The Emasculation of America, Pt. 1 – Our Military

Posted: January 7, 2014 in Military, Politics, The Fury-ous Files
Tags: , , , , ,

Last week I posted excerpts of a letter written by an anonymous SEAL. This letter is what tugged at my heart to write about the “Emasculation of America”. This week, I’ll continue with my focus on the military and how it is being weakened.

Please keep in mind, these are my opinions, along with others’ opinions that are similar to mine. I respect our military and veterans regardless of age, sex, religion, political views, or ethnicity. Every single one of you has served America in order to keep us safe and free. I will always be grateful to you.

imageAs discussed in the SEAL’s anonymous letter, our great and mighty military is growing weaker. In addition to what was mentioned last week, there are two more issues I’d like to bring up that I believe will weaken our armed forces – women and homosexuals.

Let me start with women…

“a future court will impose Selective Service obligations on unsuspecting civilian women, on the same basis as men, despite findings that point to differences in women’s physiology and performance capabilities. This will drive down tough training standards and weaken the military….” U.S. News

“Critics say the concept of women joining combat units is a politically correct idea fraught with pitfalls. Commanders would need to worry about women who aren’t strong enough for the rigors of infantry life, sexual temptations for men and women sharing tight quarters, and women being treated differently from men by fellow Marines while under fire, they say.” Marine Corps Time

After reading comments from many active duty men and women, I’ve seen three common problematical areas: strength, sex, and psychology.

Strength:
The notion that women can’t do what men can isn’t always accurate. Some women are very muscular, very strong, and very manly. Just as there are some men who are lanky, weak, and more feminine. There are many men who can’t meet the physical requirements set by the military, and there are many woman who can. That being said, I do believe, overall, women were designed to endure physically less than men.

When I asked an Army veteran that’s seen his fair share, if he thought women in combat weakened the military, he said:

“Damn straight! It could cost others their lives… We all depend on one another for survival. If you can’t pull your weight, then someone else will need to make the difference. Sometimes, that costs lives. If you don’t know your job in combat, then my six is exposed. No place for amateurs. That goes for both sexes.”

U.S. News states:

“In a previous briefing, the Marines presented information on physiology and performance differences to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. They confirmed that on average, women have 20 percent lower aerobic capacity, 47 percent lower lifting strength, and 26 percent slower road marching speed. Female attrition/injury rates during entry level training are double those of men, and non-deployability occurs three times more often.

Comprehensive studies done over 30 years have shown that in a direct ground combat environment where lives and missions depend on physical strength, women do not have the equal opportunity to survive, or to help fellow soldiers survive. A Selective Service system forced to disregard these realities would “equalize” tough training standards by driving them down, weakening the culture of the only military we have.”

Although opinions and studies aren’t always accurate, the above quotes do show that there is a difference between male and female performance. If this were the only problem when it comes to women in combat, I believe the solution is easy: keep the standards high, and regardless of gender, eliminate the ones who can’t meet them.

However, with that problem “solved”, we face a second one:

Psychology:

imageI don’t need to quote psychologists on the differences of men and women, I think it’s basic common sense. Men, by design and instinct, will protect women. (Although now days society seems to breed wussies…but I’ll get into that in the next post.) War is ugly. From those who’ve been in it and shared with me their stories, it’s not only physically demanding, but emotionally as well. As with physical requirements, I’m not saying women can’t handle the emotional nature of war; I’m saying that we weren’t designed for it. And frankly, men aren’t designed to see women suffer and not be affected.

It killed me to hear from another Army veteran friend, who served in Afghan, tell me about being ambushed, his buddy calling for air support on a headset, a bomb went off, and he watched shrapnel decapitate his buddy in front of his eyes…

Or how my brother-in-law, who served in Iraq, carried the dead body of a young Iraqi girl home to her parents. The girl was most likely a subject of an IED, and the damage to her, and her parents reaction, took a toll on him…

Many veterans can’t discuss these things. Grown men, tough soldiers, fighters…struggle with these aspects of war. Yet they are designed to handle it much better than women. One of my Army friends, Red, once told me, they have to compartmentalize such things. (To this day, I don’t understand how he does it at work and in his personal life.) And in my opinion, our military men don’t need to see a fellow female soldier being blown to bits. They don’t need any more heartache, distractions, or concerns than they already have.

“…Psychologically speaking, women are far more emotional than men. Emotions cannot be a factor in a combat situation when you are trying to kill someone and vice versa… what will the Mothers of America say when we have females dying on a more regular basis? QuikClot-ing a female after her leg gets blown off? Ridiculous. What about POWs? Nightmare. America would flip. Sure, maybe there are those than can keep up on a hump or in training, but I think the mindset is far more important…Your mind is in danger, not to mention your body.” Comment section, comment by GruntCandy

Society is working hard to alter this design in us. To make us neutral. Having the right to vote, speak, lead, etc is a far cry from being gender neutral. To fight in war is a hardship in itself. Adding the battle of stripping women of their design so they can be gender neutral is an additional hardship that the military shouldn’t have to take on.

Last point of contention with women in the military is:

Sex:

“…Everywhere I have been, I have been the only female and I have managed to NOT get pregnant, let alone sleep with anyone because I am a professional. I fit in quite well with the SF guys…” Comment section, comment by USMC 11

Common sense again: tight quarters, long deployments, men and women mixed together… It’s a recipe for disaster and has no place in the military, especially in combat. I have zero doubt that women can be professional and not whore around in or out of combat situations. The truth, however, is that it happens.

An Army veteran shared an experience with me that he saw first hand:

“…the DI that put them through because of a free hop in the sack…is just as guilty. I saw it happen on more than one occasion. I saw a female get her wings that didn’t earn them for that very reason. On the final 10 mile full field gear forced hike, she wasn’t in shape to finish the hike. She failed. Next morning we arrive to get our wings…there she was. I knew the DI she slept with. We all did. Neither hid it.”

Naturally, we are attracted to the opposite sex. Standards should be kept and not wavered on. That female soldier and the DI used sex to get what they want, and that behavior has no place in the military, especially in combat. Outside of combat, men and women can, and usually do, keep their relationships off duty. In combat, however, there is no “off duty”, or “going home to” in order to keep such relationships saved for. This makes for situations that can weaken the unit.

To build separate quarters for sleep and showers brings more cost that could be used to upkeep our weapons and machinery. If we allow women to share sleep quarters and showers, that ups the potential of sexual relations and rape. Can men and women control their urges? Yes. Do they? Not always. We shouldn’t put our men and women in combat in yet another position that they need to struggle with.

This brings me to the issue of homosexuals in the military…

imageI take the same view here that I have with females and the issue of sex. Can a homosexual person control their urges and desires? Yes. Do they? Not always. It’s one more burden placed in our military in times when they need to be focused. The Obama administration has repealed Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, a Clinton administration version of skirting the law that says homosexuals in the military is not permitted. The warnings and disagreement from military personnel were ignored; but still ring true. I believe this Washington Post article, written by three high ranking military men, says it well:

“Section 654 of U.S. Code Title 10… establishes several reasons that homosexuality is incompatible with military service. Section 654 recognizes that the military is a ‘specialized society’ that is ‘fundamentally different from civilian life.’ It requires a unique code of personal conduct and demands ‘extraordinary sacrifices, including the ultimate sacrifice, in order to provide for the common defense.’

The law appreciates military personnel who, unlike civilians who go home after work, must accept living conditions that are often ‘characterized by forced intimacy with little or no privacy.’… Team cohesion and concentration on missions would suffer if our troops had to live in close quarters with others who could be sexually attracted to them.

We don’t need a study commission to know that tensions are inevitable in conditions offering little or no privacy, increasing the stress of daily military life…
There is no compelling national security reason for running these risks to our armed forces…

We believe that imposing this burden on our men and women in uniform would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all echelons, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force.”

I asked an Army veteran about this and his reply was simply stated:

“There is no place for gays in the military. They weaken it. Their character is weak. Period. My opinion. You need to be of strong character.”

A poll in the Weekly Standard shows:

“…45 percent of Army troops and nearly 60 percent of Marines (67 percent of those in Marine combat arms: infantry, artillery, and armor) who have been in combat zones say that [the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell] repeal would have a negative impact on unit effectiveness….”

In Renew America , Bryan Fischer says:

“The commandant of the U.S. Marine Corps, Gen. James Amos, has pointedly said that the Marines he has talked to almost unanimously oppose repeal…

[The repeal] will bring to an end a tradition of conservative Christian chaplains that goes all the way back to our first commander-in-chief, George Washington, who made the appointing of such chaplains one of his first orders of business. General Washington knew that military success depended upon the spiritual strength of the military.

A military that is weakened spiritually is a military that is a weakened fighting force. The ancient Scriptures still have it right: “Unless the Lord watches over a city, the watchmen stand guard in vain” (Psalm 127:1). The Founders understood this; our current crop of Pentagon leaders do not, and seem intent on making what will prove to be a fatal mistake. There is no quicker way to assign the United States to the scrap heap of history than to normalize homosexual behavior in our military.”

I couldn’t say that any better…

Some questions to consider regarding homosexuals in the military (and a few questions could pertain to women in combat as well) were posed by a Marine Colonel in an email:

“What does “serving openly as a homosexual” mean?

Is all homosexual conduct permitted, e.g. cross dressing when going to the PX? What conduct is not permitted?

Will “hate speech” policies apply to the armed forces after the repeal of the law?

If a service member uses a term offensive to homosexuals, can he be charged with hate speech?

Will commanders be required to take judicial action?
If no judicial action is taken, will commanders be subject to civil or criminal suit by various homosexual political groups and their elected sponsors?

Will the personal opinion on homosexuality of a service member become an impediment to promotion or assignment to key billets?

Are there any assignments to which homosexuals must be or may not be assigned?

Will the Senate and the House Armed Services committees demand sexuality statistics to make certain that homosexuals are being promoted at the same rate as non-homosexuals?

Will homosexuals be promoted at a faster rate to “compensate” for previous years of discrimination?

What benefits will same-sex “partners” receive?

How long must one have a relationship to qualify as a partner?

Will partners of homosexuals be assigned to on-base housing?

Do former partners of active duty homosexuals retain dependent benefits (like a divorced spouse) when divorce is not a legal option?

Will homosexual service members be permitted to date each other? Live with each other as partners in bachelor officer quarters (BOQ) or bachelor enlisted quarters (BEQ)?
How does this affect fraternization regulations?

Will homosexuals be deployed to countries where homosexuality is a crime?
If not, who picks up the slack?

…implementing repeal of the law can be done, but at what cost to U.S. security? …military readiness and effectiveness are…subordinated to a political agenda. The United States military will be weakened as a result.”

The United States Armed Forces is the best of the best. I never had the honor of serving, but I grew up with them. I lived as a military dependent for most of my growing up. My opinions were formulated based on what I lived daily; and even to this day as a civilian, the experiences of my friends who served/are serving help shape and strengthen the views I already had.

I was in the Air Force ROTC program for a short bit. I made good grades, made my presentations, and thought I was ready to make a career out of it. I quickly left the program due to most of my views expressed in this post, along with other reasons. That’s how strongly I felt about this issue.

“Everyone can serve America in some way, but there is no constitutional right to serve in the military. The issue is not one of individual desires, or of the norms and mores of civilian society. Rather, the question is one of national security and the discipline, morale, readiness and culture of the U.S. armed forces upon which that security depends. It is a question we cannot afford to answer in a way that breaks our military.” Retired Army Gen. James J. Lindsay, Retired Adm. Jerome Johnson, Retired Lt. Gen. E.G. “Buck” Shuler Jr., and Retired Gen. Joseph J. Went in the Washington Post

image

This politically correct, social experiment being thrust upon our military does nothing to strengthen it, and everything to weaken it. The emasculation of our military…just what Obama wanted.

Military Monday message: I hope I didn’t offend any of our military or veterans. As I said earlier, regardless of my views, I am grateful to each and every person who served in the military. Your service keeps us safe and free. Thank you!

Soldier on!

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s