Tag Archives: military

Political Correctness Has Destroyed the Army’s Readiness and Morale

May 11, 2015

The U.S. Army is facing its greatest danger as an institution since the 1970’s. Stricken with morale and readiness problems, it is also under attack from leftist social engineers who are determined to remake the Army, even if they have to destroy it.

In the 1980’s, men who carried the burden of terrible lessons learned in Vietnam rebuilt the U.S. Army.  They created a spectacularly professional force that annihilated Saddam’s legions in a defeat not seen since Agincourt.

That Army is nearly extinct.

During the Clinton administration, the Army was under pressure to open all military occupational specialties to women and to change the culture of the institution. Army policy soon included stress cards, coed basic training, ability group runs and sensitivity classes.

These changes accelerated rapidly under both Obama administrations. Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell was repealed in 2011 and two years later, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta removed the ban on women in direct combat roles. Recently, the Army announced it would soon allow transgendered people to serve in its ranks.

You would think that these seismic cultural shifts would cause the Army to finally put its foot down.  Not a sound has been heard from the Pentagon!!

Where are leaders with intestinal fortitude like Colonel David Hackworth, who in 1971 went on ABC’s Issues and Answers, and told the world that the U.S. would never win in Vietnam?

The brass is more worried about their retirement checks than an institution that has been around since the Massachusetts boys went live in 1775. The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, sits calmly on the bridge of the U.S. Army Titanic, sipping Pentagon coffee as the Army collides head on with an iceberg.

Under Dempsey, whom Senator John McCain called “An echo chamber of the Obama Administration,”  the Army has become a repository for every crackpot feminist fantasy conceived in a Berkeley coffeehouse.

Two weeks ago, male Army ROTC cadets were ordered to parade around several college campuses in red high heels, in order to show their concern for sexual abuse. Current Army training involves classes that portray the Bible, the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence as sexist documents.

The Army has been ordered to allow women into the combat arms and special operations. Previously, women were denied these jobs because women do not possess the upper body strength that the combat arms requires. Women are also more prone to injuries and there are hygienic concerns as well.

Logic means nothing to the Obama administration. President Obama doesn’t understand that the Army exists to defend the nation. It’s not Valerie Jarrett’s pet social engineering project!

As reports filter in that women are 0-26 at Marine Infantry Officers’ School, Dempsey has already stated that the standards need to be “reviewed.” In Pentagon double-speak, this means that the standards will be dropped so much that Betty White could pass.

Currently, there are a handful of women attending the hardest training the U.S. Army has to offer, Ranger School. This grueling 62 day course destroys men with the speed of a hotel power flush.   Men who survive endless days of almost no sleep, limited food, parachute jumps with 100 pound packs and patrols through swamps, crawl out of Ranger School with 1,000 yard Guadalcanal stares.   Have no doubt, there will be a female graduate of Ranger School this summer if she has to be carried around Fort Benning like a camouflage-clad character in “Weekend at Bernie’s.”

The warrior culture is slowly being strangled to death by political correctness.   A few real leaders still survive, but they’re relics of a bygone era, who will be swept aside like chimney soot in the vast cultural revolution that has engulfed the Army.  Anyone suspected of not complying with sexism training or whispering comments that are thought to be politically incorrect is purged with the speed and finality of a Soviet commissar’s rubber stamp.

Under the Obama administration hundreds of high-ranking officers from every service have retired or have been forced to retire because they didn’t fit in with the current climate.

What kind of a military does political correctness produce? Look no farther than our half-hearted air campaign against ISIS and its kind and gentle spokesman, Rear Admiral Kirby.  According to Kirby, the 25 daily sorties we’re flying against ISIS is really giving them hell. Shock and awe has metastasized into slap, scream and run.

The wave of political correctness besieging the Army has had predictable results. Last week the American public was informed that despite a $278 million program to make everyone in the Army feel good, morale is down to post-Vietnam levels. The troops have spoken. They want to be in the Army, not a Gloria Steinem encounter group.

Last month, General Odierno warned Congress that Army readiness is at “historically low levels.” Only a third of the Army’s brigades are fit for combat and sequestration can only do more damage to the Army’s fighting capability.

The Army must once again rebuild itself.   Women in the Army aren’t the problem. Political correctness is. Women can do 80 percent of the jobs in the Army and do them magnificently.

Bring back the warrior culture by discharging the feather merchants and perfumed princes. In the 1970’s, the Army repaired itself from the bottom up. This time the problem is at the top.

Ray Starmann

A graduate of Southern Methodist University, Ray Starmann is a former US Army Intelligence officer and a veteran of the Gulf War, where he served with the 7th Cavalry. Ray has written for several military history magazines, Military.com and the Hallmark Channel. He was a regular contributor to the late Colonel David Hackworth’s website, Soldiers for the Truth and is currently the editor of usdefensewatch.com. Ray resides in Southern California.

Martial Sharia: Obama’s Politically Correct Military

Of all scandals of the Obama administration, perhaps none is both as culturally threatening and ignored as the ongoing purge of career military officers.  Even more than American society, the military has fallen prey to a severe case of political correctness.  Why is this so?

“You have to remember, the military is a captive audience.  This is why politicians use it for social experiments,” explains Gerry, a Ret. Chief Warrant Officer.  “It’s nothing new.  Think back to Truman’s forced integration of the armed forces.  That was probably good for the country.”  Racially integrating the military accelerated the trend into broader society.

Today, a similar approach is being taken regarding women and gays in combat.  In the view of many officers, this has led to a degradation of the traditional military culture.  Many complaints filed by women accusing their commanding officers of sexual harassment are without merit.  “I’ll give you an example.  In the course of a training exercise, the commanding officer pulled a female soldier back by her belt.  It was done for training and safety reasons, but she filed a complaint.  It was dismissed only when two witnesses came forward and explained what actually happened.  The administration is making a big deal about sexual harassment in the military.  Unfortunately, frivolous complaints like this are more common than the public is led to believe,” says Gerry.

Since the Carter administration, the military has been forced to operate on a quota system that favors women and minorities.  This means that as a matter of policy, the best qualified men are skipped over for a promotion because a certain number of women must be promoted first.  Ditto racial minorities.  Affirmative action is a politically contentious issue in civilian life, where most of the time people’s lives do depend urgently on the qualifications of the person next to them.  Yet in forgoing gender- and colorblindness, it is no exaggeration to say that politically-mandated social engineering routinely and unnecessarily risks lives of American servicemen.

The administration, in the last two years, has taken a sharp turn in favor of LGBT rights.  In effect, this has translated into the censorship of the Christian view of marriage within the military, chilling the religious freedom cherished by American service personnel for generations.  Phillip Monk was a 19-year veteran in the Air Force.  His Commanding Officer, Colleen McGee, is a lesbian.  While attempting to convey that it was against policy to use the position of authority to promote religious beliefs, McGee attempted to force Monk to admit that the traditional view of marriage was a discriminatory.  Monk, an evangelical Christian, politely refused to answer the question.  For this, he was relieved of duties and is now being pressed with charges under the Uniform Military Code of Justice.

Has the country reached a point where soldiers must take the official line that the Bible’s definition of marriage is discriminatory?  Is it so important to force gay marriage on the country that lifelong professional soldiers are summarily dismissed for daring to dissent?  Apparently so.  But this incident is part of a much broader effort by the Obama administration to separate Christian views from the military.

  • An Air Force officer was told to remove a Bible from his desk, because it might make some “uncomfortable.”  What makes such a display in “uncomfortable” in particular is left undefined.
  • Another Air Force Lt. Col., a Chaplain, was censored for authoring an essay entitled “No Atheists in Foxholes.”  A cranky critic called it an “anti-secular diatribe.”
  • In last two years, the administration has evidently ordered the purge of Christian terms in the military.  For example: Army soldiers were directed to remove etchings of Bible verses from their rifles with a Dremel tool; a video tribute to First Sergeants was forcibly removed because it used the word “God,” which might offend atheists or Muslims (?); and, the Air Force recently removed “God” from a logo.

Writing at the American Thinker, Professor Fay Voshell compares the treatment of Christians in the military today to Islamic Dhimmitude; that is, the official second-class citizen status given to Christians and Jews under Islam.  Writes Voshell, “Generally in such countries, the dhimmitude of Christians and other religiously devout non-Muslims includes, among other things, denial of the right to openly practice their religion, to share their faith with others, to attempt to convert or persuade others to become Christian, to hand out religious literature and to construct houses of worship.  It also means many professions and opportunities for advancement will be closed to Christians, with only the lowest positions in society open to them.”  Dhimmitude indeed.

Recall the case of Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, brought to my attention by Gerry.  A highly rated armor officer, LTC Dooley was asked to teach a course on radical Islam at the Joint Forces Staff College within the National Defense University.  For his presentation of facts, he was targeted by American Islamic groups, several with links to the criminal Muslim Brotherhood, and unceremoniously dismissed from his teaching appointment.  From there, he was issued a negative officer evaluation by a Lt. General, ending his career.  His curriculum having been labeled “academically irresponsible,” the reputation of the Islamists had been saved.

Gerry taught a similar course to Dooley’s on Muslim culture in the Middle East, and how to interact with the press in the region.  He shared with me some of the slides used in his presentation to soldiers who were heading into combat in Iraq, formerly classified but no longer in use.  “These are very similar to what got LTC Dooley fired.”  What were some of the things mentioned in the slides?

  • Muslim culture coalesced in the early 7th century and has remained static for the last 500 years
  • Muslim press outlets focus on myths and sensibilities
  • Al-Jazeera, Al-Manar, and Al-Arabiya present clearly biased coverage

These points are historically and culturally accurate.  The presentation also reviewed several instances of Muslim outrage at alleged Western disrespect of Islam, such as the infamous Danish cartoons, and the since-debunked flushing of a Koran (as reported by Newsweek).  This was, after all, not a course on comparative anthropology, but a practical primer for soldiers deploying into a war zone and dealing with the enemy and a hostile, often manipulative foreign press.

Paging through the presentation, it becomes clear that LTC Dooley was a victim of the Islamic-inspired political correctness which has permeated the American military, and threatens to destroy its traditionally Judeo-Christian culture.  Furthermore, by sanitizing the information presented to soldiers so that it could not possibly offend Muslims, the Obama administration is in fact endangering the lives of the very people who protect the nation from foreign terrorists.

In addition to the persecution of Christians and the censorship of anyone who might “offend” a Muslim, the chilling of free speech in the military under Obama extends to the President himself, as well as his administration.  In today’s military, criticism of any of the administration’s policies can lead to a dishonorable discharge.  Don’t approve of Obamacare?  Don’t approve of the “green” policies?  Don’t see the wisdom of empowering the Muslim Brotherhood across North Africa and the Middle East?  Any vocal criticism along these lines, however slight, is grounds for immediate discharge.  Apparently political loyalty, above all else, is important to this commander-in-chief.

A previous story reported on the purge of high ranking brass, including many Generals.  But the policies as described above have led to a purge of a very significant number of lower ranking officers.  Captains and Colonels, who more than their superiors actively run the military (as oppose to acting as political intermediaries), are disappearing en masse.  Even more alarmingly, Senior NCOs are being forced out because they refuse to comply with Obama’s strict political correctness.

“Civilians have to understand something about the military.  The NCOs are the heart and soul of it.  They are what make America’s armed forces different from the rest of the world’s, and always have.  Now their very existence is under threat by a president who would rather push a political agenda than maintain a strong military with high morale,” explained Rurik, a Vietnam veteran who is now a published military historian.  “Stalin decapitated his military in the Great Purge of 1937-38.  He had 80% of the senior officers killed.  But it also extended into the lower ranks,” he added, ominously.

It is clear that the Obama administration has taken political correctness so far within the military that is rivalingsharia in its control over free thought.  Coupled with revised rules of engagement that place an enormous burden on the soldier, this may explain why the Obama administration has utterly lost the wars in both Iraq and Afghanistan.  In Iraq, Iran recently responded to the Obama plan to attack Syria by threatening to attack the American embassy in Baghdad.  In Afghanistan, President Karzai is reduced to negotiating with his mortal enemy, the Taliban, even as the administration encourages such talks.  Moreover, Obama’s silencing of active duty Christians pales in comparison to treatment of Christians by the Muslim Brotherhood, who he has supported diplomatically and through intervention.  The rebels that the administration is arming in Syria have been found culpable of several instances of genocide against local Christians.

What’s shaping up is an unmitigated disaster for the administration and the Democrat Party with Christians, and with western minds in general.  Eagerly looking to fill the leadership gap is Russian President Vladimir Putin.  Authoring a derisive op-ed in the New York Times, he chided Obama for disregarding international law, and strongly opposed any military intervention that would benefit the murderous rebels.  It’s no secret that Russia has emerged from Communism with a renewed Christian faith.  For example, the Basic (Orthodox) Church Teaching on Human Dignity, Freedom, and Rights is meant to guide legislation in Russia.  For many Christian Americans who see their faith under assault, that Russia has taken a pro-active stance must be heartening.  For American Jews, who see Israel alone in a region that Obama has helped to ignite into chaos, the stabilizing force of Russia must be reassuring.

It is difficult to overstate the importance of a highly trained, professional military with longstanding traditions to complement a free society.  In any society, the military is the vanguard that ultimately keeps rule by preventing the conquering by a foreign culture.  The values that they cherish, the ideals that they uphold, both reflect and inform the values of the society protected by them.  Loyal first to the Constitution, then to the Commander-in-Chief, the United States Armed Forces are intended to be an institution as far removed from daily politics as can be realistically expected.  They stand as our most powerful bulwark against tyranny, protecting the freedoms that we enjoy as Americans every day. An active assault on these traditions, and large scale purging of officers who refuse to silence their beliefs, is tantamount to declaring war on the very institution that wages war on our behalf.  It’s a not-so-subtle form of national suicide.

There is a story out of Little Rock about a teacher who removed all the desks in her classroom on the first day of school.  When the students arrived, she told them that they could have their desks back when they told her how they earned the right to sit a desk in school.  The children answered: Grades?  No.  Behavior?  No.  Finally, after several periods passed, the children gave up.  Just then, 27 Veterans entered, each carrying a desk.  Said the teacher, convinced that her lesson would be understood by the entire desk-deprived class, “You didn’t earn the right to sit at these desks.  These heroes did it for you.”

The information in this article comes from numerous public sources, as well as interviews with two retired officers: a Chief Warrant Officer, Gerry, who specialized in information analysis; and a Vietnam veteran, Rurik, turned military historian.  Both maintain extensive relationships with active military individuals and organizations.  The views expressed above do not necessarily represent the views of those interviewed.

What about that Purge?

One the things that undoubtedly pushed Mosry’s government over the edge was the purge of top Egyptian military officers.  In August of last year, it was reported that he had forced the resignation of Defense Minister, the Army Chief of Staff and “other senior generals.”  It’s impossible to rule a country when your own country’s military refuses to obey your orders.  The tension between the Ikhwan and the Egyptian military being what it is, Morsy let them go.

Why was it that the Egyptian military was so opposed to Morsy?  As a Muslim Brother, he was committed to ruling Egypt under Sharia (i.e. Islamic) law.  Sharia is a comprehensive system of legal, social, and economic doctrines that is incompatible with any system of secular rule.  The Egyptian military, as brutally as they ruled that ancient land, did so without Sharia.  It was Morsy who infamously proclaimed, “The Koran is our Constitution!  The Prophet is our Leader!  Jihad is our Path!  And death in the name of Allah is our Goal!”  Having said that, and accomplishing in deed his promises, the military turned on him.

Many people overlook the spate of top American military brass that President Obama has, well, trashed.  Following the same path as Morsy, Obama apparently has no need for some military leaders.  Here’s a quick list, courtesy of fellowshipofminds.com:

  • General David Petraeus: Was Director of CIA.  Suspicious exposure of extramarital affair with Paula Broadwell led to resignation on November 9, 2012.  In came the obvious security risk, John Brennan.  That is, if you can believe another former Director of the CIA, R. James Woolsey.  Read the report on Brennan, “[I]t is hard to overstate the danger associated with the President of the United States having as his top advisor in these sensitive portfolios someone so severely compromised with respect to shariah and the threat it poses.”
  • General John R. Allen: Succeeded Petraeus as Commander in Afghanistan.  SecDef Leon Panetta suspended confirmation hearing to become the Supreme Allied Commander of NATO on November 13, 2012, as part of the Petraeus fallout, when it was revealed he was flirting with a Lebanese (reportedly Maronite) woman by the name of Jill Kelley.  It is speculated that the firing had little to do with the salacious emails, but perhaps was a White House power play.
  • Army General Carter Ham: Following the attack on Americans in Benghazi on September 11, 2012, Obama canned AFRICOM Commander General Ham and installed General David Rodriguez.  Apparently, General Ham was ready and willing to act during the Benghazi attack, and was relieved by his “second in command” when he refused to stand down.  A month or so later, he was fired.
  • Rear Admiral Gaouette: Accused of “inappropriate leadership judgment” following the Benghazi attacks, the Admiral was sent home port in Bremerton, Washington on October 27, 2012.

All within two months of Benghazi attacks.

But that’s not all.  There is larger list of brass who have been, umm, disappeared by the Commander-in-Chief:

That’s 10 Generals.  Ten, including a Director of the CIA, Commander of AFRICOM, the Commander of US and ISAF Forces in Afghanistan, and the candidate for Supreme Allied Commander of NATO.  Not small beans. A friend in the military informs me of many other Colonels and Navy Captains who have also been relieved or forcibly retired, but stopped short of providing names.

This does recall Morsy’s actions in a very uncomfortable light.  I’m just not sure who copied whom.  For Muslim Brother Mosry, it led to the downfall of his Presidency and arrest by the military.  It’s hard to conceive of such a scenario in what has been the most politically stable nation in the world.  Yet there is a growing awareness among the public, and especially the military, the President Obama is supporting the Muslim Brotherhood and al Qaeda – first in Egypt, then in Libya, and now in Syria.

Just yesterday, Syria hacked Marines.com, and urged U.S. Marines to join them in their fight against al Qaeda in Syria.  The article linked contains pictures, allegedly, of U.S. Marines protesting any action in Syria.  The message read, in part, “Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama’s alliance with al-Qaida against Syria. Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy.”

Sure, this could be Syrian propaganda.  But it’s worth recording, particularly in the context of military casualties under Obama.  Since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, there have been 2,161 deaths in Afghanistan.  According to CNSNews.com, as of January 11, 2013, there were 2,053 deaths, 72% which occurred during Obama’s first term.  Since then, there have been an additional 108 deaths.  That math means that under eight years of Bush’s command, there were 575 deaths in the Afghanistan war, while under Obama – in less than five years – there have been 1,586 deaths.  By any measure, a staggering increase of fatalities.  Many view this tragic trend as an inevitable result of the Obama rules of engagement.

John McCain and Lindsey Graham are two of the leading voices of Republican support for Obama’s intended Syrian invasion.  Yet can you recall any military action these two ever opposed?  They’ve even gone to the right of Obama’s (already) unpopular planned strike: they want to force regime change, effectively empowering al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.  Why go half-hearted into a terrible idea?

The media, for their part, seem divided.  Many sheepish reporters have been guilt tripped into supporting a strike, given Obama’s and Kerry’s emotional indictments against Assad.  CNN, for example, urges the President to act for “what’s right.”  The Washington Post, on the other hand, featured two op-eds: one, telling Congress to steer clear of any intervention, and another merely recommending that Republicans limit the scope of the engagement (the juvenile argument being that “isolationism” is bad, or something).  (See here, and here.)  (Jennifer Rubin, you’ve always been condescending toward conservatives, but now we’re all “isolationists” for not wanting to unnecessarily kick-off WWIII?)

As an update, Israel has sent home the reservists it called up.  Seems like Israel has left the U.S. sphere of influence, and made peace with not only Iran, but Syria and Russia. The threat of the Ikhwan is that great to the Middle East at this time.  This is in line with Netanyahu’s doublespeak, when he at once publicly aired photos and videos of gas masks being handed out to Israeli citizens, and at the same time told the people that there was a “low probability” of any fallout.

Assad, for his part, has stepped up the rhetoric and warned the United States that any action would likely result in a regional war.  This echoes the thinly veiled warnings of Russia and Iran.  But who would the war be between?  Russia, Syria, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, Israel (?), Jordan – at least – vs. the United States, France, and the Muslim Brotherhood.  That’s one likely break.

But it’s potentially simpler.  You have the Islamists backed by Pakistan’s ISI and bankrolled by Qatar, with the United States armed forces acting as their spearhead (?!), against the forces of Orthodox Christianity and secularism.  Further simplified, Dawood Ibrahim (and the USA) vs. Aleksandr Dugin and his regional partners.

Now that Obama has purged the brass, what will the remaining brass do?  Do they really want to fight this war on behalf of al Qaeda, their sworn enemies?  I can’t imagine so.  There was hope that maybe the Republican House will bail them out, but don’t look for support from Senators McCain or Graham.  Today, Boehner announced his support.  So where’s that leave us?  If Congress authorizes, then what?

Under the First Amendment, we are allowed to wonder out loud.

Does America’s military might get employed publicly on the side of al Qaeda, for the first time in history?  Or, does Cairo repeat itself in Washington D.C.?

Stay tuned.

Editor’s Note: We have been informed that in addition to top brass, Senior NCOs are also being purged from the ranks.  In the words of a veteran, NCOs are the heart and soul of the American military.  Also, rank and file soldiers are being discharged (less than honorably) for any criticism of Obama’s political policies, including gays and women in the military.  To paraphrase another veteran, Obama is flirting with disaster in Syria, threatening war while there is no clear threat to the United States; and furthermore, at a time when the military has been “hollowed out.”  The consequences of such an action very well may disastrous.  To quote, “We need a measure of sanity before we loose the dogs of war.”