To Be Prepared for War

Peace through strength is an ancient concept. It was the Roman modus operandi as Rome expanded her influence across the known world. It was also the policy pursued by our very own George Washington. In our modern world of appeasement and surrender to the forces of tyranny, maintaining peace through strength has become a uniquely American custom. It is not only the national policy followed by great American presidents, but that which is followed by American gun owners every day. Peace through strength, then, is part of the true American heritage.


In his first annual message to Congress, President George Washington stated: “To be prepared for War is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.” In the very next breath, he continued: “A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined” (George Washington, First Annual Message to Congress, January 8, 1790). When you examine the annals of history, whether you look in ancient Israel, manly Sparta, gallant Rome, or in the American Republic, you find that free people have always been armed. Indeed, arms in the hands of freemen distinguishes them from serfs and slaves.

The philosophy “peace through strength” derives from common sense and practical experience. All human experience shows that unscrupulous men, criminals, and tyrants, prey upon the defenseless and weak. Evil people are frequently cowards and their victims are usually targets of opportunity. And no one is more defenseless and presents an easier target than the unarmed and weak. This is the reason why lunatics choose to shoot people in gun-free zones rather than in locations where free men and women are armed and able to defend themselves.

The same is true of nations. An Evil Empire like the Soviet Union preys upon weak nations. They backpedal and try to negotiate (though they only make deals when it benefits them) when a nation presents a strong and united front against them. Instead of launching a risky frontal assault, they resort to subversion, infiltration, psychological warfare, terrorism, and guerrilla tactics in order to demoralize, weaken, corrupt, confuse, and undermine an opponent before they ever attempt conquest by force.

Communist Russia and Red China will never attempt to take down the United States through force of arms unless we have been sufficiently degraded on the inside first. Unfortunately, that horrific day is swift approaching as cultural Marxism (i.e. feminism, LGBT, radical environmentalism, “civil rights” movements, political correctness, etc.) rips through our vital institutions. We are becoming a weak nation because we have been too politically correct to stand up to the Reds and to call a spade a spade. We are so afraid of offending someone, hurting their feelings, or causing a stir that we suffer abuses and reductions in our personal rights and national influence rather than boldly confront the enemy.

When necessary, a free society must use its arms and strength to defend itself. This should be a last resort to preserve peace, but it must be an option. A nation that is not prepared to defend itself presents a soft target to an aggressor. The Red Chinese commonly refer to the United States as a “paper tiger” that doesn’t have the stomach for a long struggle. They think we are weak and will eventually crumble because they have yet to see us stand up and confront them in a meaningful way. Islamic terrorists (which are primarily trained and funded by Soviet Russia) hold this same philosophy. America’s enemies cannot be appeased or bought off – appeasement only emboldens them.

We learned through our experiences with Barbary pirates at the beginning of our Republic that buying peace with tribute makes our enemies insatiable and actually increases the problem. Because of a lack of naval power at the time, President Washington was forced to pay the Islamic pirates who were raiding our ships rather than face them in battle. President John Adams did the same while creating a navy that could eventually contend with overseas opponents.


President Thomas Jefferson was the first president to use our newly minted Navy and Marines to punish the pirates and defend America’s vital international trade. After the War of 1812, President Madison sent the U.S. Navy to the Mediterranean to finish what President Jefferson had started. Our Navy devastated the pirates, ensuring peace between the United States and the Barbary States for generations. We learned from this episode that peaceful relations can only be established with hostile states by standing up to them or crushing them with overwhelming strength. Evil people and regimes only bow to power.

Because of his experience as a colonel during the French-Indian War and as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army during the Revolution, President George Washington understood this principle perhaps better than anyone. It infuriated him that the United States did not have the means to deal with enemies who ruthlessly attacked peaceful trading vessels and harmed Americans and America’s interests. In a letter to the Marquis de Lafayette, he raged:

“[H]ow is it possible the great maritime powers of Europe should submit to pay an annual tribute to the little piratical States of Barbary. Would to Heaven we had a navy able to reform those enimies to mankind, or crush them into nonexistence” (George Washington to Marquis de Lafayette, August 15, 1786).

Washington understood that only an armed society – both on a personal and a national level – could retain their Freedom against the multitude of adversaries and tyrants that abound in the world. He knew that freemen could only remain so if they were strong and projected their strength. Part of this was to always be ready for war so that a potential aggressor would think twice before attacking – and so that he would severely regret it if he did.

At the beginning of our War for Independence, General Washington encouraged his troops to stand firm against British tyrants. He said:

“[T]he hour is fast approaching, on which the Honor and Success of this army, and the safety of our bleeding Country depend. Remember officers and Soldiers, that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of Liberty—that slavery will be your portion, and that of your posterity, if you do not acquit yourselves like men . . . every one for himself resolving to conquer, or die, and trusting to the smiles of heaven upon so just a cause, will behave with Bravery and Resolution” (George Washington, General Orders, August 23, 1776).

George Washington35

The “smiles of heaven” only rain down upon those who take the pains to defend themselves and increase their own human strength. Only the vigorous and valiant are worthy of divine intervention and blessings. Only by “fighting for the blessings of Liberty,” and remaining virtuous, can Americans remain freemen. And all real freemen are soldiers – warriors for justice, truth, and Liberty.

All true freemen are armed and prepared for battle at a moment’s notice – whether against a domestic enemy or against an invader. This is precisely why Samuel Adams envisioned America as a “Christian Sparta” (Samuel Adams to John Scollay, December 30, 1780). Like the Spartans, “molon labe,” or “come and take it,” would be our war cry. It was strict adherence to this principle of preparing for war and being ready to defend the peace, coupled with faithful obedience to God’s laws, that made America great. And the same course can make America great again.

Similar to Washington and Adams, Thomas Jefferson believed that strength was a means of preventing war. He wished every American freeman to be a soldier. He stated:

“[T]he Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. the Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression, as a standing army. their system was to make every man a soldier, & oblige him to repair to the standard of his country, whenever that was reared. this made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so” (Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, September 10, 1814).

This remedy – namely, to arm and discipline our citizens in the art of war – would make America “invincible” to foreign threats so long as we also remain virtuous. A free nation that expects to remain free must be prepared for war. We prepare for war but pray for peace. As Thomas Paine expressed it: “Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom, must, like men, undergo the fatigues of supporting it” (Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 4, September 12, 1777).

The phrase “peace through strength,” in its modern context, was popularized by Ronald Reagan during his 1980 campaign against socialist appeaser Jimmy Carter. For eight years, President Reagan preached peace through strength and tried to get America back to her roots. While President Reagan was only marginally successful in his gigantic task, reminding ourselves of some of his inspiring thoughts seems appropriate.


During one of the presidential debates with then President Jimmy Carter, candidate Reagan said:

“Now, I believe, also that this meeting, this mission, this responsibility for preserving the peace, which I believe is a responsibility peculiar to our country, that we cannot shirk our responsibility as the leader of the Free World, because we’re the only one that can do it. And therefore, the burden of maintaining the peace falls on us. And to maintain that peace requires strength. America has never gotten in a war because we were too strong” (Reagan/Carter presidential debate, October 28, 1980).

In a speech to the American People regarding national security, President Reagan explained the need for strength to combat the Red menace – the exact same menace we face today at home and abroad. He rightly observed:

“We know that peace is the condition under which mankind was meant to flourish. Yet peace does not exist of its own will. It depends on us, on our courage to build it and guard it and pass it on to future generations. . . .

“. . . American strength is . . . a sheltering arm for freedom in a dangerous world. Strength is the most persuasive argument we have to convince our adversaries to negotiate seriously and to cease bullying other nations.

“. . . American power is the indispensable element of a peaceful world. . . .

“But it is not just the immense Soviet arsenal that puts us on our guard. The record of Soviet behavior – the long history of Soviet brutality toward those who are weaker – reminds us that the only guarantee of peace and freedom is our military strength and our national will. The peoples of Afghanistan and Poland, of Czechoslavakia and Cuba, and so many other captive countries – they understand this.

“Some argue that our dialogue with the Soviets means we can treat defense more casually. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was our seriousness about defense that created the climate in which serious talks could finally begin. . . .

“Our job is to provide for our security by using the strengths of our free society” (Ronald Reagan, speech, February 26, 1986).


Think about it, who is more likely to persuade a thug to put down his gun – an unarmed negotiator with no leverage or a seasoned police officer with a raised rifle? The answer is obvious. Though the Soviets have broken literally every treaty they ever signed with the United States, they were wary of President Reagan because they knew that he would not hesitate, if necessary, to launch nuclear missiles and a full-scale war against the communists in defense of America and the West.

One of my favorite Ronald Reagan moments demonstrates President Reagan’s willingness to stand up to the communist threat. It occurred on August 11, 1984, when President Reagan told a joke. Though clearly a joke, it contained a large kernel of truth. During a microphone sound check prior to his speech, President Reagan mused: “My fellow Americans, I’m pleased to tell you today that I’ve signed legislation that will outlaw Russia forever. We begin bombing in five minutes.”

I can’t listen to the audio recording of this classic moment without laughing. Yet, the Soviets weren’t laughing – and not because Russians don’t have much of a sense of humor. Rather, these communists – who consider themselves in a permanent state of war with the West – understood that in Ronald Reagan they had a man who would not cower in fear, kow-tow to Moscow, or back down to Soviet advances. Evil regimes like the Soviet Union only gain momentum unless forcibly stopped in their tracks and resisted manfully by one of equal or greater strength.

President Reagan’s views were inspired by his belief that God founded this country and that we are not only exceptional, but that we have a mission to lead the world by our shining example:

“I’ve always believed that this land was set aside in an uncommon way, that a divine plan placed this great continent between the oceans to be found by a people from every corner of the earth who had a special love of faith, freedom and peace. Let us reaffirm America’s destiny of goodness and goodwill” (Ronald Reagan, Thanksgiving message, 1982).


Part of being the world leader is helping to preserve peace when it is within our sphere of influence and duty. President Reagan rightly affirmed:

“We’re not a warlike people. Quite the opposite. We always seek to live in peace. We resort to force infrequently and with great reluctance, and only after we’ve determined that it’s absolutely necessary. We are awed – and rightly so – by the forces of destruction at loose in the world in this nuclear era. But neither can we be naive or foolish. Four times in my lifetime America has gone to war, bleeding the lives of its young men into the sands of island beachheads, the fields of Europe, and the jungles and rice paddies of Asia. We know only too well that war comes not when the forces of freedom are strong; it is when they are weak that tyrants are tempted. . . .

“Of all the objectives we seek, first and foremost is the establishment of lasting world peace. We must always stand ready to negotiate in good faith, ready to pursue any reasonable avenue that holds forth the promise of lessening tensions and furthering the prospects of peace. But let our friends and those who may wish us ill take note: the United States has an obligation to its citizens and to the people of the world never to let those who would destroy freedom dictate the future course of life on this planet” (Ronald Reagan, Republican National Convention acceptance speech, July 17, 1980).

Is America today up to the task of being great and exceptional? Are we prepared to increase our unique national strength by fortifying our Faith, Families, and Freedom? And are we prepared to defend these fundamental institutions, and this Promised Land with her unsurpassed resources and beauty and potential, with the strength of arms and military might if necessary? Are we truly prepared to make the ultimate sacrifice to ensure that the blessings of Liberty we take for granted will extend to our posterity? If today we are not prepared for war to safeguard our peace, our rights, and our homes, we are not worthy of the title American.

General George Washington’s wise words of encouragement to his fighting men should pound once more in our ears. Two days before America formally declared Independence from British tyranny, General Washington wrote to his patriot soldiers to embolden them in their fight. He reminded them what was at stake – slavery or Freedom. He explained that all eyes were fixed on them and that they would decide whether tyranny or Freedom was to reign in America. And he explained the eternal truth that freemen motivated by the just cause of Liberty and aided by the God of Heaven are more fearsome than any conquering army ever can be. General Washington declared:

“The time is now near at hand which must probably determine, whether Americans are to be, Freemen, or Slaves; whether they are to have any property they can call their own; whether their Houses, and Farms, are to be pillaged and destroyed, and they consigned to a State of Wretchedness from which no human efforts will probably deliver them. The fate of unborn Millions will now depend, under God, on the Courage and Conduct of this army—Our cruel and unrelenting Enemy leaves us no choice but a brave resistance, or the most abject submission; this is all we can expect—We have therefore to resolve to conquer or die: Our own Country’s Honor, all call upon us for a vigorous and manly exertion, and if we now shamefully fail, we shall become infamous to the whole world. Let us therefore rely upon the goodness of the Cause, and the aid of the supreme Being, in whose hands Victory is, to animate and encourage us to great and noble Actions—The Eyes of all our Countrymen are now upon us, and we shall have their blessings, and praises, if happily we are the instruments of saving them from the Tyranny meditated against them. Let us therefore animate and encourage each other, and shew the whole world, that a Freeman contending for LIBERTY on his own ground is superior to any slavish mercenary on earth” (George Washington, General Orders, July 2, 1776).


Today, the eyes of the weary world are upon America. For years we have let them down. Our example has been less than exceptional, not particularly notable, and, in recent times, not worthy of duplication. We have allowed the communist cancer to eat away at our vitals until now we stand on the brink of civil war, mobocracy, economic collapse, open persecution of Christians and constitutionalists, and full-scale societal breakdown.

Notwithstanding how far we’ve fallen through our own neglect and rejection of God’s eternal laws, we have it within our power to step forward, do our duty, and restore our Republic. There will be sacrifices to make – and some patriots will lose their lives because Freedom is never won except at the price of blood – but we must make them for our sake, the sake of our posterity, and the sake of a beleaguered world that desperately needs us to lead.

I close with the rousing words of Ronald Reagan. Each syllable is true. Every vowel applies to me and to you in our present situation. The burden for the future rests squarely on our shoulders. If we shirk our duty now when it matters most, history will hold us in contempt. Let us be real men and real Americans. Let us honor the American tradition of preserving peace through strength and in always being prepared for war in order to secure an honorable peace. Let us be freemen worthy to be mentioned in the same breath as General Washington and his patriot army. God bless us and God bless America!

“If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth. . . .

“Alexander Hamilton said, “A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one.” Let’s set the record straight. There is no argument over the choice between peace and war, but there is only one guaranteed way you can have peace — and you can have it in the next second — surrender.

“Admittedly there is a risk in any course we follow other than this, but every lesson in history tells us that the greater risk lies in appeasement, and this is the specter our well-meaning liberal friends refuse to face — that their policy of accommodation is appeasement, and it gives no choice between peace and war, only between fight and surrender . . . And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us. You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. . . .


“You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness.” (Ronald Reagan, “A Time for Choosing,” October 27, 1964).

Zack Strong,

August 28, 2019.

Women Should Not Be Allowed in the Military

Many people justifiably oppose the idea of women in combat, but you find far fewer who believe that women should be officially barred from military service in any capacity. I fall into the latter category. This article is written to explain my reasons, both scientific and moral, for holding this view. It is also written to encourage women who are interested in military service to reconsider.

First things first: Let’s dispense with the myth that men and women are the same. Men and women are not the same. They never have been, and they never will be. “But all people are equal!” a feminist might screech in return. Not so. Equality is one of the biggest myths ever foisted upon thinking people.

People are only equal in two ways: 1) in the eyes of God, and 2) under the law. In all other ways, people are unequal, different, and unique. Because men and women are equal in their rights and in the eyes of God, we should not extrapolate this equality to mean sameness or equivalency in other aspects of life. Just because two men are equal does not mean they are the same or have equivalent skill levels or even equivalent capacities. If two men do not even match one another’s skill level, then who can honestly claim that members of “the weaker sex” can match the skill level of men in the physical arena that defines military service?

Place any two people side-by-side, male or female, and you will find them to be different in their physical strength, their stamina, their work ethic, their proclivities and desires, their enthusiasm and attitude, their range of experience, their skills, their instincts, their comprehension abilities, their modes of learning, and their IQs. No two people are the same. Admitting this fact to be true, it should not be hard for people to then admit that it is not an injustice for men and women to be unequal to one another. It is just a fact of life.

Indeed, some men are unequal to other men, just as some women are unequal to other women. No one will dispute that. Extending this logic further, we find that women are unequal to men in many ways, and men are unequal to women in others. Women, for instance, are usually gentler, more compassionate, and more interested in the welfare of others. These qualities make them infinitely better at raising small children. Should men be jealous of a woman’s natural abilities? Of course not. These are the capabilities and skills God has fitted women with. Why? Because women were designed to fill certain roles, foremost among which is motherhood. There is absolutely nothing inappropriate with this inequality. It is right, good, and natural. And, by the same token, men have been appointed to be protectors and providers, and have been endowed with the physical and mental qualities necessary to fulfill these roles.


Before we delve into facts, figures, and moral arguments, let’s discuss the purpose of war and military service. Understanding this purpose will highlight the poignancy of men’s and women’s inequality – particularly their physical inequalities.

Why do nations have militaries? What is a military’s purpose? In a word, a military’s purpose is to destroy, to kill, to maim, to obliterate, and to defeat any enemy that threatens its people. War is hell, as has often been noted. It is ugly, savage, and unmerciful. It is fast-passed and high-stress. War is founded on force and aggression, and sheer strength, power, and brutality. A military’s aim is to destroy its nation’s enemies as quickly and completely as possible, so as to protect their own people. War is not a game, nor a social experiment. Only the most violent and efficient warriors should be involved.

Keeping in mind the fact that the purpose of war is to crush an enemy threat as quickly and effectively as possible, it is obvious that men make the best soldiers. Anyone who has ever watched little boys and little girls play, knows that males, by nature, are far better at breaking and destroying things. They are more rambunctious and are inclined to take risks and to do dangerous things. Observers also know that boys are inherently tougher than girls, and can endure a worse physical pounding. They observe that a boy’s mind works differently than a girl’s. Boys like sticks and mud and frogs and slingshots and knives and to play cowboys and Indians, whereas girls like dolls and flowers and tea cups and dresses and shoes and pretty things. Little boys are also more likely to end up in physical altercations than girls, and they have a knack for fighting, and an instinct for war, that girls lack.

One might counter with the absurd allegation that these differences are a social construct. Anyone with any shred of honesty, however, knows this to be false. And study after study has confirmed that boys and girls are different, that they like different things, and that they instinctively behave differently. For instance, multiple studies have shown that, when placed in a neutral environment away from parents, boys will choose to play with toys that we traditionally think of as boys’ toys (trucks, balls, etc.), whereas girls will naturally gravitate towards girly toys (stuffed animals, ponies, etc.). In a word, boys and girls have different natures. Our male microchip is coded differently than a female’s. And that is how our All-Wise Creator intended it.


Recognizing these inherent personality differences, let’s now discuss basic biology. Men are taller than women. Men are larger. Men are stronger. Men are faster. Men can lift more weight. Men jump higher and farther. Men have more stamina. Men can run for longer distances. Men have a firmer grip. Men hit harder. Men have more muscle mass and less overall body fat than women. Men have greater lung capacity. I could go on and on. Simply put, men are better physical specimens and excel more than women do in physical feats. And war is inherently physical. Thus, who makes the best soldiers? Biology dictates that men should fight, not women.

A clipping from the June/July 2000 edition of The Veterans of Foreign Wars magazine recently fell into my possession. It is from a blurb entitled “Is the Warrior Spirit Outmoded?” It reads:

“According to some women military officers, masculine traits are no longer necessary in the armed forces. “The muscle we use in combat today is between our ears,” claims Navy Capt. Barbara L. Brehn.

“That may be true when one is dropping bombs from 15,000 feet, but on the ground strength and aggression are still essential assets. Of course, with precious little ground combat experience for GIs in the past 28 years, such nonsense goes unchallenged.”

In actual combat, brute strength and savage competitiveness are indeed “essential assets,” and men possess these traits in abundance, whereas women do not.

While there are individual exceptions, your average man will beat your average woman in any physical feat of strength. Name any sport, and men excel beyond women. This is even true in sports generally considered female, such as volleyball. There is a reason why we normally segregate men and women in sports – because to put women in a man’s league would be inherently unfair to women. Everyone knows that.

Having played in multiple co-ed sports, and having coached both boys and girls, I can personally attest that men excel beyond women. Among other sports, I played four years of co-ed volleyball in Alaska during high school, and was quite successful, leading my team to a state championship in my junior year. It is interesting to note that the volleyball net is almost a foot higher in co-ed volleyball than in woman’s volleyball. Why? It is an attempt to lessen the physical advantages men have over women. To keep the net lower would have been ridiculously unfair for the women who would have to bear the brunt of hard spikes from male players.

Continuing with this point, I challenge you to name one woman, no matter how good by female standards, who can play basketball competitively with all-star NBA players. You can’t do it. The same is true in any sport. The matchups are inherently unfair, because men are inherently more physical, aggressive, competitive, and are biologically equipped for physical feats in ways that women are not. This natural inequality was recently brought into the news by the legendary tennis player John McEnroe, who said that Serena Williams, the #1 female tennis player in the world, would only play at about a 700th ranked level if she were in a men’s league. While the collective feminist blood pressure skyrocketed because of McEnroe’s comments, the fact is he was simply telling the truth. It is politically incorrect to say that women cannot compete with men, but it is nonetheless eternally true.

While your average man is better than your average woman at physical feats, it is even more poignant that your best man will beat your best woman in the physical realm. Military men traditionally are the cream of the crop. And in war, these men go up against the best men from other nations. Can a woman, no matter how good, expect to compete against the best men other nations have to throw into the fray? Of course not!


One of the best articles I’ve ever read about the drawbacks of women in the military was written by a retired female Marine gunnery sergeant with 20 years of experience. I suggest reading the entire article, but here I want to quote just a small segment. This woman wrote:

“The military isn’t being honest with women. All data shows that women are injured at twice the rate of men. Yes – TWICE the rate. In Army basic combat training women were injured 114 percent higher rate than men. These statistics are just in present combat support roles, not the combat/infantry units. Is the military disclosing this injury rate to women? Of course not, because it doesn’t fit the narrative. Even as engineers and military police, women have 108 percent higher injury ratings.

“Women are not as fast or strong as men. This is not a disputed fact, it’s basic biology. If a woman is able to even get through the training, what are the long term physical hardships they’ll face? Attrition rates are already higher for women than men – so what are the odds of a woman performing in the infantry for 20 years? Probably zero.

“Sustained combat operations are physical. Even if a female can meet the standards men currently have in place, she will always be in the bottom percentile physically. Women have less muscle mass and less lung capacity – this is common knowledge. So even the most physically fit women are not going to be competitive with physically fit men. And after serving 20 years in the Marines, I can assure you, Marines are physically fit. One of the greatest areas emphasized by the Corps is physical fitness for the simple reason: to sustain long term combat operations, a Marine must be in top physical shape. Bodies break that can’t maintain the immense stress and physical requirements carrying gear and weapons for long periods of time.”

There you have it, an honest analysis from a woman with experience in this field. Women cannot, and should not, compete with men. It’s just that simple.


Let’s now go over a few other facts that demonstrate the insanity of letting women serve in the military.

Fact: Women are more injury prone than men. Women are more fragile. Women’s bodies break down easier. And women have a lower pain tolerance than men. How many times have we all heard a woman bemoan breaking a nail? How many times has a woman asked us to open the pickle jar she can’t manage to open? How many times has a woman asked us to reach something from the top shelf because she can’t reach it? How many times has a woman run in fright from a bee or a spider? Training a woman who is physically weaker, and who is, thus, exponentially more likely to get injured than a man is a colossal waste of money, not to mention a very inefficient and short-sighted system. It is also not fair for a woman to put her fellow soldiers in a situation where a greater burden is placed upon their shoulders because of the high likelihood that she will be injured at some future date.

Fact: Women develop UTIs and cysts and other diseasesUTIs and cysts and other diseases that men normally do not, which restricts their effectiveness and reliability. While it is possible for men to develop UTIs, it is exponentially more likely for a woman to develop them. And in war time situations where soldiers have to crawl through muck and grime, and where sanitation and hygiene are not first on the priority list, a woman’s likelihood of developing said diseases and infections is far greater. In comparable situations, men are less likely to contract a UTI or similar malady. And it goes without saying that a soldier riddled with infections or diseases is less efficient than a healthy soldier.

Fact: Women get periods, men do not. We have all been around women who seemingly malfunction when they are on their periods. They often don’t think straight, get sick, have cramps, have bad attitudes, burst into tears for no reason, and have numerous physical and emotional limitations during that time. Now let’s use some logic. If you had a piece of hardware that you knew was going to break down and malfunction for several days each and every month, would you continue to use it? Would you invest in it? Would you trust your life with it? Would you use it for important jobs? Of course not. You would be foolish to do so. Yet, we are expected to believe that women on their periods can perform at peak levels! It is a feminist pipe dream. We might as well claim the sun isn’t shining while we’re looking straight at it. Women on their periods can’t perform at optimum levels. Period.

Fact: Women can get pregnant, men cannot. To ask a similar rhetorical question as in the previous paragraph, if you had a tool that you knew could potentially be out of commission for 9 months out of the year, would you invest in it and take the risk of losing your investment? Of course not. Yet, we put men and women together and apparently expect pregnancies not to happen. I am in full support of the Lord’s prohibition of sex before, and outside of, marriage. But in our fallen world, we understand that people don’t obey the Lord’s commandments against fornication – especially young testosterone-filled men and women of childbearing age. Sexual immorality is so rampant in the military that I once read an article, though I do not now recall the source, where a sailor in the Navy reported that ships with women on them are essentially floating brothels. And so it is that sexual relations damage cohesion within units, and inevitably lead to unwanted pregnancies, which further impair a unit’s effectiveness.

Therefore, to place women in a situation where, if they do become pregnant, they will be a burden on their comrades, and on taxpayers who wasted money for her to be trained as a soldier, is simply wrong and irresponsible. It is also wrong because these children all too often become wards of the state, and are educated by outsiders instead of by their own mothers as God intended. To avoid these complications, including the serious immorality that is so prevalent, it would be best for women to not be in the military at all.

Fact: I know this will be surprising, but men love women. Men have always provided for and protected their women. Millions of men have sacrificed their lives for their women. A man’s supreme motivation in life is women. Women are also a man’s greatest weakness. To place women alongside men – not only in combat, but in regular service – is distracting. The last thing any military wants or needs is to have distracted soldiers, or soldiers with divided loyalties. Yet, with women nearby, a man’s natural, inherent, God-instilled desire to protect and defend and take care of women, will kick in and a man will lose focus on his main objective, which should be to kill the enemy.

Imagine a firefight with bullets whizzing overhead. Suddenly, over the din of battle, an injured woman’s cries for help are heard. What is a man going to do? Is he going to sit there and listen to a woman cry in pain? No. He is going to risk his life, perhaps even abandon his mission, to save her. And this result is doubly assured if there had been previous sexual liaisons between the pair. However, if it was the cry of a man in pain, the urgency would be much less to go to his aid, and the focus would be, where it ought to be, on completing the mission at hand. Men do not have the same protective instincts toward other men that they do for women. This can be abundantly seen in mundane situations every day. A boy drops his books in school, who cares? A girl drops her books, fifteen men drop what they’re doing to pick up the books and escort her to class. Try as they might, the social engineers will never eliminate our natural gender-determined instincts.

Fact: To accommodate women, the military has been forced to lower its entrance standards. Because women cannot pass the basic physical standards that men have had to master for decades, the military has quietly lowered its standards for both sexes. Besides the fact that lowering your standards just so that you can pretend you accomplished something is a poor way to live life, of greater importance is that fact that lowering standards hurts overall efficiency. If the military continues to accept into its ranks both men and women who can only meet continuously lowering standards, it will not be long before the military is weakened to a danger point. Are women willing to weaken the military and thus endanger the nation, just to make a political point or to selfishly pursue a career? Yet, every woman who enlists in the military contributes to the overall lowering of military standards.

Fact: Women require different, and separate, logistics than men. Women require an amount of privacy that men do not. To guard this privacy, they require separate facilities, which requires additional manpower and resources to build and manage, which in turn is a greater drain on taxpayers who fund the military. From a purely economic point of view, women are a massive liability. Apart from forking out money for their injuries, infections, pregnancies, and child care, we now have to spend additional money to build female-oriented barracks, latrines, and medical facilities, hire trainers specifically for the female recruits, etc. Throwing women into the military upsets the tried and true dynamic that has worked for thousands of years.

Fact: Over 1/3 of women get raped during their military service. This is a conservative estimate. I have read official Pentagon statements that admit at least 25% of military women get raped – that’s one in four. However, all independent investigations conclude that the number is, as a minimum, one in three. Some studies suggest the number is as high as 70%. No decent person would want their wife, sister, daughter, or mother to be in an environment where the chances of them getting raped were greater than one in three.

If you are a woman contemplating joining the military, take note – your odds of being raped or otherwise sexually assaulted are greater than 33%. Is that a risk you are willing to take? Are you prepared, emotionally or otherwise, to deal with being raped or sexually assaulted? Are you prepared to be raped, and then to have no one care, and to have your superiors attempt to conceal this information from the public? And what if it was your superior officer who did this to you? What would be your recourse then? If you go AWOL, you could be arrested and tried. Or you might be discharged and accused of lying.

This is not a scare tactic on my part; this is reality. While, as I mentioned earlier, a man’s natural instinct is to protect women, as a society forsakes God, as ours is doing, more and more people will abandon all moral restraints and will indulge in every heinous crime imaginable. And, in a military that has officially banned God, and that punishes Christians, the rate of rape and other crimes will only increase. You have to ask yourself if that is a risk you are willing to take. Please don’t naively think that it can’t happen to you – because odds are one in three that it will.


Many other points could be raised to demonstrate that women are a liability and a distraction, but I want to shift gears to the moral and religious aspects of this question. But before I do, I will quote from Jude Eden, a female Marine who served in Iraq, by way of summary. She wrote:

“Even on lower fitness standards, women have far higher rates of injury, illness, non-availability, non-deployability and attrition than men. Commanders of coed units know too well the added burdens of trying to juggle sexual dynamics, accommodations, relationships, fraternization, rape, pregnancy, hygiene and much more while maintaining troop welfare and good order and discipline, let alone mission accomplishment. These are liabilities that can result in mission failure and high casualties in the combat units, all to satisfy a tiny group of women selfishly petitioning for their own career advancement.

“ISIS doesn’t care that our military has met its diversity quota and broken the so-called brass ceiling. They will see our self-imposed weaknesses and exploit them to cause as much damage as possible. That’s precisely what happened to the group of female Marines who served on entry checkpoint duty two months before I did in Fallujah in June, 2005. Insurgents targeted their convoy almost certainly because they were transporting females. They laid an ambush that began with a bomb and ended in a firefight. Three American servicewomen died (one was a single mother) and several others suffered horrendous injuries. They hadn’t made and maintained the infantry standards to be there — they were just attached to the infantry by day. Women are targeted as easy marks because their capture and torture devastate American morale, further hindering our ability to fight our enemies.”

Indeed, it throws off the delicate dynamics of military effectiveness, wastes precious taxpayer dollars, and shatters morale to have women anywhere near a combat zone. It is a supreme distraction, as I stated above, for men to have women nearby when they should be concentrating on killing the enemy. Women serving in the military makes men more vulnerable, for the reasons states above, and is inherently selfish on the part of women. Finally, it is also terribly detrimental for women to expose themselves to an environment where their odds of their being raped and assaulted is over 33%, where they will suffer a multitude of injuries in the course of everyday life, and where they will be at a gross disadvantage to their male counterparts.

In the end, the question brings us back to morals and values. Even if the statistics did not show that women get raped 33% of the time during their service, and even if the numbers did not conclusively prove that millions of taxpayer dollars are wasted in training women who get injured at high rates, and even if the reality was not that women cannot effectively compete with men, I would still oppose women entering the military on religious and moral grounds. It is unChristian for women to serve in the military. And it is unChristian for men to allow it.

Only a cowardly, degenerate, spineless, effeminate nation allows its women to go to war. From the beginning, God has appointed men to provide for, take care of, and protect their women and their children. Men are the patriarchs and the heads of their homes, and, as such, the duty for their family’s defense and upkeep rests on their shoulders. It is the man’s role to defend his family.

A woman has a complementary role; namely, to manage the home in her husband’s absence, to bear offspring, and to nurse and train her children. A woman’s entire mortal duty can be summed up in one precious word: motherhood. Motherhood is a holy calling, a sacred duty, a divine responsibility. A woman’s greatest influence is in the home – not in the workplace, and certainly not in the military. Numerous verses from the Bible could be cited to show that a woman’s place is in the home, such as Titus 2:5. And all of human history demonstrates that God’s way works best.

While exceptions to rules abound, particularly in a broken society like ours, it is important to note that in God’s economy, gender roles are fairly regimented. Heavenly Father’s laws are like guardrails to protect us from figuratively going over the cliff during our often winding and tumultuous earthly journey. When we leave the path He has outlined for us, we risk serious danger to ourselves and others. One of the greatest tools Satan employs to deceive women is pride. He whispers in their ear, “Men are oppressing you and holding you back. Go out there and show them you are an independent woman, and that you can do anything they can do.” Women thus walk around with a chip on their shoulder trying to be like men, all the while ignoring the fact that God did not create men and women to be the same. He drew careful distinctions between the sexes. It is when we attempt to abrogate His standards that we put ourselves in danger; in this case, physical danger from outside enemy forces.


In conclusion, the evidence clearly shows that women cannot compete at the same level as men do in military situations, nor in any physically-laborious setting in general. As such, they prove a liability not only to their comrades who cannot truly rely on them, but to our entire nation, which relies upon our servicemen to defend us. When Russia and China eventually attack us, as I promise you they will, do you want women in our military? Of course not. Nor will you want a military full of men who are distracted by women. And women themselves should not want to place themselves in the way of communist hordes who, historically, have committed the most horrific mass rapes on record. During the final days of WWII, and for years afterward, the communists literally raped millions of German women. I consider that dastardly act the greatest atrocity of the Second World War. Surely, if we Americans were pitted in a world war against the communists, we could expect to receive similar treatment. And women, as usual, will bear the brunt of this savagery – and none more so than women who wear the uniform.

I repeat, it is a cowardly and godless nation that allows its women to suffer the harsh realities of military service. It is a degenerate and wicked nation that lets women fight – and an even more debauched people that mandates, via the draft, that its daughters endure the hell of war. Thanks to delusional feminists, and the spineless men who acquiesced to their dangerous demands, women are allowed to wear our nation’s uniform. Thanks to feminists, at least 33% of military women get raped, while others are exposed to indecency of a thousand types, highlighted by the recent military’s “nude photo” and pornography scandal. Thanks to feminists and their ilk, our women will provide our enemies’ men with an outlet for their rage and sexual depravity in the next major war we fight. Mark my words.

When you really stop and consider the facts, it becomes abundantly obvious that we do ourselves a huge disservice to allow our women in the military. It is unfair to women, it is unfair to the children they bear which will grow up without a mother’s influence, it is unfair to other soldiers, and it is unfair to our society which is put in danger from having a feminized military. I urge any woman who might be interested in joining the military to stop and consider the detriment she will be doing not only to herself, but to her country. And I encourage men to man up and fight the feminist politically correctness which has allowed women to worm their way into the military. May God help us repair the damages that have been done to our military by the integration of women, and may we once more become the world’s leading fighting force.

By Zack Strong

July 1, 2017.