Iran recently humiliated the U.S. and her military. The Obama Administration has sought to downplay the significance of the recent tensions between Iran and the “Great Satan,” as the U.S. is called in Iran. However, the capture and subsequent humiliation of American soldiers is indicative of the kind of Iran which we can expect to fully disregard any and all stipulations within the newly-implemented Iran nuclear deal that provides the despotic Islamic regime with an infusion of cash in exchange for the promise of slowing their development of a nuclear weapon.
A group of ten American sailors who were reportedly traveling in two vessels between Kuwait and Bahrain reportedly encountered mechanical difficulties. They were captured as prisoners of war and held by the Iranian regime and forced to apologize to Iran for their supposed crime of having accidentally drifted into Iranian waters.
While the pathetic images of the initial capture and the subsequent forced apology by the soldiers should haunt each and every American, one of the saddest aspects of the ordeal was the media’s reaction to it. Unwilling to shine a light on the pathetic position the Obama Administration has carved-out for America on the world stage, the media conspicuously neglected to note that these kinds of shenanigans by Iran simply would never happen if they were dealing with an American military might preserved under previous leaders like Ronald Reagan.
With our “one world” president at the wheel, it’s clear that Iran need not fear American reprisal any more than a cat should fear a buzzing fly.
Further, how the media dealt with the lone female soldier in the group speaks volumes about the modern state of true equality. Nine of the ten soldiers were male, but the lone female of the group received a disproportionate amount of attention for having been captured.
Nearly every news report offered the separated explanation, some variation of: “Ten soldiers were captured. Among them, a female forced to wear a hijab by her Iranian captors.”
Why? If all soldiers are soldiers, should we care who has what plumbing? Should we view the issue as more emergent because a female is in the hands of these savages? For decades, we have been hearing incessant complaints about U.S. military policy that has sought to keep women out of combat roles out of fear of putting them in a position to be captured. The militant cries of modern feminists have demanded an end to this policy and as we end this practice, the very first utterance from the oh-so-enlightened left appears to be a tacit declaration that the safety of a female hostage is more important than the rest.
Is that true equality?
Heather MacDonald at the National Review has penned a scathing condemnation of this quasi-feminist philosophy that speaks much about the need for equality, but seemingly values equality little.
Feminists declare that men and women are equal in all respects. They petulantly decry any atavistic male courtesy towards females as a relic of a still oppressive patriarchal culture. According to that absolutist equality principle, it should be of no greater concern if a female soldier falls into enemy hands, including those of Islamic terrorists, than if a male does.
As the Pentagon moves inexorably to put females into combat units, let’s hope for the sake of our military capabilities that this abstract ideology holds firm. But it almost surely won’t. The enemy capture of female soldiers during a hot war will in fact provoke even greater than usual political pressure to quickly rescue them, if necessary overriding sounder but more time-consuming strategies. The prospect of a female soldier being raped by her captors or, say, “merely” being beheaded will sideline all other military considerations. If two platoons are captured, the one with females in it will undoubtedly take precedence in any rescue effort, thus jeopardizing unit morale and cohesiveness.
Feminism- the true belief in equality between the sexes- is virtually non-existent in politics today. What persists is a nauseating cherry-picking of ideas that advance the plight of females while screaming about the supposed need for equality.
In truth, there are some very real justifications for keeping women out of primarily combat roles and this shameful episode highlights the most-important one: while there are many, many dedicated women in the U.S. military, the fact is that American society does not appear comfortable with the idea of female soldiers in captivity. If women are captured, especially by the remarkably misogynistic heathens who we must fight in the Middle East, are we obliged to throw caution to the wind in an attempt to secure their release with brazen rescue operations and/or succumbing to extortionate demands? Will this place a higher premium on female hostages and prisoners of war? If so, will captors use this prioritization as a bargaining chip in negotiations for their release? Does this prioritization relegate the plight of male hostages to a secondary importance? If so, can that truly be called “equality?”
There must be a refining of political discussions to account for this sickening divergence of thought. Feminism is a noble idea predicated upon the need for equality; this modern bastardization of this noble principle, however, is merely political and social opportunism.