Every now and then, our government comes up with an idea so stunningly great that you just want to stand up and cheer. Assuming, of course, that you're one of America's many enemies who would like to see our military crippled.
And such is the case with the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, which has produced a report saying (surprise!) we need more diversity in military leadership...which apparently they had already decided when they picked the name for their group. The report asserts that our military leadership is "too white" and "too male," and that women have been held back because promotions and job opportunies are most frequently given to service personnel with "battlefield leadership credentials."
Well, we certainly don't what that! Do we...?
Women have traditionally been excluded from combat roles in the military because they're smaller, weaker, and (statistically speaking) more womanly - which can be distracting at the very least, as well as destructive to the cohesiveness of a combat unit. Moreover, reports continue to cite the growing physical strain on male soldiers who routinely have to carry 100 pounds or more of gear into battle. Add it all up, and it means women's presence on the battlefield (or, heaven help us, commanding forces without experience) is going to cost lives.
Not that that's a problem. After the Fort Hood massacre, Army Chief of Staff, General George Casey Jr, basically blew off the murder of 13 soldiers by saying "I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here."
Because "diversity" is so much more important than anything else the military does, including winning wars, defending our nation...or staying alive.
The Military Leadership Diversity Commission reports that women are under-represented here.
-
More evidence that HRH Obummer wants to destroy the United States,
ReplyDeletedrjim- I'm not sure we can blame this entirely on Obama... but it's quite clear what the "Military Leadership Diversity Commission" was expected to say in their report. And it's equally clear that Mr. Obama has never had even a modicum of respect for our military personnel.
ReplyDeleteDon't forget that when announcing the Fort Hood massacre, Obama first paused for a jaunty "shout out" to an Indian chief in the audience. He clearly couldn't have cared less about the soldiers who had just been sacrificed on the altar of military "diversity."
As if more evidence were needed...
ReplyDeleteThe CNO, ADM Gary Roughead, has stated that the number one goal of the Navy is diversity. Not winning wars. It is to weep.
ReplyDeleteButch
CDR USN(retired)
Let's put this in language our Commander -in-Chief can understand: in all fairness, I think we need more diversity in professional basketball - basketball teams are "too black" and "too tall" - we need more short, white guys with no playing experience. It would be a tragedy to sacrifice diversity in the name of winning basketball games.
ReplyDeleteShow me how diversity has ever won a single battle and I will be with you on this. If not, it's nothing but posturing and pandering to political correctness. Get the generals away from military strategy and they become the same backasswards politicians we have in Washington doing the same stupid sh!t to glorify themselves at the expense of the real men who do the fighting...and dying.
ReplyDeleteIts ridiculous.
ReplyDeleteI started to type something but it was too ridiculous to actually post.
So...its just ridiculous.
I've always been fine w/ women in the service - provided they meet the same requirements the men do. Either being able to complete a 5 mile run w/ a 50 lb pack is a valid requirement, in which case ALL soldiers have to do it, or it is NOT, in which case NONE of them need to. (Note - feel free to insert any other physical req in there). It is well known, for instance, that women TEND to be better pilots - smaller (fit better in cockpit) better reactions, and a more gentle touch. THAT havign all been said, promoting people w/o experience to positions where that experience is kind of required, well, that's just silly! I'm reminded of one of my favorite 'demotivator' posters - four forks in a row, the 2nd one's tines are all just mangled. Caption - "Diversity - just because you're different, does not necessarily mean you're useful"
ReplyDeleteGranted, diversity CAN be a good thing - I like to see spoon, knife and fork at each meal, but diversity for the pure sake of diversity tends to fall far, far short..
And will this commission now recommend drafting women, non-whites and gays, so as to even the numbers in the ranks to obtain the "diversity" which they seek? Will they force women into combat to even it up? Will they put a 120 pound sissy guy up on the front lines carrying 100 pounds of gear? And doesn't "diversity" include the lame, halt and blind? Will they be drafted and put into combat positions too? Why do these people never think things through? Can they really be that crazy? Are they really just looking for canon fodder?
ReplyDeleteSome things are just not diverse, and never ought to be. Like you said, either you can carry the load or you cannot. Only a few can, and they should have to prove it.
(And you know what my weird worry about this "diversity" nonsense is? One of these days the Lefties are going to come to a gay bar and declare it "too male" and we need diversity! I'm not sure they'll make it out alive.)
My wife went on active duty as 2nd Lts in 1979. Went to what was then West Germany - defending NATO against the Soviets. She became quickly convinced that women should NOT be allowed in the military, but if allowed, bring back the WAC. Having women in combat support units puts them in foxholes with men. When sexual tensions get brought into the mix, which they do, combat readiness is degraded.
ReplyDeleteOur country has abused the military for decades, sending them off to undeclared wars and leaving them in nations for decades as enforcers of "democracy". Patriots need to demand the constitutional use of the military and recognize the dangers of sex on the battlefield.
All Hail Diversity!
ReplyDeleteSFC USA (Retired)
Manfred:
ReplyDeleteI think it goes beyond combat readiness, although that is vitally important. Men and women are different (shocker!). We have different roles to play in life, in the family and in the military. Forcing them together in combat situations just for the sake of political correctness is insanity. Worse, it is suicidal insanity.
Finally, the last six words of your post are what the wannabe comics here call "low hanging fruit" or a "hanging curve ball". I won't touch it. Stilton, any comment?
Readers- Good comments!
ReplyDeleteButch- It's an ongoing (and humbling) honor to have so many veterans visit this site. Thank you for your service, sir!
Manfred- Similar thanks to your wife for her service. And your letter really highlights one of the parts of this issue that most annoys me: the implication that combat units lack sexual diversity only because of some sort of anti-female bigotry.
I'm sure that anyone with an IQ above room temperature could easily come up with a half dozen valid and dispassionate reasons why women don't belong in the front lines with men. But when computing the IQ of a "Commission," much like a committee, you take the single highest IQ in the room...and divide it by the number of people present.
Which explains the stupid report...but not the people (including the alleged Commander in Chief) who are willing to see our soldiers die to put its recommendations into practice.
Chuck- I may end up writing "thank you for your service" a lot today! Happily, it's sincere every time!
ReplyDeleteMy Dog Brewski- You're getting to know me way too well (grin)! I also picked up on the comic potential of "the dangers of sex on the battlefield" and bit my tongue. But oh, the things I'm thinking...!
@all the vets who have posted or will post: Thank you for your services.
ReplyDelete@Jim Hlavac,
Methinks you have missed the point. They don't really want to add people to the military to increase diversity. They would be much happier to thin out the ranks and remove active, able-bodied males. That would be their win-win scenario. More diversity and fewer troops.
For a similar example, look at schools across the nation where entire sports are being removed, because there are not the same number of sports available for both young men and young women.
Greg, I fear budget cuts will shortly wipe out all sports, except soccer. Communists LOVE soccer!
ReplyDeletePete(Detroit)- I can think of at least one communist who also enjoys basketball and golf...
ReplyDeleteJust another fine example of a complete and total lack of priorities in our government. Is it just me, or are there maybe just one or two iddy-biddy things going on in the world that just might need to be addressed before we worry about women in the Army? Hello.... Is there no debt crisis? Are the riots in Libya just a bunch of people pissed off because their favorite donut shop ran out of chocolate? Are there no unemployed people in the US?
ReplyDeleteAnon #2 - Funny! And what about football? Why should 350 pound guys have all the fun?
hey, it sure worked for Abu Graib, right?? Not only did General MissHap show that a woman can completely F up a major assignment without experience she embarassed the entire country at the same time and did it while hardly EVER even SHOWING UP AT THE SITE!! It's almost like she was in an Army UNION.
ReplyDeleteAnd OF COURSE the lame halt and blind must be included. Ask anyone who has a football player with no legs on their team and NO that is NOT something that hasn't really already happened. Or a girl who was injured and therefore failed to break her State's all time scoring record being allowed to come out on court during a game and take a couple of unguarded shots to go over the top.
Now I am a 59 year old 230 pound male with a 48 inch waist and my photos are still being ignored for the damned swimsuit issue. Hey, OBAMA!!! Wassup wit DAT??
Moronpolitics- You make an excellent point. What is "good" diversity, and what is "bad" diversity? And if there ARE good & bad diversities, doesn't that rather call the whole concept into question?
ReplyDeleteAnd I'd forgotten that the commanding officer at Abu Ghraib was a woman who was clearly out of her depth (but diversified the hell out of the place).
As far as your being passed over for the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue, you have my sincere condolences. And quite possibly the thanks of a grateful nation.
Butch, Gen.Casey said the same thing after the Ft. Hood shootings. He should change his name to General Confusion. Any commander that believes "diversity" trumps combat effectiveness is unfit to deal with matters affecting the national security and should be replaced.
ReplyDelete1st Sig. Bde., RVN '67-'68