In an Obama Administration, we would see a return of the sort of social experimentation in the Armed Forces that was such an annoyance during the Clinton years (trust me, I was there):

Even as the U.S. confronts two long wars, neither Sen. John McCain nor Sen. Barack Obama believes the country should take the politically perilous step of reviving the military draft.

But the two presidential candidates disagree on a key foundation of any future draft: Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women to register with the Selective Service, while Mr. McCain doesn’t think women should have to register.

Also, Mr. Obama would consider officially opening combat positions to women. Mr. McCain would not.

“Women are already serving in combat [in Iraq and Afghanistan] and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground,” said Wendy Morigi, Mr. Obama’s national security spokeswoman. “Barack Obama would consult with military commanders to review the constraints that remain.”

According to his campaign, Mr. McCain supports the current Department of Defense restrictions on women in combat units, including armor, field artillery and special forces.

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter revived the Selective Service system, which compiles a list of nearly all men in the U.S. between 18 and 25 in case a crisis forces the government to undertake a massive expansion of the military.

I don’t really have a problem with the registration of women for the Selective Service, although I do question the role that they should play.  In the event of a full-scale war with a power such as China or Russia, we will need all the manpower and womanpower we can get.  The use of women in the combat arms, however, is a big problem.  Admitting women into these branches would require lowering the standards for those positons (women in the Army have a much lower standard for physical fitness/strength requirements).  Personally, I believe that the full integration of men and women into the military during the Carter Administration was a mistake, but there isn’t going to be a reversal of that any time soon.

Even as the U.S. confronts two long wars, neither Sen. John McCain nor Sen. Barack Obama believes the country should take the politically perilous step of reviving the military draft.

But the two presidential candidates disagree on a key foundation of any future draft: Mr. Obama supports a requirement for both men and women to register with the Selective Service, while Mr. McCain doesn’t think women should have to register.

Also, Mr. Obama would consider officially opening combat positions to women. Mr. McCain would not.

“Women are already serving in combat [in Iraq and Afghanistan] and the current policy should be updated to reflect realities on the ground,” said Wendy Morigi, Mr. Obama’s national security spokeswoman. “Barack Obama would consult with military commanders to review the constraints that remain.”

According to his campaign, Mr. McCain supports the current Department of Defense restrictions on women in combat units, including armor, field artillery and special forces.

In 1980, President Jimmy Carter revived the Selective Service system, which compiles a list of nearly all men in the U.S. between 18 and 25 in case a crisis forces the government to undertake a massive expansion of the military.

Both Congress and the Supreme Court have exempted women from registration because of the combat rules.

For years, that position has rankled some women’s rights groups and men who face penalties for not registering—including loss of employment with the federal government—at a time when female soldiers regularly find themselves in dangerous situations in Iraq and Afghanistan, both conflicts without defined battlefields.

Mr. McCain, a decorated former Navy pilot who spent five years as a prisoner of war in Vietnam, speaks often of how his military service has helped prepare him for the role of commander in chief and how his time as a captive in Hanoi reinforced his love of country.

Yet he doesn’t want to see a return to mandatory service, for men or women, according to his presidential campaign.

“Sen. McCain strongly believes that an all-volunteer force is preferable to a conscripted force,” said Paul Lindsay, a spokesman for the campaign. “The tools available to recruiters have historically enabled the all-volunteer force to attract sufficient numbers of qualified recruits.”

His views are echoed by many high-ranking officers in the military, who prefer a force of motivated volunteers. But some of the same officers have also expressed concerns about the strains of more than six years of sustained combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially if the U.S. commitment in both countries doesn’t end in the near future.

Mr. Obama has said repeatedly that he will draw down the U.S. military presence in Iraq if he becomes president, but he has also said he would increase the number of troops in Afghanistan, where Taliban forces have seen a resurgence in recent years.

As for the social aspect of this, Obama gives it away right here:

“There was a time when African-Americans weren’t allowed to serve in combat,” Mr. Obama said. “And yet, when they did, not only did they perform brilliantly, but what also happened is they helped to change America, and they helped to underscore that we’re equal.

There was no reason to bar black soldiers from combat.  They fought in the Civil War and Lincoln believed that they were critical for victory.  Nevertheless, the purpose of the military is to fight and win wars, not advance the Commander-in-Chief’s peculiar social agenda.

Elaine Donnelly, a former member of President Bill Clinton’s Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, dismissed Mr. Obama’s comparison of the roles of women and black soldiers, arguing that males and females, in general, aren’t equal on the battlefield.

“There are differences between men and women where physical strength is an issue,” said Ms. Donnelly, who heads the nonpartisan Center for Military Readiness. “There are a lot of civilian feminists who are making unreasonable demands on the military.”

This is true.  Left-wing feminists, who generally shun military service, just seem perfectly content to let other women serve in combat.  Jim Dougherty at WorldNetDaily has more:

Despite 225 years of witnessing the horror of wars fought by male American soldiers, there are still a number of idiots - mostly feminists who themselves will never have to face an armed enemy soldier - pushing lawmakers to drop a ban against allowing women in combat.

Israel - a nation of about 6.2 million people constantly at war with its neighbors - allowed women in combat, the idiots shriek. Why, then, must the American military, as regards ground combat roles, remain so androcentric, so “male-centered”?

It’s time to debunk the myth, once and for all, that Israel’s experience with allowing women in combat was successful and, therefore, should be duplicated by the Pentagon. It wasn’t successful. It was a disaster by Israel’s own admission.

“History shows that the presence of women has had a devastating impact on the effectiveness of men in battle,” wrote John Luddy in July 27, 1994, for the Heritage Foundation backgrounder.

Obama clearly is just in love with the concept of change for the sake of change; especially when it furthers his radical social ideals.  When I tell everyone here repeatedly that his concept of “Change” has nothing to do with changing Washington, but of altering and disrupting the social order for the purpose of establishing equality, fairness, and righteousness—as he sees it—regardless of the consequences; this is exactly the sort of thing I mean.  The military has a vital role and is in a serious war.  Now is not the time for forcing lower standards and weaker soldiers into the ranks of the combat arms to advance ivory-tower ideals of gender equality.

Pittsburg Post-Gazette

H/T: Drudge