I was reading the Bayou Blog and he recommended this article.
Its well worth the time. A tidbit....
Its my belief that some of those in charge believe that this "change" can be managed and that the social/political desires of their civilian masters can be moderated to such a degree as to mitigate any harm done to national security while still satisfying their master's desire for societal change.
I don't think they'll be successful.
Its well worth the time. A tidbit....
Sending women into combat, like the end of the ban on official homosexuality, has been met with worried remarks about its impact on the "warrior culture". But the new military that the left has been building for some time now is not interested in warriors; it wants peacekeepers.Read the whole thing here and then consider what you've been seeing from leadership.
The old army fought for a nation. The new one fights for vague concepts such as human rights or international law. Its goals are as intangible as those of the ideology it serves. It doesn't fight actual enemies, but concepts and social problems. It fights against climate change, poverty and obesity. It fights for education, tolerance and the right of everyone to the gender of their choice. It isn't really the army, it's the hall monitors of the United Nations, the State Department, NATO and every liberal group on the planet.
Their ideal new soldier is not a warrior; he speaks three languages, appears non-threatening and can direct refugees, hand out aid to them and quickly pick up the local culture and religion. He is uncritical when witnessing child molestation, human sacrifice or any other quaint local custom. He is willing to die, not for his country, but to win the hearts and minds of the locals. He will not fire in self-defense if there is a single unarmed man, woman or child within twenty miles.
. . .
The new soldier is expected to be a psychological cripple or a social worker with nothing in between because there is no longer any room for the warrior, only the worrier, the neurotic who knows that he is moral because he is always questioning everything except his own intelligence and his premises. He knows that he will more likely be honored for cowardice under fire, than courage under fire, and that the greatest honors will go not those who dare, but to those who exemplify a political quota. And yet among the ranks of the new soldiers, the old soldiers still predominate, doing the hard thankless work of keeping a national defense establishment that does not care for them from falling apart.
Its my belief that some of those in charge believe that this "change" can be managed and that the social/political desires of their civilian masters can be moderated to such a degree as to mitigate any harm done to national security while still satisfying their master's desire for societal change.
I don't think they'll be successful.
