EU respects Ireland...but....

The European Parliament is in session this week. Needless to say the arrogant European Union has been frantically trying to explain away the Irish rejection of the Lisbon Treaty, the latest bag of tricks thrown at the people of Europe by their arrogant political elites. The Irish were the only one of the EU's 27 member states to allow their people a direct say on a referendum. Every other country would use parliament's, where career politicians would be used to ratify the treaty - and we know how honest and trustworthy career politicians are. With threats of deselection and promises of career advances, they would get the result they wanted. But in Ireland, people power prevailed.

The European Parliament was an interesting place. Virtually every speaker stood up and said that "Of course we respect the Irish vote" followed by the 50 mega-ton word "but". At that point, they said other countries should continue to push ahead anyway (despite the fact that under their own rules, so much as one country rejecting it means the Treaty falls). The parliamentarians repeatedly stated that "But other countries have to have their say as well", but this was, and is, irrelevant - the EU's own rules say once one country has said No, the Treaty falls. Furthermore, there was the constant invoking of things like climate change and globalisation, was simply an attempt to change the subject.

One particularly amusing sight was German Socialist Schulz, who stood up and roared his outrage at the Irish rejection. He then began accusing various people for "failing" to get the Irish to vote yes. He attacked Irish Commissioner Charlie McCreery. He attacked the European People's Party. About the only person he didn't blame for the Irish No vote was Santa Claus. But why didn't Herr Schulz consider that the people said no for a simple reason: they didn't want the treaty, and thats why they voted No. Call me old fashioned?

The condescending, patronising tone has also been clear. The European Union has stated that the Irish were "expressing concerns". No they were not, they were saying No. The European Union claimed the people of Ireland were "unsure". No they weren't they were saying No. Then European Union says it will send its Eurobarometer statistics team in to "understand" the Irish decision. What part of No don't they understand? Can anybody hear me out there?

It is somewhat ironic that an orgasation like the EU with 25 official languages doesn't understand the meaning of the word "No" in any of them.

Ireland rejects EU Treaty: Victory for Democracy

The Irish people have yet again struck a blow against the EU. Ireland was the only country to put the latest EU treaty to a direct vote: and the people rejected it by a clear margin. However, the European Union (EU) has already said it will ignore the results of this referendum, and will push ahead with ratification anyway. This is the kind of arrogance the people of Europe are used to when they disagree with their leaders on matters of politics. In Europe, when the people say no, they really mean yes.

Insulting ther Voters: EU attacks democracy

The days in the aftermath of the Lisbon Treaty vote have been extremely interesting in the media. Perhaps the biggest activity has been on the "Comment is Free" section of the Guardian newspaper, a left leaning daily in the UK. In the past few days, it has run a series of articles which are nothing short of insulting.

All of these articles have a common theme running through them. Mainly, that the voters rejected the EU treaty because they were a) too stupid b) tricked by the press c) Nazis d) a mixture of these things. The bitterness and twisted paranoid fantasy theories of the EU supporters are hard to believe. The EU talks about how it believes in democracy, then showers abuse of the crudest kind down on those who disagree with it.

Tricked by the Press:

Throw in the related weight of truly substantial factors in the Irish equation - the (Irish edition) Daily Mail, the (Irish) Sunday Times - and what have you got? An outside element hectoring and influencing. (source)

Nazis

But referendums work best for the demagogue, the dissimulator and scaremonger, as Hitler and Mussolini, lovers of referendums, proved. (source)

Needless to say, this hate fest in the pro-EU media has sickened a large and growing number of people in European countries. Just why our the political elite of Europe, and their cheerleaders in sections of the media reacting in such a way? All the people of Ireland did was reject an EU treaty which they felt was taking the EU a step too far, and being the only people in Europe with a chance to have a direct say, they were able to stop it. As a result, the EU establishment have launched blood curdling attacks on the voters of Ireland. Why?

The answer is simple: Ireland was the one country in the European Union that allowed its citizens a direct say in the Lisbon Treaty, and they said no. Every other European country refused to allow its citizens a direct say, and let career politicians decide instead. This sends a clear message to the EU: the people do not want political union. When you ask our political leaders, the career politicians, they say yes, almost to a man. But when you ask the ordinary people, whose lives will be directly affected by this treaty, they say no. Friendship between European countries by all means, but political union? Europe as a country? Absolutely not.

What next?

For those of us who know the European Union, the EU will do what it always does: it will claim to respect the result in Ireland and announce a period of pause.

This is already the case. Let us observe today's edition of the pro-EU Independent newspaper in Britain

European Union leaders will call for breathing space before they try to revive
the stalled Treaty of Lisbon following Ireland's rejection of the blueprint

So let us look at this simple sentence in detail. We have the call for "breathing space", and there are already echoes of the "pause for reflection" the EU leaders stated in 2005 when the last time they tried this treaty it was rejected. Secondly, they stated that the treaty will be "revived" despite the fact the European Union's own rules state its failure in so much as one European country means it is dead. Finally, is the attempt at historical revisionism. This treaty is being described as a mere "blueprint": it was never that. It was being billed as the plan B to the European Constitution that French and Dutch voters rejected in 2005. This was not a blue print: this was their last desperate hope to ram through the treaty and the Irish rejected it.

The second thing the European Union will do is put its heads together to try and sneak the EU treaty through anyway.

No means No

The European Union has ignored the people of Europe many times.

In 1993, the people of Denmark rejected the Maastricht Treaty .

The EU ordered them to vote again until they said yes, and even then under the threat of Germany making veiled threats against its economy if it did not co-operate.

In 2001, the people of Ireland voted No to the Nice Treaty.

The EU denounced them for not being "educated" enough to read the treaty, and ordered the to re-run the vote until they got the result they wanted.

In 2005, the French and Dutch people, independently of each other rejected the EU Constitution in referendums.

The EU responded by renaming the Constitution the Lisbon Treaty, and since it was no longer called a Constitution, it did not have to be put to direct democracy and was put through national parliaments, where career politicians can be "encouraged" to vote the "correct" way in exchange for career advancement.

Only Ireland decided to put this Treaty to the direct democracy of its ordinary people and they said No. They struck a blow for every European who was not given a chance to vote by an EU that is running scared from democratic public opinion.

The EU juggernaut rumbles on, but is now a wounded ogre. It has suffered defeats in the past, but managed to limp on. Now, things are different. The excuses it used in the past to re-run elections were at least barely believable. Now they are just plain unbelievable. One of the most encouraging signs is the sheer volume of people who have now turned on the EU who once supported it. Even die hard European Union supporters have conceded it is getting harder and harder to justify the EU's actions, which are in fragrant defiance of the popular will.

But every dog has its day, and the EU may soon have its.

Peace in our time: the EU myth of peace

The European Union's website makes the claim that thanks to the EU, there has been peace in Europe since the Second World War. Indeed, this claim that whatever flaws the EU has, at least it keeps the peace is a popular one amongst many people in Europe. This is very much to the liking of the EU-after all, who can criticise it if at least it keeps the peace? However, we shall see that this is not the case: the peace in Europe has been maintained not by the EU, and that far from being a dove like entity, the EU is rapidly arming itself, and by trampling on nation states is possibly sewing the seeds of future conflicts.

NATO or the EU: who kept the peace?

The European Union has been indulging in some very interesting historical revisionism regarding the post-war era in Europe. The EU claim to have kept the peace in Europe in false in four main regards.

a) kept the peace since 1945: the European Union did not exist in any form until the early 1950s, and did not exist in its current legal form until the 1990s. One wonders how an organisation can be keeping the peace before it even existed...

b) wars in Europe: there have been wars in Europe since 1945. From the Greek civil war, to the Yugoslav civil wars to the current conflicts in the Caucasian mountains, Europe has been anything but a peaceful continent since Adolf and friends retired.

c) end of German nationalism: Germany only came into existence in 1870, and found that most of the world's land surface had already been colonised by older countries like France, Britain, the Netherlands and Portugal. Consequently, there was almost nowhere on earth left to colonise-except Europe itself. As a result, the new German state began to attack and seize land from its neighbours, taking Schleswig Holstein from Denmark, and Alsace-Lorraine from France. During World War I, it seized Finland and most of the Western Russian Empire, and then in World War II, seized land to make way for the planned Lebensraum of the thousand year Reich. The comprehensive defeat of Germany has ended these German territorial ambitions and the military threat that went with it.

d) NATO and the USA: last but most definitely not least, is the USA, and country the EU has an institutional dislike of, hence its reluctance to credit it for anything, least of all achievements it claims for itself. The presence of US soldiers, jet fighters, tanks, missile silos and nuclear warheads in Western Europe deterred the USSR from ever invading Western Europe. It was not men in grey suits in the EU telling everyone to be nice to each other or hippies with "Make Love not War" signs. When Yugoslavia erupted, it was the USA that ended the war and restored peace, not the EU.

So as we can clearly see, the EU has not maintained peace, and on the occasions there have been peace or where peace has been restored, it has been thanks to the USA.

Welfare not Warfare!

One of the most nauseating political signs I have ever seen was held by a protestor at the anti-nuclear weapons demonstration in London, following the government's announcement to maintain Britain's nuclear weapons and build a new generation of attack submarines at the cost of around £70 billion. Opponents of the plan, almost exclusively from the far left, argued that our nuclear weapons and submarines should be scrapped, and the money should instead be spent on health care, pensions and welfare payments. Hence the term "welfare, not warfare". This attitude is by no means limited to Britain.

On the European mainland, the military is often poorly funded and given the very lowest priority in government budget plans. If the government finds itself needing an extra €100 million to fund its latest welfare scheme, then it casually takes this away from the military budget. As a result, European armies were often considered the "weak link" by NATO during the Cold War, with only the British and French considered capable of putting up a fight against a Soviet attack. Part of the justification for this cutting is that thanks to the EU, there will never be another war, so why bother arming and supplying your soldiers. However as the British have argued when replacing their nuclear weapons, you never know what may be around the corner of history. And you cannot fight an attacker with free health care...

EU arming itself-but for what?

The EU has repeatedly stated its desire for an "independent" military and foreign policy, a clear slap in the face to NATO and the USA, whose tax payers spent half a century paying for the defence of Europe whilst European governments were slashing spending on their own armies to pay for social welfare programmes. Ingratitude is an ugly word. The EU now plans to bulk up what it euphemistically calls a "European Defence Identity", but what is reality the EU armed forces. If the EU is this light unto the nations when it comes to peace and understanding, then why is it spending billions on an army? in reality the EU knows its claims about peace are a myth, but having allowed the US tax payer and soldier defend it for 60 years has now decided to build up its own army that it hopes one day will surpass that of the USA. How it will be able to fund this scale of military spend and its scale of welfare expenditure at the same time is anyone's guess. the European public have grown used to welfare, and will not tolerate cuts to it, so the EU finds itself (or will eventually) trapped-on the one hand, it wants to have the army that a self proclaimed super power feels it needs but cannot afford alongside its welfare. On the other hand, it can have its military, but only by cutting welfare and incurring the European people's wrath. Given the lack of support the EU has from its citizens at the best of times, it will be interesting to see how (if indeed at all) it copes with this wrath.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the EU claims to have kept the peace in Europe are a lie. There have been wars in Europe since the EU was founded, the EU failed to use its much famed "soft power" to persuade the Yugoslavs to stop killing each other and had to rely on its hated rival the USA to restore the peace. The EU is trying on the one hand to fund elaborate welfare programmes at the same time it boasts of an EU army, that if it is going to be in the same league as the American and Chinese armies, will need vast funding. The EU did not keep the peace in the past, and cannot claim to keep the peace, so it ought to stop claiming so.

EU Constitution: more EU arrogance

This last week, the EU finally approved its "treaty", which is nothing more than a code name for the constitution that was so roundly defeated by popular vote in the Netherlands and France in 2005. By changing the name of the constitution, the EU hopes it has successfully camouflaged its latest power grab from the sovereign nations of Europe. In this report, we shall see how the EU plans to grab more power, has not changed its plans despite the change of name to the treaty/constitution and is exhibiting ever more bewildering and unnerving levels of arrogance and contempt for public opinoin, something that was never their strong suit to begin with.

When the voters say no, they really mean yes!

"If it's a Yes, we will say 'on we go', and if it's a No we will say 'we continue'." - Jean Claude Juncker, writing before the results of the votes were even in, about what the EU should do in the wake of the results.

One of the most bizarre and surreal experiences of my life was seeing the press conferences arranged by pro-EU spokesmen after the French and Dutch voters rejected the constitution. In 2005, the voters of most European countries did not get to vote on the constitution, with most countries having to watch as their political "elites", some of whom gained access to national assemblies with as little as 6% of the vote, voted in favour of the constitution. In Germany, the then chancellor Gerhard Schroeder told elected members not to "waste time with the small details" by reading through what they were voting on. Many elected members in national assemblies supported it so as to be seen as a "good European", and thus set themselves up for a possibly lucrative job with the EU Commission when they leave their national political jobs, and this can only be done by voting in accordance with EU, not national, wishes.

In France and the Netherlands, the voters were among the few to be asked what they actually thought of the consitituion in a referendum. Dutch prime minister Balkenende was so convinced of a "yes" vote, he did not even bother to campaign-that was until polls showed that the no vote was winning. The Dutch people comprehensively rejected the EU Constitution by over 60% of the vote. In France, the people also rejected the constitution, and celebrating crowds gathered at the highly symoblic Place de Bastille in Paris, birthplace of the French revolution. Perhaps in their mind their no vote was starting a new revolution.

As expected however, the EU "elites" refused to accept the votes of the people. On an interview on British television, EU Commission President Jose Barroso repeatedly stated that the no vote changed nothing, and that the EU would push ahead anyway. When asked if the no votes meant the treaty was dead, EU official Javier Solano remarked "Neither the constitutional text nor the ideas contained in it are dead".Luxembourg's prime minister Jean Claude Juncker stated that as far as he could tell, the people of France and the Netherlands actually wanted more EU power, not less, oblivious to the vote they had just delivered. The EU elites stated that they would push ahead anyway, but only after a "pause for reflection". As the then German foreign minister Joska Fischer wrote, "[The French and Dutch no votes are] not an end, rather an interruption."

By pause for reflection, they meant a delay of a suitable length that in their opinion would mean Europeans had forgotten about the no votes, and could then have it forced on them. Sure enough, in 2007 the EU announced it would push ahead with a "reform treaty", that upon investigation, actually was no different from the EU constitution. Angela Merkel, Germany's pro-EU leader openly admitted that the "treaty" was just a change of name for the constitituion. And this time, the EU was not going to take the chance of allowing the voters to have a say, in case thet voted the "wrong" way again. After secret meetings, the EU announced that there had been an agreement on a new "treaty" and that ratification would push ahead over the next two years.

Don't let the voters decide-the people don't know what they want!

"I have never understood why pulic opinion about European ideas should be taken into account" - Raymond Barre, former French president

One of the most striking things about the EU and its nauseating cheerleaders in the media and political establishment, is its utter contempt for what the public think about the EU. After the agreement on the "treaty" was passed, British voters began to demand a referendum on the issue, in line with the government's promise that they would be allowed one. However, pro-EU figures have repeatedly stated that the British people should not be allowed to vote, as they "don't understand" the "complex" issues. This is nothing more than cowardice, and the pro-EU figures know that the British people, tired of dictatorial arrogance would vote NO to the latest EU proposal. That is why they will never be given the chance to make that vote. The EU does not like us mere mortals to tell them they are wrong.

As the pro-freedom movement grows against the EU in Europe, the EU has taken steps to try and smother this opposition. The EU Commission has proposed only funding political parties that support the EU, putting parties that do not at a hopeless disadvantage at election time. As anti-EU Member of the European Parliament Daniel Hannan remarked "Democracy means being allowed to vote for whomever you please. Once we start disqualifying parties on grounds of their opinions, we are on a very dangerous road."

The European Union is becoming increasingly impatient with it's people and has now taken to simply ignoring them. Indeed, ignoring public opinion has been praised in the EU, with Jose Barroso telling British prime minister Tony Blair to "Stand up" to public opinion in Britain against the EU i.e. to ignore it. Other pro-EU figures cast this ignoring public opinion as "showing leadership". Others may choose to call it "showing dictatorship".

Conclusion

The EU does not care about public opinion. In 1993, it ignored the voters of Denmark when they rejected the Maastricht treaty. They were ordered to vote again. In 2000, the voters of Ireland were ignored by the EU when they rejected the Nice Treaty. They too, were ordered to vote again, this time with vast amounts of EU cash thrown at the "yes" campaign to make sure that the "correct" result was acheived. In 2005, the French and Dutch voters rejected the EU Consitution vote, only to ignored after a "pause for reflection", and this week, that pause came to an end when the EU forced through the constitution anyway, simply under a different name.

Those of us who find ourselves under the European Union have to wake up to the fact that our opinions do not matter. Our votes are simply ignored, and our intelligence openly insulted by an EU that claims we are not qualified to know what is best for us. To say I feel a sense of despair at this state of affairs would be an understatement.

Elites: the arrogance of the European Union establishment

One of the most salient features in modern politics and society is the notion of the "elites". that is, media and political personalities who are above and beyond us mere mortals, and who thus are better qualified than ourtselves to decide how a country should be organised, and what public policy should and should not be. This is particularly pronounced in Europe, but increasingly so in other parts of the Western world.

The concept of a political elite

The first people to suggest the need for a political elite were the ancient Greeks. In their city states, it was believed by some thinkers that the everyday people were not sufficiently intelligent or morally developed to be trusted with any kind of power or authority, and that therefore they were not fit to rule. Instead, an all powerful elite would rule over them, known as the arete. Whilst ancient Greece is often thought of as the cradle of democracy, it has also been conversely the cradle of tyranny. Indeed, every tyranny is essentially based on the notion that the people are inferior to their rulers, and need to be guided and controlled by them.

In a state where an elite rule, there are several features. One is that this elite regard themselves as superior on a variety of dimensions, most notably a belief that they are more intelligent, wise, kind and morally developed than their subjects. Another salient pyschological characterstic is their paternal attitude to the population: they view themselves as wise, long sighted parents who have to guide and cojole rebellious populations for their own good, as if the citizenry of their states are moody toddlers. Whilst the people may protest, they lack their "elite's" wisdom and long sightedness, and therefore have to be forced to accept it's will.

This contrasts with genuine democracy. In a genuine democracy, whilst there are leaders, they are selected by the people on a popular mandate. That is, candidates whose views are popular and shared by the majority of the people are placed in power. These people then rule, by the consent of the people, and are public servants, not rulers. If and when they displease the people, this consent can be withdrawn, and the office holders are replaced with others who are given a chance.

The Real World versus Ivory Towers

Another important difference between elitist states and democratic states is the personal and professional background of political figures. In an elitist state, the leaders are all from a very similar background of priveledge and "elite" circles. Most went to the same elite universities: indeed, both the British Prime Minister and the Opposition leader went to the same university (Oxford) and the next British Prime Minister, who takes over next month, went to a similarly elite university (Edinburgh). Many also have the same professional background, and this is particularly true in France, with a vast percentage of politicians from both left and right having attended the Institut d'Études Politiques de Paris. This is essentially a finishing school for the future political figures of France, and is very typical of the way most European politicians spend virtually their entire careers right from leaving university being prepared by elite schools and training centres and job posts for their eventual succession as a member of the ruling elite.

Again, this contrasts very sharply with the professional background of the figures in a genuine democracy, most of whom have spent decades working in "the real world", and whose professions have rarely if ever had anything to do with politics. This means that when these people become politicians, they will understand and appreciate the populations hopes and fears more keenly. It also means that they trust "common sense" over the extremely complicated and abstract theories so loved by the "elites".

Where do they get their ideas from?

In an elitist state, all the elitist figures share similar views, attitudes and dare I, say values, regardless of their party political affiliation. These views are largely formed by the teachers and professors they are exposed to at their ivory tower colleges, where they learn the gnostis, that is hidden knowledge that we mere mortals cannot understand. For example, the elites believe that crime occurs because of poverty and societal inequality, and therefore the elites must re-engineer society to prevent crime from occuring. This is totally false of course, and most ordinary people reject this bunk gnostis, that is actually little more than 1960s flat earth sociology. But to the elites, this is superior knowledge that must be implemented at the first opportunity, hence the disastrous anti-crime measures taken by various Western governments in the last few decades.

Indeed, most Western governments abolished the death penalty, but not because the people wanted it abolished. Instead, the elites took control of the political system, and having had their heads filled with criminologist nonsense whilst at college, believed that by abolishing the death penalty, they would impress the criminals with their superior morality, and the criminals would emmulate this by stopping killing people. The elites also viewed the objections to abolition from the people as little more than petulant "populism", and this "p word" will be discussed in more detail.

There are few slurs that leap from the mouth of an elitist more easily than "populist". In their eyes, what most of us would regard as common sense is little more than a knee jerk, simplistic reaction to a problem they insist needs long, complicated "solutions". Indeed, they regard views that oppose their own as not deserving of discussion or debate. In the European Union (EU), this attitude is particularly pronounced amongst its media and political "elites", who have declared a number of topics, from mass immigration and the abolition death penalty as being beyond discussion. This reveals their cowardice at being unable to defeat an opponent in a debate.

Conclusion

As we have seen, the EU elites are drunk on their own perception of themselves has moral and intellectual giants, who do not need the approval of the people they govern. Indeed, they rarely even bother to ask them, and on the rare occassions they do ask their people to vote, simply ignore their wishes if it contrasts with their own. This is an intolerable situation, and only by voting the "elites" from the established political parties out of power, and replacing them with men of the people will they get the message that we are not going to be bullied anymore.

An Award for Western World Politics!

We were delighted to receive an award for a "Thinking Blogger", meaning that this blog has been awarded for it's ability to make readers think. We certainly try! Many thanks to Patriotic Mon's blog for nominating us! We also recently celebrated our 8,000th visitor, so it's been a good few days for us at WWP!

Women in combat: re-thinking women's role in the military

The Iran hostage situation, where British marines and sailors were captured by Iran is now, thankfully, at an end, with the servicemen in question back at home. They have given press conferences where they spoke of their ordeal, from their capture and mock execution, to psychological abuse and being forced to denounce their own government on propaganda broadcasts. Perhaps the most enduring image of the crisis was the image of female sailor Faye Turney, who was shown throughout the broadcasts in a head scarf she was forced to wear by her captors, smoking nervously.

Within a day of their release, two other British women in the military, Jo Dyer (aged 24) and Eleanor Dlugosz (aged 19) were killed by a roadside IED bomb in Iraq. The images of a servicewoman forced to wear a headscarf by her captors, and of two young women cut off in their prime during active service appearing in our newspapers have sparked a debate about the role of women in the military, something that this author feels strongly about. We shall explore some of the issues.

Gender Equality

For the past half century, ever since bras across the world went up in flames, there has been an aggressive drive towards gender equality. Feminists held that men were deliberately excluding women from male dominated jobs in part of a vast male conspiracy to keep women bare foot and chained to the kitchen sink. One could be forgiven for thinking that in the mind of the feminists, every male dominated profession was like a ten-year old boy's tree house with a large NO GIRLS sign on the door, and sociologists coined the term "glass ceiling", stating that whilst women were being told they could move up in these professions, the reality was there was a clandestine attempt to hold them down.

Since the 1960s, women have advanced tremendously in many professions, with an increasing number of women CEOs, surgeons and in some countries women leaders. Perhaps the final frontier on gender equality in the minds of the feminists was the army, perhaps the world's most exclusive boy's club. Indeed, this was even more male dominated than the aforementioned tree house, and as a result, women have been recruited into the military with increasing frequency.

Male-Female differences in aggression

The problem with females in combat roles is that the genders differ tremendously in the types of aggression they practise and excel in. Males are predominantly physically aggressive, with females being predominantly using "relation aggression" i.e. manipulating friendship alliances to isolate rivals. There are also important differences physically and mentally between men and women that mean the former is better suited to a combat role than the latter, and this fact has been acknowledged by one of Britain's first female military commanders, Major Judith Webb. Indeed, two major factors put women at a disadvantage in combat:

Risk taking: combat soldiers need to be willing to takes risks and put themselves in potentially dangerous, even potentially fatal situations. Women however are less inclined to risk their safety than men. To use an everyday example, very few women would be prepared to walk home alone after dark.

Physical strength: On average, men are taller, heavier and stronger than women, all of which combines to give them a significant edge over females in fields such as athletics. Combat is no different to athletics, except with higher stakes and less rules.

Where women soldiers excel

Whilst female soldiers struggle with the physical and psychological aspects of front line combat, there are other areas of the military where women are at an advantage to their male colleagues, sometimes having unique advantages over them. For example, many captured terrorists come from societies where women have no power, so to place them in an interrogation room where a woman officer is in charge, who is forcefully pushing home a line of questioning, the terrorists will find themselves rattled in a way a male interrogator simply couldn't achieve. Also, females have distinct advantages over men in language learning, meaning they can excel as translators, a vital link in the intelligence war on terrorism, against combatants whose first language is usually not English.

No one doubts that women can and do have tremendous contributions to make to the war on terror. Few jobs are as critical as translating "chatter" in foreign languages or interrogating captured insurgents, and these are jobs that women soldiers are in an excellent position to succeed in. However, a frontline combat role is not for women: it is barely a place for even the toughest of men.