IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

How not to respond to a breakthrough for equality

Internet television personality Allen West was not at all pleased with the Pentagon's decision to lift the military's ban on women serving in combat, calling this part of "another misconceived liberal vision of fairness and equality." Of course, given that West was forced from the military after an interrogation in which he threatened to kill a police officer, then fired a 9mm next to his head to make the threat credible, maybe he's not the best judge on military qualifications.

This reaction, however, seems more bizarre.

I'm trying to think of a way someone might try to defend this argument, but I'm coming up empty. For Tucker Carlson, there's a reasonable parallel between voluntary military service and domestic abuse.

Jon Chait's reaction rings true: "This is a Lindsay Bluth level retort. ('You know, we're not the only ones destroying trees. What about beavers? You call yourself an environmentalist, why don't you go club a few beavers?') Serving in combat is a choice citizens make, accepting risk in order to serve their country."

I realize the right is skeptical about VAWA and unsure about the Obama administration's new military policies, but is the distinction really that hard for conservatives to understand?