The accelerating feminization of the military

Vincent Chiarello writes:

Despite the sotto-voce objections of field commanders, the Obama administration, aided by the “PC” general staff, continue to bring women into the combat arms units at an alarming rate. The U.S. Army command has announced that additional women, who currently make up 16 percent of the U.S. Army, are being trained to enter combat units. Similarly, the U.S. Navy has announced that women will now, for the first time, fill billets (positions) on attack submarines, while the Commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps has agreed to allow women a greater role in their combat units. These radical developments, which will continue to have a disastrous impact on preparedness, show nothing more than social engineering is alive and well not only in government and academia, but also amongst thee upper ranks of the military. More than two decades ago, Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Preparedness predicted that once established by governmental decree—with congressional pressure added to be sure—the changes would become irrevocable, and increasingly more radical in their scope. Her predictions have proved painfully accurate.

Case in point: the U.S. Army has returned Command Sgt. Major Teresa King to her position as “overseeing all the schools that train drill sergeants.” Sgt. Major King had previously been dismissed from that position “because they [the Training and Doctrine Command officers at Fort Jackson, S.C.] lost confidence in her ability to command.” The Army spokesman did not detail why a five month investigation, which produced “a nine inch stack of paper,” had been undertaken, but that King “could face disciplinary action related to those issues.”

But King, who is black, knew precisely what to do: she and her defense attorney claimed that .”..her suspension was the result of racism, sexism and discrimination based on her lack of combat deployment.” (Emphasis mine.) Within days, King was reinstated.

Although advised to keep silent until after the end of the inquest, King, who has been in the Army for 31 years, could not leave well enough alone: “My instincts tell me that if I were a male, none of this would have happened.” Indeed.

Case in Point: The U.S. Army has announced that as many as 14,000 additional women will be place in combat-related jobs, including positions in 37 battalions of combat ready teams. Defending this policy, the Army’s Director of Human Resources (!), Brig. Gen. Barrye Price, claimed, “The last 11 years of warfare have really revealed to us there are no front lines. There are no rear echelons. Everybody was vulnerable to the influence of the enemy.”

Preparations are now underway to receive female trainees at Fort Benning, Georgia, home of the Armor (Tank) and Infantry schools. But the Army thinks of everything: a wall will be built in the middle of a 60 soldier barrack bay and urinals will be converted to toilets. Brig. Gen. Price said there “are lots of volunteers” who wish to be assigned to these units, but not to worry: the Army spokesman insisted all trainees, male or female, will be held to the same standards.

The two situations described here, and the repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, demonstrate how far the military, once considered the most conservative bastion of our society, has changed in accommodating those who wish to impose a gender neutral military. Command Sgt. Major King knew exactly what needed to be done to frighten the military brass: cry racism and sexism. She did, and the Army folded. To make sure that she made her point even more clearly, her case was brought to the attention of Sen. Lindsey Graham and Rep. James Clyburn (both of South Carolina), and there may also be a congressional probe of King’s treatment, something the Army will do its utmost to avoid, not because of its decision to remove Sgt. King wasn’t justified, but for having the effrontery to consider such a politically incorrect act.

The fatuous claim that all trainees will be held to the same standard is, of course, risible. When women were admitted to West Point during the Carter Administration, they were unable to train by running in combat boots. The Academy’s response: all trainees would now train and run in sneakers! When women were unable to qualify by doing the required number of sit-ups, the Academy lowered the numbers for women. “Go along to get along” must now be the motto of the U.S. military.

For more than two decades, the U.S. military has been buffeted by the winds of political correctness. Regardless of which political party is in power, today’s U.S. military focus is on its policy of “diversity in the ranks,” at whatever cost to battle preparedness. Whereas once members of the General Staff would resign rather than continue with a policy that they considered flawed and detrimental to our national interests, those who command today go along to get along. The true test will come when these newly trained women are put in harm’s way, and, as a result of physical differences with men, fill increasingly greater numbers of body bags, and having four and three star female generals, as we currently do, as well as placing a one-star general as Deputy Commanding General of the 1st Cavalry Division, will not eliminate or diminish those differences.

There is an Italian proverb that is suitable here, one that should serve as our military’s cautionary tale: Whoever forsakes the old way for the new knows what he is losing, but not what he will find.

- end of initial entry -

Dan K. writes:

There is ONE overriding reason for this to be happening. Promotion to high levels in the U.S. military is dependent on something called Fitness Reports. There are no objective tests given to junior or senior officers on a ongoing basis to determine who has the intellectual firepower for command. No, what is discovered by the traditional fitness report system is who pleases the officer in command of the individual below that officer in the chain. Pleasing the officer above so as to get a good fitness report becomes the chief motivating action of a career in the military. Our military does not select for warriors it develops politicians who follow the party line, reflecting the views of those in command be they military superiors or civilians.

William writes:

In regard to the feminization of our military, I believe it is a matter of time only before the Joint Chiefs of Staff will be comprised predominantly of females. The positions will be filled as females in the ranks get promoted. How would I feel about the Joint Chiefs made up of mostly women? Although the current crop of men are all “yes men,” which leaves me with an insecure feeling, the takeover by women would make me real nervous about our military capability.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 17, 2012 09:38 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):