Healthcare Professional Group Policy, Please Enter The Policy Number: Fill & Download for Free

Hard rung Conservatives don’t abide by Democratic policy for a number of reasons. Philosophically, much of Conservatism is contra to many of the policies of the Democratic Party.If you’re a Democrat and you immediately finished that sentence with, “Yeah, because we aren’t racists or sexists,” then you are about to have an eye opening experience.Marginalizing people has nothing to do with Conservative initiatives, though that message is all that survives the filtering process that eventually reaches most Democrats. I’m not actually angry with you if you thought that. I just think you should check your sources.One of the largest motivators for actual Conservatives that runs against Democrats is the conflict between the willingness to direct power towards individuals and local institutions rather than towards a larger and more powerful bureaucracy, more prone to inefficiency and diminishing returns, as well as corruption and incompetence. That belief can express itself emotionally, through the historical knowledge that as governments become more powerful, the rights of the people eventually erode, to the practical, seeing that government bureaucracies usually waste more resources than they provide.Personally, I agree with both of these sentiments. While I don’t feel that we have experienced anything tyrannical, and I view claims that Obama was a tyrant as hyperbolic, I feel that if we cede too many liberties to government overreach, then we will someday live in a state of tyranny. I doubt this will happen to me, or my children, but perhaps their children or theirs. It was said to me that we are always only one generation from tyranny and that the rights of free people have to be preserved by every generation without even a single one dropping the torch. This is why I am a strong supporter of gun owner rights and vehemently opposed gun control laws.Second is inefficiency of government, or small government. Currently, healthcare is a major topic, so I’ll talk about that. I very much oppose single payer healthcare because I’m a veteran. Why should that matter? Because I have the VA. The Veterans Administration is the second largest department of the federal government after the Department of Defense. It’s one job is to take care of veterans in a very limited fashion. Generally speaking, they are a single payer healthcare provider. However, unlike socialized healthcare that is ideally responsible for all healthcare needs, the VA only applies to healthcare of an individual only during the years when a veteran was active and only for healthcare needs they gained as a result of active duty. Compared to civilian healthcare needs, this should be nothing, yet it amounts to $183 billion[1]according to the 2016 budget request. For perspective that’s the budget of 10 NASAs[2](Which I am actually a huge fan of. I want my daughter to be the first Republican on Mars.) In spite of this, the VA is plagued with the realities of government bureaucracy where veterans must wait months to receive benefits or even see a doctor. Veterans have died in the waiting, and are treated horribly by VA staff… all while receiving substandard care.(context: see Durham, South Carolina VA scandal - Heartbreaking Photos of Vets Being Neglected at VA Spark Outrage)Again, they do this only for a small percentage of Americans, and only for injuries resulting from a small percentage of their lives. Democrats often ridicule us as “wanting poor people to die”, but quite honestly, they are dis-attached from the realities of the fact that the best we have come up fails miserably at its one and only job and are not willing to see rational criticisms of such systems which exist both internationally where its been tried as well as here in the United States. So while I admire the desire of many Democrats who want to provide healthcare (or any other service) to those who don’t have it, I would fear a reality where people are subject to that level of care experienced by veterans. No part of me wants to inflict that on people who think they are getting something better. The 15 Worst VA Scandals of 2015The same is true with many of the other social programs that have long been a part of our nation’s political process. Various programs such as the New Deal, Great Society, and the War on Poverty had major initiatives to try to raise the poor out of poverty. Facing long term marginalization though actual systemic racism, the blacks in the United States were most at risk for hardship during this time. They weren’t the only ones; poor whites also abounded, and both were enticed by social welfare programs that offered temporary assistance, but came with long term wealth stagnation. Self-interest dictated they take it, but far too many became married to the systems and became embroiled in systemic inescapable poverty, which hasn’t improved the status of life for many poor, regardless of how much is spent on it.A final example is how government programs meant to help have actually hurt the people it was intended to benefit, namely urban blacks. Beginning in the 1960s, the US government began heavily subsidizing new home development, however they do this equally. The United States Department of Housing and Urban Development was created in by the Johnson administration as part of the War on Poverty. It was intended to help the urban poor to resettle into home ownership, seen as the greatest predictor for wealth. However, what the program actual did was channel whites out of the cities into suburban tracks of land made possible for development by the rise of highways and the automobile. Blacks, on the other hand, were given “opportunities” to live in densely packed high rise buildings which centralized too concentrated a population of poor into too small of an area. Simply put, it was a recipe for crime and declining education, exacerbated by declining local economies which were not able to receive investment due to these previous factors. This became known as the Projects.While it seems that the Projects was a very clear case of designed systemic racism that impacts our society today, in general, myself and other Conservatives believe that most social welfare programs are well meaning failures. I never blame evil where incompetence is more likely a cause. In a world with ever increasing complexity, any weak link in the chain of a good idea causes the entire chain to break. While we may love a new program today, it is my belief that any government body will eventually collapse due to either corruption or incompetence if given enough time. Basically, no such program has ever worked out as it was intended. A better solution to many of us is to simply not empower the government to solve problems that it shouldn’t be in the business of solving, as that usually only translates to it getting broken further. Where at the face, it could be argued that we are trying to take entitlements away from people, and are therefore something-ist as the motivation was obviously about hate, in truth, it is about not empowering the government to do things which are bad in the long term.This same set of ideas can be applied to policing, immigration reform, or any other contentious subject. It can be labelled as Conservatives do these things because of intolerance, it will be, when if you ask them, their reasons are as rational as saying that people who break the law should be held accountable for it. Again, while the Left often makes claims that the Right and Republicans are motivated by little more than greed and racism, lacking any empathy at all, this narrative simply doesn’t support the facts and the expressed views of Conservatives. More often then not, they are people who aren’t driven by empathy, but weigh historical realities with the truth that no matter how much you can care about a person, a bad plan will hurt everyone over the long run while helping maybe only a few.Here I want to shift gears to talk about the Religious Right.Some things worth noting, the Christian Right (not synonymous with the Main Street Republicans mentioned above, but similar) do not follow the stereotypes for other right leaning organizations. Within them are many traditional Conservatives, but just as many are environmentally conscious, owing to a belief of man as shepherd and caregiver of creation, as well as traditions of involvement with nature which can be traced back to the original Progressive movement and Theodore Roosevelt’s creation of the Federal Parks program. They are also more skeptical of businesses than the average American, suspicious of the rich as being too greedy and lacking humility or care for the poor. Many live with the book of Luke’s “Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God," permanently emblazoned on their tongue. Also, according to the book Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism by Arthur C. Brooks, Christian Conservatives are far more compassionate and giving than even their Liberal counterparts, as measured by their willingness to donate far more time and resources to charity, not only for Christian charities, but secular charities such as Johns Hopkins or the United Negro College Fund. Given all this, they act as if they should form the Democratic core according to what the Democrats advocate.It’s funny then, that the Left routinely mocks Christianity when they routinely fail to understand them. Instead, they “paint with a wide brush” all Christians with all Conservative agendas, embittering Christians towards the Left with hateful rhetoric, and pushing them further away from policies they my support because of the off base attacks against their faith. There are many choices the Left and the Democrats have made which alienated any Christians who may have been sympathetic to their causes.Why the Religious Right is of the Right is due to this.As a group, the Religious Right is not that old. The Religious Right grew in response to the Johnson Amendment, a regulation that mandated no church leaders could openly participate in partisan politics or risk having the federal government remove their tax protected status. This effectively shut down the ability of church organizations, and thereby church members, to participate in the political process outside established secular political parties for many years as their leaders were afraid of damaging the health of their churches. Furthermore, it was viewed as censorship, as many issues of concern to Christians were no longer allowed to be the subject of church discussion as they suddenly overlapped with current political matters.This absence led to a number of secular agendas that were antithetical to the Christian belief system, namely the Supreme Court decision of Roe v Wade legalizing abortion. Most Christians believe that a human is a person at the time of conception and that an abortion is murder, which supersedes a woman’s rights to bodily integrity and which no one has the right to do, regardless of where that person lives or if the government says you can. Following Roe v Wade, the Christian Right grew in power as politicians leveraged the desires of Christian majorities while the pulpit still remains silent on many issues.In other cases, Christians have felt that they were under attack in other ways. A key example is the case of the Catholic Church’s adoption agencies. The Catholic Church has a long history of placing millions of children with parents. Among the conditions which need to be met are that the children must be placed in the care of Christian married couple, as marriage has long been established to be the most stable arrangement for a successful family to raise a child. American Catholic organizations began to face pressure when they refused to view gay couples as being legitimately married and refused to place children in the homes of gay couples and non-Christians. In response GLAAD and other organizations threatened to have the tax exempt status for these churches removed if they didn’t place the children. Not abandoning their beliefs, the Catholics were forced to abandon the practice of placing children, forcing them to close down the orphanages. This amounted for many Christians, Catholic or not, to gay right activists willingly attacking religious liberty by hurting anyone that got in the way of gay marriage agendas, from the Church and also including the children, who were the most harmed in the battle as no one is able to find them homes.At the same time came the rise of the new-atheists, which often crosses the line from legitimate criticisms of choices made by some Christians or on the theological basis of Christianity, into becoming an open forum of slander and what amounts to hate speech of all Christians. More so, it normalized intolerance of Christians. This was primarily supported by Left leaning organizations which already wished to limit the power and influence of the Church, furthering the divide between the faithful and the Left, crossing the theological divide back into a partisan one. This occurred in conjunction with a new mandate by the Left that similar criticisms to Islam, as were commonplace for Christians, was tantamount to racism. This inequality in treatment is embittering many Christians who are becoming silently more active.Now feeling unjustly targeted by so many different groups, all neatly aligned far to the Left made it very hard for many Christians to support Democratic causes, regardless of how much their personal beliefs may align with them. For all these reasons, many Christians have become emboldened by a sense of defending themselves against what feels like a culture that seeks to cast them as narrow-minded, bigoted, ignorant, and who are routinely mocked, belittled, and marginalized in entertainment, academia, and through many policies advocated by the Left.Simply put Christians will often refuse to follow Democrats because they feel that the Democratic party has made too many compromises to special interest groups, many of which specifically aligned against the views of Christians, and passively looked the other way as Christians became the target of a culture war lead mostly by left leaning advocates. Never in my lifetime have I seen a significant effort by professional Democrats to reign in hate speech directed to Christians (again, we aren’t talking about rational criticisms here) or doing anything more than lip service to Christian groups as a means of pacification while allowing their marginalization.An interesting proof of this took place in January at the women’s marches that took place following President Trump’s election. In what was meant to be a march of women’s solidarity, the one group who did not align to modern post-third wave feminism's inter-sectional model was women who were pro-life. These women were themselves protested and harassed at the, again, march for women’s solidarity. They were eventually kicked out of the march altogether.We could talk at length about other groups such as the Disaffecteds, who feel oppressed by any government so they will join with anyone seeking radical change. Libertarians who, let’s face facts, half of them started off just wanting to legalize weed, but the majority just want to be left alone to do business. I have many friends among those groups who could answer much better about whether they would side with Dems or not, and why, but these reasons I’ve stated are my own.So long as this trend to label all Conservative platforms as racist continues, rather than judge Conservative platforms on the merits of their executable worth, and so long as Christians face harassment and marginalization by the Left, I will never vote in support of a Democrat. Frankly, Democrats need to start acknowledging they do this, and start being aware, or at least speaking up against, the fact that they have many bullies among the left who will actively attack and seek to do harm to even others on the Left is they don’t follow this hateful line of thinking. Tell me honestly that in a room full of other Democrats, you would feel safe voicing support for any Conservative stance from gun-owner rights to pro-life, or that you would even feel safe saying that Christians don’t need to be tarred and feathered every time they’re mentioned. I’ve spoken out before in support of left leaning initiatives before and am still respected among Conservatives as a leader in this space, but do you honestly feel that it wouldn’t hurt your position to speak out towards a more honest framing of the debate?I’d like to hear a lot of Democrats tell me honestly what you think would happen if you crossed the same aisle, and if Republicans deserve to be labelled all the time as the party of intolerance. That’s not to say I haven’t seen many do exactly this. This last week, I was publicly and personally shamed and mocked for one of my answers on Conservatism by radical leftists, and it was numerous other members of the Left who voiced the most disdain for these tactics. That tells me a lot about the direction we’re going. It tells me that, in spite of the news and the ridiculous talk of “the Resistance”, we are reaching a point of mutual respect among those who have grown less tolerant of the current climate, but there is still needs more to go. Firstly, Democrats have to be able to be less afraid of the bullies on their side than I am, and then they’ll see there is actually far more that we have in common than what we’ve all been led to believe over the last few decades.Thank you for reading. If you liked this answer, please upvote and follow The War Elephant. If you want to help me make more content like this, please visit my Patreon Support Page to learn how. All donations greatly appreciated!Footnotes[1] Annual Budget Submission[2] https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/files/NASA_FY_2016_Budget_Estimates.pdf

For many outsiders, this question is based on two false notions which I need to rectify firstKerala never had long term communist party rule unlike Bengal or Tripura. They could rule maximum 5 years and power alternates at end of every term of the government. So out of 61 years of modern Kerala history, Left front has ruled only 22 years (not more than 5 years in a stretch)Communist party or Congress party never able to rule alone in Kerala, barring 2 years for Undivided Communist Party when they formed the first government in 1957 which collapsed in its 2nd year. Ever since that, Kerala was always ruled by alliances, notably two alliances- United Democratic Front led by Congress and Left Democratic front led by CPM. In both fronts, there are left parties as well as non leftist parties. So all alliance rules Kerala based on a consensual agenda within the Alliance, not purely individual party decisions.These two points have a key role, as the question itself assume, there exist a Communist Government. Sorry, there is no Communist government in Kerala, rather Left Government, be it in past or today. And again, Communism in Kerala is not pure Communism. They are more like Social Democrats.Don't Call The CPM In Kerala Communists, Call Them Social DemocratsNow pros and consBasically there is little difference between UDF or LDF when comes to governance. As I said, since its coalition politics, no single party can implement its ideological agenda completely into governance, rather has to compromise a lot for coalition partners. UDF has lot of Leftist parties, hence Congress couldn’t implement absolute Neo-Capitalist model (Manmohan Singh concept of Liberalization/Privatization/Globalization policy) as well as LDF do have several centrist parties, thereby can’t implement pure Communist agendas.And both UDF and LDF are socialists to the core. Infact Congress party in Kerala (KPCC) has almost all its leaders who are hardcore socialists that they used fight against many policies which Congress unveiled since 1990s. So as Communists are much in sync with Chinese model, thereby have huge relationships and partnerships with several rich businessmen, thereby can’t oppose many capitalist policies. In short, all political parties in both alliances almost have similar ideologies and governance concept barring few minute differences.I am focusing only Pros and Cons of various Left Governments in Kerala from 1957 to present.ProsUndivided Communist Party unveiled Land Reforms concept in 1957, which was an absolute dynamic shift from traditional land holdings pattern. Overnight Kerala changed its image from feudalistic society to much more inclusive society with every landless citizen now got right to own certain minimum amount of land. Peasants who toiled for generations like a bonded labour in the land, suddenly became owners of few plots of the same land. The Landlord concept (Jenmi System or Zamindari system as called in North) disappeared. Though Congress party was opposed to it which actually brought communists down in 1959, they too were forced to accept this concept at later stage. Land reforms was a mixed bag. On one hand it enabled every landless citizen to feel ownership and thus threw themselves out of traditional feudal yokes, but caused heavy land fragmentation that killed agriculture in a big waySocial Development interventions: I won’t say Left Government as such, rather it was a policy of Communist party to expand the concept of literacy and rational movement, which got support of both LDF and UDF governments. This led to patronizing of various progressive societies, notably Kerala Sastra Sahitya Parishad (People’s Science Movement) to push for a scientific/rational revolution in Kerala.Total Literacy Campaign : In its first year, Communist Government embarked a massive literacy campaign. It focused heavily on taking Travancore/Cochin Model of education system to Malabar (which was part of British India and heavily lagged) and aggressively expanding public schools in Travancore-Cochin side aimed for mass enrollments. On other side KSSP and similar Left organization under patronage of communist parties and Left governments (read CPI which was part of UDF in 1970s) pushed for scientific movement. This heavily pushed for social literacy, massive public sanitation program, healthcare awareness programs, scientific rational building programs etc.Typical Village library in a remote village of Malappattam in Kannur. A good number of such libraries are developed by Communists or Leftist groups, due to which one can see Leftist iconography in such libraries.Granthashala Movement: There was a Library movement during Monarchy days in Travancore, which got a Pan Kerala face in 1954. The first Communist Government aggressively supported Kerala Granthashala Sanghom (Public Library Society) which pushed for an aggressive expansion of libraries across the state under state patronage (without state funding). During Monarchy days, libraries were mostly in cities and college areas, meant for elites. KGS under Left patronage (don’t read as government) changed the narratives for a concept of Pothu Granthashala concept (People’s Library) by which number of libraries rapidly expanded from 1780 to 4280 libraries across the state. In 1975, UNESCO’s prestigious Krupskaya Prize made KGS as a special mentioning. In 1987, LDF Government enacted Library Act, by which all libraries now became under Government patronage and funding mechanism. Under the Left govt Patronage from 1987 to 1991, number of Public libraries grew more than 6000, ie almost 6 libraries per village, nearly 25,000 reading rooms across Kerala, more than 20,000 literary clubs, making Kerala having highest number of libraries in the country. This played a key role in achieving literacy as well as enlarging political awareness. Even today, one hall mark of Kerala is seeing a Public library or reading room, even in most remotest village. And being a pro-Left legacy, its natural to see photos of Che Guevara and Gandhiji side to side decorating the walls. http://shodhganga.inflibnet.ac.in/bitstream/10603/40083/10/10_chapter3.pdfPublic Sanitation Campaign : While Travancore/Cochin Kingdoms historically formulated policies to push sanitation as one of its key agendas for development, Left Govt took from there in much more aggressive manner in a time, when it wasn’t much prioritized nationwide. The First Government in 1957 entered into a partnership with WHO for a sponsored scheme as part of a pilot project for rural sanitation that promulgated a single leach pit-type latrine with a squatting slab and the water seal bowl placed directly over the pit. The success of this scheme, resulted in subsequent governments to push for it. In 1988 under EK Nayanar government (LDF), Kerala government partnered with Dutch Government for a state wide latrine redevelopment scheme. By the time of exit of Nayanar govt in 1991, Kerala already reached 75% of its target plans of massive modern sanitation methods. This explains one major reason why Kerala was ahead of modern day Swach Bharat Abhayan programs. https://www.ircwash.org/sites/default/files/Kurup-1996-Community.pdfQuality Healthcare: Since the times of Monarchy, the governments focused in creating a community healthcare concept. And both LDF and UDF govts aggressively focused on developing Government Healthcare system. So definitely a good number of 3 tier hospital system (PHC, Taluk and General Hospital) got massively expanded since the times of first government. Communist Chief Minister- Achuta Menon (He was from CPI and that time part of UDF, not LDF) had a vision of quality tertiary hospitals in Kerala and focused in establishing Free India’s first Government owned Tertiary Cancer Center in Trivandrum. So as Kerala’s second Medical college in Kozhikode in 1957. Apart from Government level, Communist party focused on concept of Cooperative Medical facilities and established a series of healthcare institutions across Kerala (some coop hospitals are established by Congress) and these coop institutions got government support in a big way.The irony when Communists across India was opposing Computerization in late 1980s while in Kerala, they laid foundation to India’s first Tech ParkEstablishment of India’s first Technology Park (Technopark) in Trivandrum which was a vision of E.K Nayanar in 1991Community Policing- Janamaithri Concept: LDF can be best credited in launching India’s first Community Policing concept in 2009 during last LDF government. It was part of a major structural change to make Police to shed its anti-people people and make them friendly. This initiative got a national wide attention when featured in popular National show- Satyameva Jayathe. The scheme also brought several laurels to Kerala Police.Pushing PSUs to better profits margins: Left Always believe sustainability of PSUs which normally goes in loss during UDF term. Whenever Left govt comes to power, we could see most of loss making PSUs suddenly turning themself into profitable ventures.From Rs 131.6 crore net loss, Kerala's PSUs post Rs 106.91 crore net profit in 2 yearsA video presentation of Smart /digital classrooms of KeralaNadakkavu Govt Girls High School- Kozhikode is regarded as the best Model school in Kerala for its upgradation to International school levels which is now planned to extend to 100 major urban schools across KeralaUpgradation of Public Education sector : Left government always pushes for Public education, particular upgradation of Government schools, which normally doesn’t take priority for UDF governments. In every term when Left comes, they upgrades public education in a high priority. This time, Left Govt called the exercise as Puthuvidyabhasa Yajnam (The Holy Sacrifices of Public Education) by which the state set an ambitious target of converting 45,000 classrooms into Smart classrooms with all modern digital technologies like Digital boards, LED Screens, audio visual rooms, digital learning with higher school students using Notepads instead of notebooks etc. Already 20,000 clasrooms are in process of converting into Digital facilities and some are airconditioned with wifi facility. The focus is to create more schools at par with international schools that can attract middle class and upper middle class into Government schools. The result was seen when today (01/06/2018) Kerala recorded more than 3 Lakh new admissions to Government Schools for this academic year.20,000 classrooms in Kerala schools set to go hi-tech by Januaryhttp://www.newindianexpress.com/cities/thiruvananthapuram/2017/nov/28/sarkara-government-upper-primary-school-at-chirayinkeezh-opens-fully-air-conditioned-smart-classroom-1713217.htmlStrives in Electricity sector: Left government since EK Nayanar times, focused on building up installed capacity in the state and extending electricity connections to every home. This policy has got a continuation during UDF times since 1990s and by 2017, Kerala became fully electrified state with 99.2% of total homes having access to electricity.Kerala becomes first state to provide electricity to every home: Pinarayi VijayanSocial Justice: Left Government aggressively focused on social justice by accepting the concept rights of Transgenders and LBQT community. Though its a policy of UDF Govt initiated in 2014, Left Govt adopted it as part of their political manifesto and continued the UDF policy during their tenure. As part of this policy, Kerala opened India’s first Free Sex Change Surgery clinic in 2016, first Transgender school in India, Special skills training institute to upgrade the employable skills of TGs as well as employment of TGs in Kochi Metro. A Similar program is underway for prisoners in Kerala Jails who turned Jails into a money spinning industry. Again, this was a policy concept made by UDF govt, limited to ready to eat Food products like packed Chapattis etc. LDF Govt since 2016 took to much unbelievable concepts including starting of Beauty palours, Casual dining restaurants, Fashion Boutiques etc and planning to expand to new concepts like running Petrol pumps, developing furniture industry etc.9 Times Kerala Pioneered With Its Transgender Policies & Showed The World How It’s DoneState prisons reap profits as inmates script a success storyCurrent government has fasten the completion works of much delayed GAIL Pipeline, re-initiated 4 Lane works of National Highways and put works of decentralized waste management plans on stronger levels.Please don’t assume me as a Promoter of LDF. Just put the key points as above. Now lets come to the biggest disadvantages of LDF governance.ConsLeft Governments are never free from large amount of criticisms. Infact, its a fact, Left Govt in Kerala normally attracts large amount of Anti Incumbency factors from start of its governance itself due to attitude of many leaders. Due to this reason, rarely Left Government used to get Bye-elections within the state favorable for them (except in very few occasions) and the huge anti-incumbency factors always ensure, they are turned down during election season.Some of the major cons areAttitude problem: Most of the left leaders, particularly since 70s, maintained a very harsh outlook. While they get along with public well, they were never seen as pleasing personality or someone humble to the core. Barring Achutha Menon, EK Nayanar, no Communist Chief Minister ever bore a pleasing outlook to the public during their tenure. When I say pleasing, what I meant is humility and grounded level. For example, the most celebrated Communist CM EMS always known for his harsh speeches against his rivals and writes against them in most harsh way. VS Achuthandan who ruled Kerala from 2006–2011 always had a Stalinist image, be his body language or communication style. However he was extremely popular among people due to his aggressive stand on moral values and rights even against Party leadership. Currently Pinarayi Vijayan is also too much harsh and rarely exhibits humility or even a simple smile. On contrary much of UDF leaders are extremely grounded and public friendly. Its harder to find a single image of Karunakaran without smiles, AK Antony without folded hands and Oommen Chandy without crowds. These are one reason that make communist leaders looks too much harsh attitude unlike Congress leaders. Even though EK Nayanar was much better than normal CPM leaders, still he was known for his humorous satires and mocking rivals openly.Party Cell rule: The biggest complaint against Left leadership is that, whenever they come to power, almost all sectors of Government slowly becomes Party cells. Bureaucrats showing loyalty to the party gets preferential treatment and individual Party committees and its leaders gets an upper hand in various government offices. Whenever Left comes to power, its associated / affilated government unions takes over the key positions in government offices and thus several reports of less support those who are opposed to Party or non partisans. In many cases, government services do get delayed or even refused to those whom local party leaders considers as enemies (not those essential services by the way)Politicisation of Kerala police shows CPM doesn’t learn from its mistakesPolicing Issues: The most heard criticism against Left government is that whenever they comes to power, Police forces becomes totally partisan to Left leadership. Police often becomes an agent of Communist party rather public good. In last two years, current Left govt under Pinarayi Vijayan has faced extreme brickbats due to inefficiency of Policing. In majority cases, police forces either became partisian to ruling Left or have seriously lost morale, thus involved in various wrongdoings that has seriously affected the image of Kerala Police. Though Left governments has introduced several innovative concepts like Janamaithri schemes etc, its often reported lower end police officials who are affiliated to party gets more high handiness and they get involved with various wrong doings that damages the overall image. Equally party do openly get involved into various police actions, investigations which definitely harms their image in a big way. And Police often plays a role of spectators whenever CPM is involved in a crime, especially in Kannur Killings where they come only to arrest the criminals after they committed the crime, rather preventing the crime. Moreover often its reported, Police aids CPM by arresting dummy criminals as named by the party who are ready to sacrifice for them, instead of real criminals when comes to political murders of Kannur.Grave lapses, apathy by Kerala police but why has there been zero accountability?Kerala now has a new dread on the streets, an abusive police force that hapless citizens always fear - FirstpostPoor Social Protests: In Kerala, the key reason why Communists are respected whenever they are in opposition, is only because of their active or probably extraordinary level of intervention into various public issues and protests against government. CPM has numerous affilates and they all get involved actively against wrongdoings. For example, SFI actively protests, if fees of government institutions are hiked, if any private management reprimands students for wrong reasons or Government machinery lapses in education. Same way DYFI would be protesting against any social wrongs or corruption issues of the government. But when Left government comes to power, all these organizations go into deep hibernation, even in cases not directly against government. For example in much recent Trivandrum Law Academy protests, SFI almost stood as a spectators when their own fellow coalition partner’s student wing- AISF (CPI’s unit) completely took over the protests in a big way. Same way, DYFI will rarely open its mouth, even against the most worst form of nepotism or public wrongs in society when Left rules. This sort of double standards of these affiliates organizations, is one key issue, as CPM as a ruler absolutely ask all its affiliates to be silent, even if they don’t support the government on it.A report that came in a leading newspaper how children of CPM Leaders got privileged to be associated with various corporate companies.Support to crony capitalists : CPM often face criticisms for supporting and seeking patronage of few businessmen. Infact, its much similar to how BJP gets associated with some like Adani at national stage. CPM’s official ideology is always pro-poor, yet its too opposite to see them getting associated intensively with large Malayalee business magnates. Some of the their leader’s children with average educational qualifications and little professional experience ended up as Vice presidents and senior officials of companies owned by these business groups. This double standards always gets a serious attack over CPM Leadership as it works heavily to create nepotism. Left also got seriously attacked in recent years for supporting many Neo rich businessmen and their violation of environmental laws. Infact many do criticize heavily, CPM is actually taking all laundry bags of such neo rich for no reason, which indirectly highlights on nepotism issues.Nepotism Charges: CPM and most of left parties do keep a very high standards on record and in public domain. Naturally public do expect a lot from them. So when they behave like Congress politicians, it gets much deeper brickbats. Its normal anywhere in India, ruling party do give chances to their favourite men as well as within family members, a chance of being part of provisional government services or temporary employment in Government owned corporations or bodies. However this matter when CPM does always gets huge brickbats as they often talk and present reports on purity of political services. Naturally such behaviour doesn’t get accepted. Nepotism is one key charge often levied against many CPM ministers and did happen this time, when some of them appointed their newphews or son in laws in temporary Govt jobs. A minister who regarded as Number 2 in current government lost his ministerial berth only for appointing his son-in-law as manager of a government company. Media often takes extra interest in exposing the double standards of CPM as they often talk about purity and corruption free politics. Rarely CPM/Left gets involved in any serious scandals that involve money. But often get involved in nepotism charges, which is indeed too negative for them.The ongoing strike by former CPM workers against Left Government who decided to take their land for National Highway development. Its a typical example, how CPM with iron fist deals its own workers instead of a consensus.Iron Fist attitude: While in opposition, Left often talks about consensual politics, whereas in power they try to do implement changes with Iron Fist. Some of the worst police atrocities or forcible actions against protestors were recorded during Left rule. The recent issue of forcible Land acquisitions for National Highway is one such example, how Left rarely respect its own ideals while in opposition. This serves one prefect reason why Left gets voted out once in every 5 years.There could be many more pros and cons. I feel, these are most key according to me.Its true, both Left and Right (in Kerala concept, Right means UDF or Congress) are never angels…Nor devils too. Both has their pros and cons. While UDF is more Corruption oriented (with focus on economic development), LDF is more Arrogant Oriented (with focus on social development).The people of Kerala uses elections as a Pendulum to run from Corruption to Arrogance and then back and forth so.

​I've been following and reporting on the debate of the role of women in the military since 2011, when I wrote one of my first articles Women in Combat Operations. I've made it clear in the past that I want stellar and driven females to have the ability serve alongside the boys delivering much needed punishment to America's enemies in whatever manner suits their talents and abilities. That includes service within the infantry. I've never wanted the Marines to be a boys only club. I've expected for a long time that women would be a part of the future of Marine infantry, and in fact, a major part of my novel about Marines serving in the year 2025, The Next Warrior, revolves around it.It's a future that I personally would like to see, but having read from many differing accounts, I have many concerns. I've attempted to voice many of the problems and conflicts such a decision would bring about for the armed services. What I, and many Marines, have a problem with, is the way in which this process of inclusion was done. I find that the manner in which this decision was made was in such a way as to serve as a great disservice to the military as a whole, the Marines who took part in the studies, and even the women in question. Frankly, there has been a great deal of evolution and debate, but most of the key issues I've had since the beginning have been completely ignored by recent policy enactments. The question isn't being asked, "Is this a sound policy for the future of the Marine Corps and American national security?" Instead, we are promoting women in the forces not because it helps the nation's military, but because it helps the cause of women. While I am supportive to the cause of women, as a veteran of the Marines, and knowing that their struggles are not of equal pay in the workplace, but of the chance of death or living a life of dismemberment and trauma, my loyalty in this regard goes to them. If the cause of women can be helped, that is a wonderful thing, but if such a policy harms the chances of mission success overall in the military, or the survivability of any of the Marines, both male or female, it shouldn't be supported.Right now, we still hang in the balance of not knowing what women in the infantry will mean. We simply don't know, but the gavel has fallen anyway, and those who question the ruling, are currently facing the hangman's noose of social justice. This, I feel, was a detrimental failure in the administration, whereby an attempt to force the matter prematurely was made, not in an attempt to better the forces, but due to political pressures aimed around promoting equal rights, but in a realm where equality rights was never the issue to begin with.​To qualify that statement, I'll say this first about the other services that were invoked in the details to the question. The Army, Navy, and Air Force are not about infantry. They have infantry roles, such as the Navy SEALs or the Air Force's Pararescue and TACP combat liaisons (who call in airstrikes from ground positions.) The Army, obviously, has many infantry units. All of these services, however, are intended to perform other duties and infantry varies from being only a small part of that, to important supporting actors for their overall functions. The Marines are very different. There is a saying in the Marine Corps: all other jobs are in support of the infantry. The helicopters are designed to support front line troops. The fighter planes require VTOL landing and takeoff to work with the infantry. They've even created their own martial arts system to aid the infantry in their jobs. To say the least, their existence centers around infantry and infantry support. They will not take well to outsiders forcing changes upon their system, one in which they have mastered far beyond any other branch, and arguably, beyond any other modern force in the world.​Secondly, this is not an equal rights issue. Many are forcing this in the same category as when African Americans began being integrated into the service. This isn't. There is nothing structurally different about the African American body than of that of a White person or any other race. Given equal training, I can say from personal experience, that race is not a determinate of martial ability. This also doesn't relate to homosexuals in the military. I can also say from personal experience with a fellow Marine in Iraq, that being gay in the military does not affect military performance since, once again, sexual preference does not affect the way in which your body fundamentally does its job. The question that exists today, is on women. Women's bodies are obviously very different from those of men. Annika Schauer's answer to what are your opinions on the results of the U.S Marine Corps test regarding women in the new integrated combat units? demonstrates one of the built in physiological burdens women face that would limit their functionality in a combat environment. The question is, "Are the physiological differences between men and women so great as to put undue risk on unit success, and unit survival, in a military which has evolved to suit males for thousands of years?".It's a fair question that should be treated fairly. The military, and the infantry in particular, is a field where a marginal decline in unit performance, even so much as 1-3% in key roles, can cause the deaths of thousands of people and overall mission failure. Now, however, the actual risks of inclusion are being ignored, and all those who question if female inclusion is good for military are being reprimanded as bigots, sexist, or at the very least, "maybe too conservative in the subconscious, thereby unknowingly skewing the results of studies made." No, as my writing in the past will show, I want there to be a future where women can contribute their talents to the fighting companies of all military occupations, but it isn't about what I want, and it isn't about what any of the rest of us want either. It is about what is best for the Marines.As for recent remarks by many claiming that the Marine Corps' tests were flawed, so too were their analysis. For example, an article by Military(dot)com, New Details Question Validity of Marine Corps Gender-Integration Study, cites problems that some have had with the study, of which I'll list here:"Flawed methodology" - many have echoed the Washington Post interview by the Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, and his dismissal of the Marine Corp's study as "flawed methodology". This "flawed" word is showing up more and more, particularly in google searches on the study, but I've seen little evidence in what is flawed about the study. For example, the piece states that unit cohesion was lacking and that the females selected were all young and inexperienced. If we take into account Mindy Vuong, who has stated herself to be a member of the task force which did the experiment, then the Secretary's statement doesn't seem to hold up. According to her topic bio, she is a Marine Corps Sergeant, and therefore, a seasoned Marine with several years of experience under her MCMAP belt. She may be inexperienced as an infantry person, but to state that she shouldn't be is nonsensical. Of course the first generation lacks experience. To say that women who are transitioning into that role from other fields lack experience is an obvious point. What wasn't mentioned was that many of the men were new in their roles, as well. The SECNAV's statement would lead many to believe that raw female recruits were competing against seasoned and grizzled warrior veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan. Considering that Mabus made his statements to throw mud on the Marine Corps for a lack of scientific rigor, Mabus' statement was intellectually dishonest, at best.To continue, and what I considered the most egregious point, was that Mabus based another large portion of his dismissal by attacking the individual women involved in the exercise. One of his comments was to the effect that the system that allowed the women into the experiment was unfairly weighted to bring in unexceptional women. Women volunteering for the effort had to meet the minimum male score for passing the Marine Physical Fitness Test and the Combat Fitness Test. According to the argument presented by SECNAV, this means that the women selected were only functioning at the bare minimum requirements and not actually suited to the tests. Had they set the bar higher, the Magus implied, they would have got better women who could have passed the test.​There are at least three things wrong with this statement.1) First, the United States Marine Corps Physical Fitness Test is not something that these women would have been working toward meeting only the "minimum standard". This doesn't relate to personal drive, but career performance. The PFT is tied to a Marine's promotion scores, so if a Marine were to only be capable of achieving the minimum score, then they would be in effect, showing themselves to have no interest in their career in the military by not training for the highest score possible. This is a universal truth throughout the Marine Corps, no matter what job you hold. I've described this in detail in Is it difficult for a U.S. Marine to make sergeant in his first 4 years of service? Through minimum effort, one can attain far better than the minimum score on that test. For example, I never considered myself the fittest of Marines, but I never scored less than 6 pull-ups, one of the tested exercises, and finished my enlistment doing 18. The minimum is 3, and not achieving that is showing someone who lacks completely the drive to succeed in the Marines. Admittedly, this is harder for females, but not so much that meeting the minimum score does not still indicate a Marine who doesn't seem to care about ever being promoted. Since the PFT is also a part of all Marines' promotion metrics, saying that it was a poor indicator of performance was nonsensical, since they should have been training for their best anyway.2) The minimum set is the minimum necessary for men, and is considered so because it is based on decades of research and experience, perhaps looking back to more than a century, of what the Marine Corps believes are the necessary minimum strengths of a field soldier expected to perform expeditionary warfare duties. To argue that this should not apply to women on the basis of their differently formed bodies is failure in perspective. The measurements by which the Marines Corps set its standard infantry performance were never established to filter women from the pool. In fact, these are measurements never factored for women at all; they were designed to filter people from the pool of prospective infantrymen. I say infantryman to remind others that far more men have been turned away from infantry duty, through no fault of fighting spirit, but that of a body too weak to be relied upon for performance in the demandingly physical team environment that combat demands.To change that now, for the purposes of allowing more women in, is to lower the standard for all infantry Marines. The Marine Corps cannot allow it, as the basis for the military is not to serve as an instrument of social reform within the nation, but as a tool for the winning of wars. Likewise, the opposite is also true.3) To change the metric to only allow women who are exemplary in physical ability would do something else; it would drastically limit the pool of potential women who could enter the infantry. No matter what the rationale may be, when it is seen that the pool of any minority is drastically cut by policy, where others are not... that has always been labelled as prejudicial on some variant or another. In this case, to change the scoring system to be of a higher standard than of the men, would be sexist.According to Mabus, the exercise would have been more fair had they raised the bar to a higher threshold, perhaps to a male's first class PFT. While this would have undoubtedly produced a more physically fit crop of female Marines, that would have invalidated any legitimacy of the test. It would have, in effect, been testing a group that will not apply to the final result. ie. women who do make the minimum requirements, and still wish to be part of the infantry. One does not enter into a study with the intent to prove something, in this case, that some women can complete the training. The point of science to find out what happens, such as this experiment which asked the question, "Can the average women who wants to be infantry, cut the minimum requirements to do so?"What these points amount to was that the Secretary of the Navy dismissed the findings because he outright dismissed the women who were involved. Being selected under a fair metric, rather than looking anywhere else for inspiration, he blamed the women themselves. No one has decried this more than the Integration Task Force senior enlisted leader, Sergeant Major Justin Lehew.In a publicly visible post on his personal Facebook page, Sgt. Maj. Justin LeHew said Mabus was "way off base" to suggest that female Marines of a higher caliber should have been selected for the service's integrated task force experiment and that officials went into the test anticipating the women would not be successful.Mabus' comments run "counter to the interests of national security and [are] unfair to the women who participated in this study," wrote LeHew, who played a key role in the service's nine-month experiment as the top enlisted leader with Marine Corps Training and Education Command.In his post, he repeats states his sentiments.We selected our best women for this test unit, selected our most mature female leaders as well. The men (me included) were the most progressive and open minded that you could get. The commander of this unit was a seasoned and successful infantryman. The XO of this unit was as good as they get, so good the USMC made her the CO of the Officer candidate school.The "Her" in that last line, indicating the task force's Executive Officer (XO) or the unit's second in command, is Colonel Julie L. Nethercot. So far, this is the first I have seen mentioned that the second most important officer of the command was, in fact, a woman along with being a seasoned Marine officer up to to the point of commanding a battalion in Afghanistan and holding a position as a deputy director under the joint chiefs of staff at the Pentagon. I'm disappointed that with all that I have heard of the "subconscious bigotry" of the study, a facebook post of the the Unit's Sergeant Major was the first I have heard that it was in a large part planned, organized, conducted, and commanded by an accomplished female officer. I can't speak to why Nethercot's existence in this study has been so quiet, nor can I explain why Mabus and others have made the study out to be a male dominated Marine corps boy's club trying to oppress women, but it seems very clear that this is what has happened.Along with this, he rejected the findings and added another critique of the study. When it was noted that the average performance of integrated teams was much lower than that of the all male teams, he attacked the study for basing its results on the average, rather than the performance of a few stellar performing individuals. What he wanted, was anecdotal evidence to prove a position that women could serve with the infantry and succeed. As I said before, that isn't the question the study. To assume there weren't at least a few stellar women in the study, as well as the Corps as a whole, seems to be the more preposterous notion of all.​But this isn't a matter of individuals. It is about averages. The women were averaged to see how they performed, which gave troubling results for the cause that so many following the story want to hear. The reason this is relevant is that the military doesn't operate on an individual basis. They operate as a collective of millions of people. While it would be a good thing if the military could select and vet each individual member based on his or her performance or potential, such as in the Special Forces, it doesn't. There are simply too many people in the infantry for it to recruit like this. The questions have to be asked, "Does the average woman with the willingness to perform this job, meet the qualifications necessary? Will she be able to be relied upon when the time comes to do that job?"I want to be completely clear. In my experience, I have worked with exceptional women, who I am sure would succeed and thrive in the infantry roles. One in particular was a Captain by the name of Dienhart.I want to talk about an officer I knew while in the Marines. She was one of the best Marines I ever knew. Seriously, top 3, including men. Her name was Capt. Dienhart. She was a company commander for an engineering support squadron I worked for. She was in command of over 120 mostly male Marines. Even here in the Marines, the most famous boys club in the world, she had respect. Why? She could out do any one of us. She made it a point to be able to do more pushups than us (and not girl push ups either), she could do more pull-ups than any of us ( and I am not talking about flexed arm hangs) and she ran the 18 minute 3 mile. And when I say us, I mean the group of 450 19-24 year old male Marines in the squadron, not an easy group to beat, but she did almost every time.The only time I really got to know her was when I was a marksmanship coach for the squadron. I was her pistol instructor and helped her through her annual qualification. I used “instructor” and “helped” loosely because she was, on top of everything else, one of my best shooters ever. She had the form down, was very patient and methodical and had the strength to hold the weapon with control that and delivered precise and accurate shooting. In the Marines, marksmanship is kind of a big deal, so for her to deliver precise, consistent shooting, not just a few good shots was impressive for myself and the other Marines.The woman rewrote the book for me on what women in the military are capable of. I don’t know if she has any inclination to be part of a combat MOS, but I feel that the leadership and professionalism she showed while in a non-combat roles shows that women have the capability and potential to serve in such positions in the future.Women in Combat OperationsDienhart was something special and made it clear to me that there are exceptionally performing women in the Marine Corps who are more than capable of performing in the infantry roles. To ignore her existence and assume there are none like her is ridiculous. That's why this study should never have focused on if there were any amazing women in the Marine Corps, as Mabus suggested. Of course there were. Equally so would be to ignore the efforts of the first female Marines to graduate infantry training as well as Marines such as Vuong, mentioned earlier, who took part in the study. What it comes down to, I believe, Vuong summed up well in her answer to What are your opinions on the results of the U.S Marine Corps test regarding women in the new integrated combat units?The DRIVE is key here because without it, you get individuals of both genders who will fail to perform or contribute to the success of the unit regardless of their job. Many people tend to forget this in their knee jerk reactions to the idea of women in combat. Personally, I would rather work with the person has a drive to succeed rather than the one who's sitting around feeling sorry for themselves. Never mind who I want in combat with me.It does come down to drive, and more importantly, can you maintain your drive over the span of years? It is easy to be driven when you are a young eighteen year old, gung-ho to join up and prove yourself to the accolades of friends and family back home. A few years later, and a few deployments under your belt though, and that passion to prove yourself fades. You have nothing left to prove. If you aren't one of those people who can continue to push yourself for a lifetime, or if your goals simply change as you grow more into adulthood, then the life of an infantryman simply isn't for you anymore. I'm not really talking about women here. I am talking about me. I was eager and wanted to make a life of the Corps when I was young. As the years passed, I grew very tired of the deployments and never being home with my family. While I believe I could have made a life of it, I simply no longer wanted to. While I loved parts of the Corps very much, my time had come to move on. It's important that people consider the statistical reality, and it is that most people move on, rather than move up, in the Marines.​For women, this desire to move on can be very significantly different in how it affects them, then how it affects men, as well as the rest of the team. What we are talking about here isn't so much what men can do that women can't. It is quite the opposite. The most important element of whether women should be a part of the infantry is what they can do that men very specifically never could; have babies.Part of the argument about how unfair the testing was centered around the lack of time available to build unit cohesion. Unit cohesion is the bond formed between a group, large or small, where each member learns the strengths and weaknesses of all other members of the group, and thereby, learn the limitations of the unit and also, how it excels. Unit cohesion is formed through group training, shared experience in operating environments, and in sharing recreation with each other. Most of all, it is built through time.Now, consider that you have been training for a deployment to a region of extreme tension where your team's infantry skills will likely be required. Say you have trained for the better part of a year. You know your team and each of them is integral to the mission's success. Now say that within weeks of deployment, one of your team suffers a catastrophic injury, like mountain biking, and will not be able to deploy. It is common to expect that a unit will only deploy with 95% of strength. Stuff happens. In your team, though, you have lost a vital member. The Marine Corps isn't going to just send you another. You will be required to do the same job, take the same risks, and engage in the same fighting, with or without that fourth man. Statistically, your chances of doing well decline exponentially with every person who is lost to your team, for whatever reason. There are no Rambos in the Marine Corps. You don't rise to the occasion; you fall back on training and you trained for having four people to do this job.Now consider that this had nothing to do with a mountain biking accident. Say that instead of an injury, death, disease, or some other event, the thing that took one of your men out of the fight, was pregnancy. This isn't a hypothetical question. It is a very real experience I endured that isn't part of the debate currently centered around women in these important roles, but so that it is, I would like to share another of my experiences.I was part of a battalion sent to do security for one of the major bases in Al Anbar province in Iraq. Our unit had transitioned from being one that maintained base operations to one that provided security. It was like infantry duty, but far from what is expected of the actual infantry. Since our unit was mostly an engineering squadron before the deployment, we had many women before the transition. This would serve us well, as we could have females to search females and avoid the troubles that one deals with when one has a male Marine pat down an Iraqi woman. All in all, the platoon I joined consisted of around thirty Marines, nine of whom, were women. While in the beginning I didn't look at the women any different than the other guys in the platoon, eventually my view changed. What disappointed me was when one of the women prior to the deployment had found out... that she was pregnant. I say found out loosely, because I don't believe in accidental pregnancy. That was that, she was staying home. We were already a man down and still more than a month from deploying. This isn't really that big a deal. People can still be happy for her. It's a special time, if not bad timing. Sure it is harder on the rest of us, but it isn't like it was on purpose and people got to live their lives.But what if it happens four more times? That is exactly what happened during my second deployment to Iraq. In a platoon with nine women, four became pregnant within weeks of leaving. One was actually sent home from Iraq in the first week of the deployment when what we believed was a mild case of mono, turned out to be a severe case of pregnant. Now the platoon was down to just four women left of the original nine. That's a lot of burden split among the Marines who remained, especially the four remaining women.This wasn’t an isolated issue either. This freak epidemic of mass pregnancy happened throughout the squadron both times we were deployed. Around twenty percent of the women in the squadron became pregnant in the few months before we deployed. Others were sent home in the middle of an Iraq deployment because they became pregnant in Iraq. (please trust me when I say that it is not a romantic place, so it is curious to me that this could happen, at all.) This wasn't a coincidence, nor an accident.Freakonomics is a book series by two economists who want to explain all things weird though statistical analysis and finding what incentives exist to cause the behaviors behind odd phenomenon. Here, we can see a series of incentives that could theoretically explain why what I saw occurred, and so predictably. For many, the drive to prove themselves was spent once they had completed boot camp. This is the same for men as it was for the women. Beyond that, the reality of a combat deployment is one that most people don't wish to embark in, if for no other reason than the sheer inconvenience of it. Most importantly, pregnancy it must be understood, is a semi-honorable out from fulling your military obligation in overseas duty, of which there are very, very few alternatives. One is even welcome, upon becoming pregnant, to take full advantage of military healthcare and all other military benefits including a pay system which rewards one based on the number of dependents within your care. Female Marines who are or were recently pregnant are also given different fitness and performance standards to uphold than their non-pregnant counterparts. This makes sense within limits, being that it is assumed at some point they will be deployable and fulfill the obligations they signed on to do. However, this too can be manipulated. I had a Sergeant who was very much overweight and never took part in scheduled physical training. The reasoning was, as I was told, because she had recently had a kid. “But wait, her kid can talk.” The question remained as to when exactly were we supposed to start upholding standards again for her? She is being paid, and receiving benefits, but under no stretch of the imagination deployable. I had no answer to that question, but quite honestly, the incentives are so great by some points of view, that one should expect at least a few to take advantage of these loopholes.​I liken it to a college where you don’t have to take finals if you are with child. In fact, you still get an A. Then two weeks before finals you have 45% of the women in a particular class arrive at one point or another with a pregnancy waiver and then leave the class, never to be seen again. On the day of the test, another shows up with her slip and the class slips to 55% of the women absent. Would you think it was an accident? Would you think they were all accidents? Now consider that the test is a group presentation, and that last person who left the class had an important role in your group. Your team is still responsible for the results. How do you feel now?The reality is that all women are not created the same. Dienhart really defined for me how a female's body was more than capable if her mind and spirit were willing to make the long term dedication to service. I will never argue that women can't do any job that the men are currently doing because of her. In fact, because of her, I want to see a future where women are free to join the men, because I know there are those few who will add valuable strength to the Marine Corps fighting capabilities. However, when we lost our fifth women to pregnancy in just over a month, from literally inside the nation where we were at war, that left a bitter taste in my mouth toward truly believing that all women are created equal and that the Marine Corps was ready to let them into the fighting units. There are some who simply do not have the drive.Of course, my unit could handle it. We were non-combat and were only severely inconvenienced. A fighting team however, where one is lost due to her own personal choices, one where mission success rides on the efforts of each member of the team, one where losing a vital member could mean that other members never come home, simply can't suffer that sort of risk in the months before war. This is why studies like the one performed by the Marine Corps need to be taken seriously, why averages must be respected and anecdotes of excellence taken with due weight alongside the examples of mediocrity. On average, will any random woman who says she wants to be an infantrymen be able to fulfill that obligation two, four, or ten years down the road? I don't know the answers to this question. I don't know. No one does yet.I am not one to say, "It is about time." I want it to happen, but it simply may not be the best time yet. For all I know, there may never be a right time. I do know, though, that if I have a daughter and if she wants to follow her father into the Marines, that she would be free to do whatever she wants, and give everything she can to fulfill that role. Most of all, I hope that her being there, is what is best for the Marines.​_______________________________________________________I'll say this of my opinion on whether women should be in the front line infantry roles; I believe there are many women who will add greatly to the fighting strength of the United States Marine Corps. I am glad they now have a route to do so. I am also very afraid for many others who only have something to prove, because eventually they won't, and by my personal experience we won't be able to rely on them when the time comes. When it is planned on them being there, when they are needed, it is a statistical eventuality, that terrible things will happen to good Marines. For that reason, as much as I want it to be open for the Marines who do well, I fear for the risk of those who will take the easy way out. Part of me believes that infantry Marines will be different than those I served with, that the camaraderie and sense of purpose they share will be enough for no one to shirk their duties, but the realist in me is skeptical.What I can say is that I don't feel that the way in which it happened was correct. Blindly ignoring the studies and experience of the world's most lethal organization in the area they excel above all others was a failure. More so, I don't think this had much to do with what is best for the Marines, or the military as a whole, but of political expediency to further the political aims of a few politicians. The manner in which the rug was pulled from beneath the Marines was one that will leave lasting conflict within the service. Instead of welcoming the women into their new roles, they will forced into it artificially. The manner in which this decision was made, quite honestly, was too soon, for all the wrong reasons, and a disservice most of all, to the women who will be first to enter this role.​_______________________________________________________Mindy Vuong's answer to What are your opinions on the results of the U.S Marine Corps test regarding women in the new integrated combat units?Women in Combat OperationsUpdate: Women in Combat OperationWhat would be the pros and cons of raising a predominantly female infantry battalion?First Female Marines Graduate Infantry TrainingNavy to Open SEALs to WomenNew Details Question Validity of Marine Corps Gender-Integration StudyMarine war hero: SecNav 'off base' on women in combatThanks for reading!For more answers like this check out On War by Jon Davis and follow my blog War Elephant for more new content. Everything I write is completely independent research and is supported by fan and follower pledges. Please consider showing your support directly by visiting my Patreon support page here: Jon Davis on Patreon: Help support in writing Military Novels, Articles, and Essays.