mode. His observations and research confirm what is biologically obvious; men are different from women both physically and psychologically. That pretending that they are the same escapes all common sense, denies reality and puts both sexes at greater risk on the battlefield of the future. He argues in his book that somehow equal opportunity for women serving in uniform has been mistakenly transformed into a strictly legal interpretation of total equality. He identifies the root cause of this transformation on feminist agendas devoid of rational thought, an elected populace government who are largely unthinking, and the nation’s top General Officers who are unwilling to risk their careers by publically admitting that killing the enemy, sometimes up close and personal, is not women’s work. In his book Mr. Maginnis does not mince his words. He identifies the problem, he presents his evidence and he provides solutions. I enjoyed the book because prior to reading it, I had not consciously given much thought to the ramifications of recent changes to lifting the restrictions on where and how women will serve in future battlefields. I have served beside women in the Balkan’s, Iraq and Afghanistan and without reservations believe they have a role in future combat operations. However, as “Deadly Consequences” clearly highlights, women in infantry units, Special Forces and direct fire type units are not a combat multiplier, in fact, they are just the opposite. Pursuing a policy to change the restrictions of women serving in those roles is not justifiable in any logical discussion on the topic. Mr. Maginnis and “Deadly Consequences” is more than a wakeup call to this misguided policy change, it is a battle cry.
Women In High Intensity Combat Unsupported By Extensive Studies Retired infantry officer, LtCol Robert Maginnis writes about indisputable facts, studies, and statistics devoid of emotional arguments about why women should not be put into ground combat maneuver units. His logic and facts back his assertions making this a book that will be highly contentious with those who don't wish to be confused with the facts. This issue has been studied extensively over the last forty years by the U.S. and other countries. Another study won't change the facts. Maginnis gives credit and due to the American women who have served in the armed forces in the past. He is not against women serving in the military. He is clearly against putting them on the front lines in conventional, high-intensity, sustained combat for numerous reasons. Maginnis adeptly points-out that there are many in our society who know little, or nothing about military service, much less about service in maneuver arms where soldiers fight in close combat with the enemy. From a high of 412 members of Congress with military service in the late 1970s, we currently have only 106 that have served. The numbers are telling in the absolute ignorance of our military forces by those that make our laws and decisions regarding defense. Much of this is due to the fact that without the draft, many people "learn" about the military by playing computer simulations and watching movies. This does not make for an informed populace and gross stereotypes are engendered by fictional movies like "G.I. Jane" that many citizens take as truth. Additionally, the author cites the misperception by many, including in the military, that COIN is the same as high intensity, conventional combat. Instead, he cautions that the majority of COIN is like heavily armed police work. This is borne-out by the fact that almost half of all U.S. casualties in the last ten years have not been from close combat, but from IEDs. Of course there are many exceptions at the tactical level, --- Ramadi and Falluja stand out --- and "high intensity" for a rifle company is not necessarily the same as "high intensity" for a division in Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, lack of history knowledge is the cause of much of the misconception since so few understand -- much less remember -- the combat of Hue, Chosin, or the Hürtgen Forest. Those battles were common to the experience of hundreds of thousands of G.I.s and Marines who spent months in the line living in squalor. Just the casualties alone indicate that COIN and conventional sustained combat are very different as the Army suffered over 7,024 dead in the Hürtgen battle alone --- more than we have sustained in ten years of counterinsurgency operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Maginnis examines at the results of other armies that have experimented with women in combat maneuver units as well. The British Army's recent tests definitively show that this does not work. The tests flatly show that females lack the physical capabilities to meet the harsh standards requiring brute strength required of combat maneuver arms soldiers. The British dropped the idea. Many cite the Soviet Army's experience in WWII as a positive example of women in combat. However, Maginnis states that if it worked so well, why did the Soviets not continue with that policy after WWII? In fact, the Russian's use of women soldiers today is very restrictive and it is not because they are not interested in egalitarianism. No women served in Soviet post-war combat units and none serve today in the Russian Army combat units. There is a very simple reason and as Maginnis points out, it has everything to do with the lack of their physical capabilities and potential that is limited by nature. Maginnis' book is not a politically correct view but it is based on facts, not emotion and conjecture. The bottom line might be best expressed by Kirsten Scharnberg, a Chicago Tribune reporter who sought to prove her abilities to hang with the troops in OIF I. She prepared extensively to be physically prepared. During the advance on Baghdad she had to relinquish her rucksack to a soldier of the unit in which she was embedded. She could not continue to carry it. “I had run a marathon not long before the war and worked out almost every day. I grew up on an Iowa farm where manual labor was part of the bargain. But … when I handed my load to that soldier, I admitted that I never could have cut it in the Infantry… Not only had I not been able to pull my own weight, I also had potentially put that young soldier at risk.”
Robert L. Maginnis has done a tremendous service to the debate on opening American combat units to women in his new book, Deadly Consequences: How Cowards Are Pushing Women Into Combat. This is a must-read for any woman thinking of joining the military and, indeed, anyone with a daughter, sister, or 18-26-year old female loved one. With clarity, detail and extensive research, Maginnis shows that the arguments being made (by radical feminists, leftist politicians, and politician-like top military brass) in favor of women in combat dismiss and ignore the most important considerations of the problem. While they argue that it is an issue of equality, Maginnis shows why the scientific biological differences between men and women put women at a serious disadvantage on the battlefield, destroy operational standards and military readiness. The policy will further sexualize the military and extinguish the masculine spirit of the combat units and Special Forces – a spirit vital to a strong, winning military. Standards must necessarily be lowered so that more women can “succeed,” while in reality women cannot perform at the level necessary to close with and destroy the enemy. Fifty years of data have proven this, and it continues to be proved today as women wash out of, for example, the Marine Corps infantry officer’s course. Maginnis acknowledges the valuable contributions of women in the military and in our wars past and present. Even so, women are injured twice to four times as much as men, or more. They are leaving deployments at three times the rate of men, and mostly for non-combat-related issues. This is not enhancing our ability to fight, as feminists argue, it’s absolutely destroying it (that is the goal). The toll of putting women into combat units will be taken in greater female casualties, motherless children, psychological turmoil, sexual assaults, and more brutal torture if captured by the enemy than men historically have endured. This, he rightly points out, is the real war on women. Deadly Consequences derides the cowardly politicians and politically motivated military brass who have allowed themselves to be intimidated by feminist bullying and Obama’s leftist agenda (Bush not being much better with regard to military policy) rather than promoting policies that keep readiness and troop welfare the topmost priorities. Through interviews, surveys and more, Maginnis verifies that most military men and women themselves are not in favor. Pushing women into combat units sets everyone up for failure, and the enemy cares nothing for diversity quotas. In fact, he says, they have historically fought more viciously when women are on the battlefield. He takes each oft-cited country that has tried putting women in combat and exposes that they lowered their standards (Canada) , don’t actually put their women at the front (Israel), haven’t had a need for serious military readiness (New Zealand, Norway, Germany) or abandoned the policy altogether (Russia). Perhaps the most powerful insight Deadly Consequences provides is the witness of experienced combat veterans. No one reading the accounts of brutal warfare in places such as Najaf and Korea can dismiss the real bloodshed into which we would be sending our women if we don’t demand that our representatives to oppose this dangerous policy. Maginnis explains the differences in the types of engagements we have faced, contrasting previous wars with the counterinsurgency tactics of Iraq and Afghanistan. He also warns us against assuming the draft will never again be used. Once combat units are open to women, the Supreme Court will necessarily rule excluding women from the draft unconstitutional. Much of the American population has no military experience to inform their opinions on this important issue, making this book even more timely and valuable. Maginnis gives the lie that adding women to combat units reduces sexual assault, the lie that it enhances military readiness, the lie that it benefits the men. None of the arguments for women in combat withstands scrutiny. Deadly Consequences will give the reader a comprehensive yet easy-to-digest understanding of what is at stake if we choose to let these cowards push our women into combat.
“Deadly Consequences, How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat” is that rare, well-researched book that could be a political game changer and shake up the entire national defense establishment. It proves that the Obama administration has co-opted the senior-most levels of the defense establishment to implement policies that will absolutely reduce America’s national defense capability. The author, Robert Maginnis, is a West Point graduate and retired Army Officer who is well positioned inside the Pentagon to have access to the facts and research and know the minds of the senior defense department leadership. He is also now at considerable risk given his book points out failure and collusion at the highest levels of the Pentagon and the administration. On the surface the premise is simple: the rush to assign military women to direct combat positions will degrade, not enhance military capabilities. But the issues are far more complex and hidden from the public. Maginnis has done his homework; he presents a myriad of references to back up his research and conclusions. For example, the military services’ own studies on the physical capabilities of service women—women who are in top physical condition—should have been sufficient to eliminate any desire to place women in direct combat positions. The evidence is there for all to see: the best service women in the peak of their fitness capabilities cannot operate in and therefore should not be subjected to direct combat. Maginnis points out that American women in uniform have distinguished themselves in the military and have performed well in Iraq and Afghanistan. However, they have rarely been subjected to intense, direct combat; and when they were, it was for a very short duration. Despite politicians claims of women already being involved in combat, it is simply not true—dangerously not true. The American public is being deceived and Maginnis is blowing the lid off the deliberate efforts of the administration to fool the American people. Maginnis traces the history of American women in combat and concludes that the modern drive to put women into direct combat operations is social engineering at its best and crudest. Radical feminists (who have no clue about military life and the mud and gore of real combat) have long been forcing their agendas to create a gender-free society. As the military goes, so goes the nation and they have been relentless in eliminating the masculinity of the military and creating one in their twisted vision. The feminists are adamant that women in direct combat roles will actually improve the military’s capabilities, even contributing to the elimination of the current rampant sexual assault of women in the military! This is not only upside-down thinking, it is a blatant lie foisted on America and its young women. The senior military leadership has been beaten into submission and has bought into the lie. Maginnis makes a strong case that the senior military leadership is now heavily penetrated by “cowardly generals.” The radicals would have us believe that unless women are allowed to serve in direct combat roles, they are locked out of the competition for the senior-most leadership positions in the military. They point out that at that level the generals in charge have been in direct combat. Under the guise of “equity” they push on even if it means the degradation of military capability and it will indeed do so. It is a fallacious argument, but one that the senior male military leadership has bought into. They are deceived into believing that the military must be an instrument of social engineering. Congress is guilty of dereliction of duty as Maginnis points out. Congress has the authority to shape the military and halt the madness of forcing women into direct combat roles, but they have been co-opted and/or are asleep at the switch. Maginnis projects the future where the costs of maintaining a ready active force is so burdensome that a return to the draft is a real possibility. The administration’s policy will for the first time open the door to drafting women. Certainly if there are no restriction on women serving, the attorneys will successfully argue for women in the draft. That means women could be forced into direct combat roles whether they want them or not. Such a future hopefully is unacceptable to the American people, yet it looms just over the horizon. Maginnis boldly asks the question, what kind of country sends its women into direct combat? In the final analysis, when all the facts are ignored as they have been so far, hopefully the moral argument will be persuasive. “Part of the meaning of manhood as God created us is the sense of responsibility for the safety and welfare of our women.” Men are hardwired to do so and no number of feminists with arguments of “equity” can change genetics. Those who promote women in direct combat are in fact the true cowards. This is not just a book that condemns the current policy and points out the deadly consequences if those policies are to continue. Maginnis backs up his message with the research of other countries as well as our own. Most importantly, Maginnis shows us how to reverse the Obama Administration’s plan by first exposing the truth and then moving to action lest the madness destroys our military fighting effectiveness. His recommendations are flawless. Every member of Congress needs to have this book on their desk now and heed its facts and warning. If they do not, America will indeed reap deadly consequences. Like Maginnis, I am a retired Army Lieutenant Colonel with combat experience. I am proud of my grandson who is getting a free education through an ROTC scholarship at a university. My granddaughter, who is quite athletic and intelligent, will never receive my recommendation to pursue a commission in a military led by cowardly generals under the delusion that women can and should be placed in direct combat.
This well-written, well researched book cuts through all the political correctness and points out the truths that most people have intuitively known all along. Maginnis does not offer a catalog of opinions, but documented evidence to make his case. It is a fascinating read. I could not put it down.
This is a must-read, eye-opening book for anyone inclined to believe that it makes sense to include women in front-line combat units. Colonel Maginnis comprehensively addresses the issue. In addition to the inclusion of well-documented studies that highlight the innate physiological and psychological differences between men and women, the book includes interviews of combat veterans who share horrific personal accounts of the demands and realities of front-line combat. Even though these veterans see the idea of including women in combat units as an affront to common sense, the book shows how politically empowered radical agendas have come to trump common sense. The book effectively addresses the dangerous consequences of this policy, the foremost of which is crippling the military’s ability to protect the nation, but also the inevitable reality that in following this path we will end up with women becoming POWs under the control of, as the Colonel puts it, “some of the world’s most depraved misogynists.” Do we really want to go down this path? The book laments that we lack leaders of integrity who will do what’s right, and put the welfare of the nation, and the nation’s women, ahead of political pressure and career. The case is made that the policy needs to be reconsidered, and the Colonel provides suggestions for Congress with the hope that it will meet its responsibilities and confront this.