- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Little that has gone wrong with the military since the Clinton
administration took the helm has been its fault. Stupid, damaging and
shortsighted PC policies have done more to destroy the U.S. military
than any opposing army has in the past 40 years.
Military traditions and time-tested doctrine mean nothing to the PC
captains within the administration. How easy it is for them to disregard
these military principles; not one —
including Vice President Al Gore — has had to worry much about being
killed in battle by an enemy who has the means and commitment to do so.
Perhaps more despicable, however, is the top military brass’
willingness to abide by these damaging policies. Their acquiescence to
Clintonian feminization and homosexual policies, while scoring them
political points in the White House, has done incredible harm to the
force. If you doubt that, take a look at any services’ current pitiful
recruitment figures; with the exception of the Marine Corps, which still
trains men and women separately, all services have been consistently
reporting recruitment shortfalls.
|“U.S. Marines (and one navy corpsman) raise flag on Iwo Jima.”|
That’s no accident — men, who are physically and statistically
better suited for warfare and combat, don’t want to serve with a bunch
of pansies and women. That’s just the way it is, and it is why senior
noncoms and officers are getting out in droves.
The most recent damning report on the current state of military
“readiness” comes from Tuesday’s Washington
Times. In that
report, the destructive and morale-sucking nature of mixed-gender
training, feminization and homosexual orientation was
thoroughly chronicled, as told by a congressional panel empowered to
examine the issue.
Though many of the infractions discussed in the report probably seem
trivial and inconsequential to the majority of civilian society,
sex — the byproduct of forcing young men and women in the prime
of their lives to share such close quarters — is again listed as the
military’s most ruinous element.
For example, most civilians cannot fathom why military recruits “get
detention for passing love notes in class, holding hands, kissing,
giving foot massages, smiling suggestively and uttering sexually tinged
language.” To civilians, these sorts of things are normal interactions
between the sexes.
But civilians are not charged with defending this nation’s borders
and defending our interests overseas. Civilians aren’t tasked with
engaging enemy soldiers in mortal combat, so concepts like “unit
cohesion,” “morale,” “discipline in the ranks,” and “combat integrity
and capability” mean little.
But to a military force, these terms are more than just political
slogans and phrases used to support more “funding.” They are the life —
and death — principles of a military fighting unit. And any top
military officer who disagrees or doesn’t have the hair to insist upon
these principles should resign today. This country doesn’t need
people like you; it needs military leaders.
When too many recruits cannot pass minimum physical standards but are
graduated out of boot camp anyway, any unit that gets them will suffer
“readiness.” That unit may have the allotted number of members,
but clearly any soldier who cannot perform basic combat skills is a
liability to everyone else in the same way that an office worker who
performs poorly makes the whole company suffer. The difference is, in
the latter example nobody dies if some slacker can’t data process
quickly or efficiently enough.
When too many recruits are undisciplined in boot camp, then too many
recruits will also be undisciplined — and incapable of being led — in
a combat situation. Combat — which has been described by those who have
survived it as the ultimate form of uncontrollable chaos and the most
potent form of violence — is tough enough for disciplined and
capable soldiers. What would it do to unruly, disrespectful soldiers?
Who really wants us to find out?
When too many women — whose training standards are still
consistently lower than male standards — are let into too many
mission-critical positions that require the same level of physical
capability they did when men only filled them, then those mission
critical tasks are not going to be done or, at a minimum, are not going
to be done as well, as quickly, or as efficiently. So why put women in
them? Politics. How many politicians do you think we’ll find on
the next battlefield?
When men and women of prime age are forced to live together —
the result of mixed barrack basic training units — who in their right
mind cannot deduce there will eventually be sex (and lots of it) between
them? And if recruits are more interested in bedding another service
member, are they really going to be wholeheartedly concentrating
on learning how to fight wars and stay alive during combat? Of course
not; so why do we do it, especially when other nations (like Israel)
have already tried it and given up because it doesn’t work?
Furthermore — and I’ll never understand this — why do Americans
believe the nature of combat has suddenly changed now that Bill Clinton
is in office? Because he says it has? Why would anyone trust
his rendition of combat in the first place, considering he ran
from his only opportunity to experience it?
There are some basic, ageless truths about military life and military
functions, regardless of who is president and regardless of his or her
- The military is not a social club.
- It is not a public service “job.”
- It isn’t a diplomatic post; it’s not a politically motivated
- And it is not a research project.
The military is for one thing and one thing only: Fighting and
winning this nation’s wars, should (God forbid) it be called upon
to do so. That means, liberal boys and girls, that enemies must be
killed, their equipment destroyed, their ability to create more weapons leveled,
their cities (if necessary) obliterated, their will to fight excised.
As a crusty Marine DI once told a raw, fledgling gaggle of U.S. Navy
corpsmen (including me): “Our job is not to die for our country;
our job is to make the enemy die for his country and your job is
to help my Marines fulfill their mission. No excuses.”
Our military cannot — and will not — accomplish this job with
underpaid, over-extended, feminized and politicized dolts, losers, geeks
and weenies. It needs men — preferably the biggest, meanest,
smartest, and best-trained men this nation can find. If women want to
join, fine — there are other slots for them. But not in the trenches.
You ever wonder why our “leaders” are so reluctant to use ground
forces these days? Maybe it’s because even they don’t have any
confidence in their ability; maybe it’s because they know all too well
the present unprepared state of most of America’s ground forces. And
maybe by using them somewhere and watching with the world when they get
ground up, they know they’d have to explain why they allowed our
forces to get so — complacent.
Our choice is simple: Clinton’s PC military or the military that
kicked the collective butts of the combined armies of Hitler, Mussolini
and Tojo. If you favor the former, perhaps you also favor surrendering
this country to our enemies now, too, because that will be the ultimate
Get the picture, liberals?