 |
| "Our country won't go on forever, if we stay soft as we are now. There won't be any America—because some foreign soldiery will invade us and take our women and breed a hardier race." |
I've been chewing on the fact that we have another book by a Navy SEAL. This time its about a SEAL who has/is undergoing hormone therapy and changing from male to female.
My thoughts....
1. I don't know who is in charge of the SEALs or SOCOM (obviously McRaven isn't cause this keeps happening) but they need to get a handle on all these tell all books that are coming out. Quiet professionals? Not hardly.
2. The SEAL culture needs to be carefully examined to understand why this seems so prevalent in their ranks. Once the cause is determined then efforts need to be made to get it under control.
3. Its painfully obvious that everything masculine, traditional, martial etc...is under attack. Everyone I know has certain closely held beliefs. We don't seek to push our beliefs on others yet its obvious that the culture of the military is under sustained attack by "change agents" that are seeking to transform it into something more "gentle" and "less" rigid. I don't see how you expect immediate obedience to orders when everything is painted in shades of grey.
4. I personally see many guys in a quiet crouch. The natives are restless but they're keeping low. I don't know what the results of this will be but there will come a time when the pushback begins.
I don't think I've ever seen or read of a time when the military was under this much sustained pressure socially. These experiments...these initiatives will result in a military that none of will recognize and one that I believe will be totally ineffective in combat.
If you take a serious look at the rebels fighting in Syria, you see violent, masculine, almost primal individuals (remember the rebel leader carving the heart out of Syrian Soldier?) our "softened" up military will win a high tech war but once boots are on the ground we will get routed if we continue in the direction that we're headed.
he had a successful career in the SEALs with this issue and yet he was still successful, DADT was repealed and nothing has been heard about bad issues, i think masculinity is under attacks but the wrong direction, i think men need to be stressed that its OK to be human, to have emotions! thats why you have real warrior project, because people think its weak to seek treatment for mental health issues, just because this isnt what happened in the past doesnt mean it will make people weaker or the forces weaker.
ReplyDeletehttp://realwarriors.net/
i know this view is a minority view and yes i know i have never been in the military but i dont see a causal link between less military capability and changing social paradigms.
ick, geeze I hope your opinion is in the minority. I'm pretty center of the political spectrum, especially compared to a lot of other veterans, but you people on the left need to get it through your ignorant heads that not everyone who disagrees with your foolhardy ideas is some sort of brute or bigot. DADT was necessary. DADT made a person's sexuality none of the governments business as long as it didn't cause any problems. Before, people even suspected of homosexuality could be hounded out of the service or even prosecuted. DADT allowed gay people to serve legally without causing a disruption in morale or performance. Over time as homosexuality became more accepted in society gay people who had served were able to come forward and show that they could do the service. Now it has been repealed and they can serve openly, and it seems so far so good. But society and the military needed the intermediate step of DADT. Personally, I'm not gay, DADT ever bothered me other than having to sit through the damn powerpoint presentations. There were always one or two soldiers who people kind of thought were gay but no one bothered them about it because they did their duty, and pulled their weight and, just like for any other soldier, it's just plain nobody's business what they do on the weekend as long as they act like professionals, don't fraternize and can pass a piss test and don't miss duty from VD. For people upset about DADT not letting people "be themselves", PISS OFF! Its the military, NO ONE all the way gets to be themselves!
DeleteAs for seeing a link between less military capability and changing social paradigms, you will soon see it big time due to this ignorant, pointlessly over-liberal mandate to put women in combat roles. The problem is not so much women being in harm's way. That's bad but many disregard the desire of men to protect women as "old fashioned" or "sexist". I disagree but thats not the main point that matters. Women already find themselves occasionally in combat situations. They go one public relations missions to talk to the women in the villages because they won't talk to the men. They also serve in combat service and combat service support units that occasionally come under fire and must defend themselves. That's fine, it comes with the jobs. Thats why even P.O.G.s go though extra pre-deployment combat training, to learn basic defense. But a unit performing self defense is not the same as Infantry going out and looking for trouble. Combat operations are intense and combat units require higher standards of physical performance. Tankers and Artilleryman must move heavy shells quickly, and consistently in stifling armored vehicles. Infantrymen and Combat Engineers must carry heavy loads long distances And Then be able to assault an objective. These aren't support or airforce (no big A, they're lucky not to be called Chairforce) jobs were there's nothing more strenuous than the weekend paintball game. These physical standards are important for these jobs and must not be compromised. Now, I have no doubt that there are a few women who could do them. I would not have much to complain about if they were required to perform to the same standards. The problem comes from the fact that women already have a lowered double standard of physical performance in the jobs they currently do, and TRADOC has already been ordered to look into "gender neutral" (read lower) standards. Otherwise if they kept or raised the current standards all but 10% or so (tops) of women would washout of Infantry School and the blindly over-liberal administration won't let their mandate fall on its face like it should. Again there would be little to complain about if the same standards were applied for everyone, God knows there are too few of today's so called citizens who are willing and capable enough to serve, but between the way this administration seems to want to "leave a mark" and the way some people expect to get stuff easier for themselves and a bunch of self interested careerist piece-of-shit officers trying to kiss ass, toe the line and get promoted, I just don't see that happening.
DeleteSorry, I got long winded there, touchy subject. I'm going to go watch cartoons now.
Deletepussy.
ReplyDelete"... i don't see a causal link between less military capability and changing social paradigms." Those of Carthage may disagree.
ReplyDeleteSolomon I agree with you 100%, although I don't think crazy heart eating Syrian guy is the sort of sample we should try to emulate. We both know that there are many examples from our countries past, "tough as nails" soldiers and marines like Chesty Puller there.
ReplyDeleteEric Palmer I'm not all that familiar with the history of the Punic Wars, care to elaborate a bit?
i'm not saying that we should follow the example of the Syrian rebel...i'm saying that we're faced with that kind of barbarity around the world. a soft, bitched up, feminized, pussized military won't stand a chance against that.
Deleteand little bitty touchy feely punks like Joe will be the first casualties...if they had the balls to join the military that is.
that's another thing i hate. a bunch of people with no experience trying to tell others whats best. its like environmentalist that live in New York City telling people that live in rural areas how to take care of the land.
its fucking insulting.