ment had all the powers of discernment—if not all the guts —rnthat }’oii woidd hope to find in a bird colonel. Nevertheless, thernWM went without reprimand for her calunrny, and the eventrnonly sened to reinforce the low opinion held b’ the ‘ast majorit)-rnof Marines of their sisters-in-arms.rnReaders may regard the story as anecdotal and as no proofrnthat wonren do not belong in the Marines, but I have dozensrnmore: There are the WMs, great with child, marching along inrntheir maternit)’ uniforms (yes, there is such a thing); the girl recruitrnwho flat-out refused to navigate a night compass course becausernshe was afraid of the dark; the girl lieutenant at the BasicrnSchool at Quantico who burst into tears when she “went unq”rn(failed to qualif)’) with the 9mm Berretta (a remarkably forgivingrnpistol), and her Staff Platoon Commander (a girl captain)rnwho consoled the distraught young officer by giving her a hugrnright there at the pistol range.rnThose are my stories. If you need more, check out the invaluablernwork of journalist Brian Mitchell or talk to an’ officerrnor enlisted man who has resigned his commission becausernhe is weary of watching uirqualified women coddled, promoted,rnand given choice assignments—to say nothing of watchingrnthem drive their airplanes into the sides of aircraft carriers—rnwhile morale and readiness continue to decline. Collect asrnmany stories as you wish about the ill effect on morale and imitrncohesion caused by the sexual integration of the Armed Forces.rnPresent the seabagful of evidence to your representatives inrnWashington —but do not expect the aggressive recruitment andrnintegration of women into the militar)’ to subside.rnThe Republican front-runner, George W. Bush, has alread-rnproclaimed his enthusiasm for a sexually integrated military,rnand he is only the latest in a long line of Republicans whom werncan thank for our feminized Armed Forces: men like Pete DurnPont, who as a congressman sponsored the legislafion to enrollrngirls at the service academies, and Ronald Reagan, who emasculatedrnthe Code of Conduct for POW’s, changing the preamblernfrom “I am an American fighting man” to “I am an Americanrnfighting for my country.” Do not forget former Joint Chiefsrnof Staff Chairman Gen. John Shalikashvili’s 1996 statement: “Irndon’t want to prophes}’ . . . but m’ sense is v’e are on a countdownrnto tire days when there won’t be a position in the militan.-rnthat women can’t and won’t occupy.”rnThe general is right, but if you want a glimpse of the sexuallyrnintegrated force of the future, do not look to Hollyv’ood. A fewrnenthusiastic amazons like Demi Moore’s G.J. Jane may sign up,rnbut thev will hardly be the rule. (As it is, half of the wonren whornenlist today fail to complete their service contract.) Nor will thernmilitary look like the combat units featured in tire recent filmrnversion of Robert Heinlein’s novel Starship Troopers, in whichrnwonren in the distant future serve alongside men right down tornthe fire-team level, pilot the same spaceships as nren (tiionghrnwith greater skill), heft tire same massive machine guns, andrnwrestie with the same giant space bugs threatening Earth’s existence.rnWomen will also shower alongside nren (no one willrnthink anything of it) and love will flow freeh’ in the coed squadrnbays (on this last coiurt, the film may prove uncannily accurate).rnHollywood’s fantasies about the sexualK- integrated ArmedrnForces are no sillier than those of United Nations doctrinairesrnwho see women in tiie militar)’ as a mechanism for “break| ing]rndown traditional views and stcreoh’pes of women in countriesrnand local communities where they sere among peacekeepers.”rnThe lead article in the December 1995 edition of Wome;; 2000,rna monthly published by the U.N.’s Division for the Advancementrnof Women, asks, ‘TJ.N. peace-keeping: where arc thernwomen ‘blue helmets?'” In contrast to the accompanying photographrnof a grenade-launchcr-toting soldierette (no girls-withgunsrnpinup), the article concludes that women can “make a difference”rnin peacekeeping missions because they are “oftenrnv’illing to take innovative approaches to establish a dialogue betweenrnpolarized groups. They sometimes use unorthodoxrnmeans such as singing to defuse potentially violent situations.”rnOh, good. We used to sing quite a bit in the Marine Corps,rntirough I am not sure how far “BROWN eyes —GREEN eyes —rnBLUES eyes —RED! / If it’s got slanted eyes, shoot it in thernHEAD” would go toward reconciling the polarized.rnReaders may find the cadences that Marines sing as thev runrnin formation both coarse and insensitive (they arc), but no onerncould misinterpret their content (killing) and purpose (to concentraternthe v’arrior’s mind on killing). Nor could anyone mistakernthe emphasis of the Marine Corps’ (sonretimes sill}) advertising.rnFlashing swords and armor-clad knights in close combatrnn~’he Republican front-runner,rn1 George W. Bush, has alreadyrnproclaimed his enthusiasm for arnsexually integrated military, and hernis only the latest in a long line ofrnRepublicans whom we can thank forrnour feminized Armed Forces.rnv’ith monsters, dragons, and beasts mean that the Corps is in thernbusiness of fighting. The other sen-ices advertise thenrselves asrnplaces to learn job skills, make your high-school teacher proudrnof you, and earn money for college. They suffer serious personnelrnshortages. The Corps does not.rnFor now, that is. iAfter all, New Age fantasy battles that takernplace on giant chessboards de-emphasize the realit)- of killing,rnas does discouraging such gruesome chants as “NAAAY-palmstick.rns-to-kids!” Perhaps more slowly than the otiier services, butrnsurely as steadily, the Corps is reshaping itself into the sexuallyrnintegrated force foretold by Shalikashvili. The result, however,rnwill not be a force of Amazons or song leaders, or even a gang ofrnsisters that fight like girls. Any of these would be preferable tornthe androgj’uoiis militar)- of the future, which will be characterizedrnneitiier by the bull dyke cranking out chin-nps nor by thernvixen traded around tiie barracks, but bv an unwillingness tornembrace the purpose of the militarv- and tiie central fact of war:rnkilling.rnFrom an American perspective (if that phrase still makesrnsense), warfare has already become so denatured by the presencernof women that we are unwilling to commit any forces,rnmale or female, to ground combat. We are often told tiiat ourrnservicemen (or, in today’s parlance, the unsettling “servicc-rn20/CHRONICLESrnrnrn