Of course, it doesn't exactly say that ...
Report says too many whites, men leading military
Pauline Jelinek, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.
Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.
Two decades ago, when the military was at the height of its prestige during the first Gulf War, 7% (I believe) of the generals in the U.S. Army were black. The #1 and #3 generals in the Gulf War (Colin Powell and Calvin Waller) were black.
One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.
The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military's leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.
Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, "despite undeniable successes ... the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve."
"This problem will only become more acute as the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of the United States continues to change," said the report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission ...
Indeed.
Having military brass that better mirrors the nation can inspire future recruits and help create trust among the general population, the commission said.
An interesting question that the press has strenuously not interested itself in is: Who has been dying in recent wars? You used to hear all the times that minorities are more likely to get killed in America's wars, but now you never hear anything about the subject.
When I checked on the Iraq War in 2007, American whites, relative to their share of the young population, were getting killed in combat at 1.86 times the rate of nonwhites.
In Afghanistan through 2009, whites were dying at a rate 2.47 times their share of the population of 20-24 year olds.
I asked then:
How could this statistic be spun so it's "appropriate" for the mainstream media? Here's a feasible headline:Minorities Discriminated Against at VA Cemeteries
Whites Get More Free Burials
The AP article continues:
Because they are technically attached to, but not assigned to, combat units, [women] don't get credit for being in combat arms, something important for promotion to the most senior ranks.
Through 2006, U.S. women had suffered 2% of the fatalities in Iraq.
The most interesting part of the AP article is this exercise in reading between the lines:
Lyles said the commission consulted a panel of enlisted women on the issue. "I didn't hear, `Rah, rah, we want to be in combat,'" Lyles said. "But I also didn't hear, `We don't want to be in combat.'
In other words, enlisted women don't want to be in combat. The only women who do are the most promotion-crazed female officers, and the enlisted women aren't excited about getting themselves killed to help get these officers promoted.
So they didn't want to be in combat. Seems like a solution in search of a problem. Unlike men, the women don't want to be in combat. They're not in combat.
ReplyDeleteYay! Everything is working!
The flip side of this is once we start putting women on the front lines, and they start dying in numbers approaching that of men, we'll hear no end about how tewwwwible it is.
ReplyDeleteI wonder if other hostile armies are going to start putting women on their front lines. You know, to make it more fair and even it out. Maybe we can even do like golf and have then women shoot from the closer tees.
The military is too male. I don't have a joke, I'm just really in awe of that phrase. I'm thinking about the length of a journey that a culture must undertake in order for that to stop sounding crazy.
ReplyDeleteThe military isn't male enough or straight enough. The purpose of the military is to win wars. Nothing else matters, and anything that detracts from that mission must be excised from the martial structure of the US Military.
Delete"One barrier that keeps women from rising to the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat UNITS." Nobody is talking about serving in actual combat. Now that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are winding down, opportunities for actual combat are getting more remote. But as the competition for promotions gets more fierce in a downsizing military, women will argue that service in a stateside combat unit should be treated as the equivalent of actual combat. And it will, too.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking about women serving in the combat arms, read this article written by Kirsten Scharnberg in May 2003. She describes her experiences as an embed with the 101st Airborne during the initial stage of Iraqi Freedom. She explains that although she had run marathons, should could not keep up with the infantry while carrying her gear. I think any congressional panel discussing women in the combat arms should be required to discuss this article.
ReplyDeleteHere is a money quote:
I'm not qualified to say that no woman could do that job, but I suspect that it would be a rare one who could. I had run a marathon not long before the war and worked out almost every day. I grew up on an Iowa farm where manual labor was part of the bargain. But I had been bested by a car battery, and when I handed my load to that soldier, I admitted that I never could have cut it in the Infantry.
unsaid, even by Sailer: the reason white battlefield deaths are up is that warfighting ha become increasingly technical in nature, and demands high IQ to operate optical, listening, tracking and firing devices in co-ord with radio intel and satellite feeds. Our beloved minorities, so convinced their destiny was fodder, simply aren't bright enough, so they tend to collect in non-critical rear area jobs like supply and food prep. If you bring "diversity" to combat units, you destroy combat effectiveness; and maybe that's the deeper point.
ReplyDeleteI remember sitting in a cle seminar and listening to a speaker whine about how blacks took the brunt of the deaths in Vietnam and how that was another example of racist America.
ReplyDeleteI checked. Then, as now, whites led in service, in wounds, and in deaths in Vietnam and in a greater ratio than their representation in the population.
Of course, nobody wants to hear that. After all, didn't blacks win WWII and Vietnam?
The background to this is that people are starting to take Igor Panarin's prediction of a USA crackup seriously now.
ReplyDeleteThere was no push to make the US Military "female and minority friendly" during past administrations. It has not passed more observant people's minds that a US military almost exclusively White, with good experience in killing enemies, AND rebuilding societies, is the only institution around that would be capable of acting on its own in the event of say, an exponential increase in mass Mexican immigration to the US, and what you predicted: Hispanic voters voting huge government on the backs of confiscatory taxes on whatever White middle class folks are around.
Thus the need to feminize the military (White women generally approve of the Hispanicization of America) and make it far less dominated by Whites.
Anonymous said...
ReplyDelete"The military is too male. I don't have a joke, I'm just really in awe of that phrase. I'm thinking about the length of a journey that a culture must undertake in order for that to stop sounding crazy."
Exactly. A journey that is reaching its end, one way or another.
The democrats, while in power, will do everything they can to infiltrate and weaken an institution that they see as politically hostile. To hell with maintaining a military that can effectively do what a military is supposed to do, the important thing is to gut and emasculate the army until it "looks like" the rest of America that they have gutted and emasculated.
the military is too much exalted in our society.
ReplyDeletefor both men and women, it's a way to get ahead in life.
your conception of "serving" as pure self-sacrifice and since its mostly men doing the sacrificing, they deserve more respect---well, i disagree with your view.
i think most folks who join the military do it as their best careerism chance.
"i think most folks who join the military do it as their best careerism chance."
ReplyDeletePerhaps you should meet a single person in the military. Ever.
Instead of fighting against the march of progress let's just embrace it fully and institute an all gay and female army. Since we've been led to believe that they're just dying to get in then we can make their dreams come true, literally. Those macho Afghan fighters will just crumble and run for it when faced with the pink battalions marching their way.
ReplyDeleteI'm picturing a cold, dark basement of a medieval castle. A king has just finished watching the torture of a former favorite.
ReplyDelete"How could you lose again, Jacques? Hundreds of knights fallen, half of my patrimony lost. Look me in the eye, you coward, your king is talking to you for the very last time!"
"Sire, I have tried warning you, but you wouldn't listen."
"What are you talking about, you miserable son of a whore?"
"Sire, I have said this all along, if only you would listen. The problem... the problem has always been that your army is much too male in its composition."
"Whiskey said...
ReplyDeleteThe background to this is that people are starting to take Igor Panarin's prediction of a USA crackup seriously now."
I think you are right. It seems very likely to me that other nations are beginning to view the US as a very finite sort of affair, and some of them are already planning for what comes after.
On the plus side, we can look forward to having a military with the combat effectiveness one typically expected of the Ottoman or Hapsburg empires. Do we also get the funny ostrich-plumed hats? That would really make it all worthwhile.
Hollywood is too Jewish and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on American Indians, an independent report for Congress said Monday.
ReplyDelete"unsaid, even by Sailer: the reason white battlefield deaths are up is that warfighting ha become increasingly technical in nature, and demands high IQ to operate optical, listening, tracking and firing devices in co-ord with radio intel and satellite feeds."
ReplyDeleteNot really. You don't need a high ASVAB score to qualify for the main infantry MOS (11B). The reason there are fewer blacks in combat is that they're generally not as interested in playing Rambo as suburban and rural whites. They're there more for the money and benefits.
"There was no push to make the US Military "female and minority friendly" during past administrations. It has not passed more observant people's minds that a US military almost exclusively White, with good experience in killing enemies, AND rebuilding societies, is the only institution around that would be capable of acting on its own in the event of say, an exponential increase in mass Mexican immigration to the US..."
Remember that there are plenty of Mexicans in the U.S. military, including illegals who joined to get citizenship.
And next to the "Report says too many whites, men leading military" there is more encouraging news from AP:
ReplyDelete"US, allies edge toward military options for Libya".
Yay! It all fits together so well!
Onion style, again. The parody is already baked into the cake.
ReplyDeletePromotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.
This type of crap has to stop. What's next? The NBA favoring those with jumping and shooting ability? School favoring those with reading and writing skills?
Great word choice ("credentials") btw. "Yes, but if you'll look there, on page two of my CV, under combat credentials it says 'blew away 10 skinnies.'"
The military is too male. I don't have a joke, I'm just really in awe of that phrase. I'm thinking about the length of a journey that a culture must undertake in order for that to stop sounding crazy.
ReplyDeleteDon't know yet - I'll let you know if I get there.
Actually, the best way to avoid combat is not to volunteer for the military. Since there's no draft, and no war going on on our territory, this is a sure-fire way to avoid combat. My guess is that when we start putting women into combat, we will see a big drop in the number of women enlisting, since they will no longer have that assurance that they'll never be put into combat.
ReplyDeleteThe "Military Leadership Diversity Commission" is the "independent" body that issued this report was founded in 2009, after legislation created it.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, this is an Obama-ite creation.
http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about
The bio on the group,
"About the Military Leadership Diversity Commission
The Duncan Hunter National Defense Authorization Act for FY2009, Section 596, and Public Law 110-417, mandated the creation of the MLDC. The act tasked the MLDC to "conduct a comprehensive evaluation and assessment of policies that provide opportunities for the promotion and advancement of minority members of the Armed Forces, including minority members who are senior officers."
The MLDC membership includes 22 persons appointed by the Secretary of Defense and two persons appointed by the Secretary of Homeland Security. The law stipulates that the Director of the Defense Manpower Data Center and the Commandant of the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute are also included as members in the MLDC. General Lester Lyles (USAF, Retired) will lead the Commission as its Chairman, and Lt General Julius Becton (USA, Retired) will be the Commission’s Vice Chairman.
The MLDC will undertake a comprehensive review of factors influencing accession, retention, career development, and promotion of military members to find ways to eliminate any barriers to advancement of minority Service members.
Miles again,
OK gents, I -KNOW- Duncan Hunter of Tennessee didn't sneak the language into an act named after him in 2009 creating a de facto "civil rights propaganda commission" for the role of critiquing (in the most Kevin MacDoneld-esque-sense) the US Military (and perpetually finding it wanting). So who did?
Everybody listed as "commissioners" for this organization are retired from whatever branch the served in (I wonder how much they are being paid to lend their names to this chicanery?). But Satan is residing in the "commission staff". The Commission Staff of this outfit is almost exclusively dominated by people who work for a business called "Visionary Intergration Professionals".
http://mldc.whs.mil/index.php/about/staff
There is one member of the staff from the RAND corporation.
Why do I get the feeling that these are the busybodies who write all the reports and papers this outfit regurgitates upon us? They have meetings in ritzy hotels every month if you look at their website.
Here is the website for "Visionary Intergration Professionals",
http://www.vipconsulting.com/vip/
Lets look and see who heads "Visionary Intergration Professionals", shall we?
"CEO and Founder of Visionary Integration Professionals Jonna Ward shares a few thoughts about VIP's commitment to quality.
Hmmm....Who is 'Jonna Ward'? Does she have any military experience? Does she come from a military family? Look at her picture (get ready to laugh guys),
http://www.vipconsulting.com/vip/index.cfm/about-vip/ceos-message/
Doesn't she look like Special Forces Material?
Blacks did disproportionately die in Vietnam in the beginning, as the less wealthy, black and white, were less likely to receive a deferment through college education. By the end of the war, however, the military had corrected the imbalance so that blacks did not suffer a disproportionate number of deaths.
ReplyDeleteThat last anonymous needs to meet some vets.
ReplyDeleteHistory says that in a while the Republican Party will be saying that Democrats only hold back the military's progress toward being a primarily female and "minority"-run institution. The GOP will compete to do the job better, faster and more completely - in line with time-tested conservative principles, of course.
ReplyDelete- Daybreaker
Any study that says too many Jews are running Hollywood, Wall Street, and top government positions? Or one that says too many blacks are in professional sports and popular music? Or that too many gays are in fashion and theater? Or that too many Asian-Indians are in Silicon Valley? Or too many Mexicans are illegally breaking into this country? Or too many non-white-minorities--Nams--are committing too many violent crimes? Or that too many women are going to college while male enrollment figures drop? Or too many liberals are in MSM?
ReplyDelete"There was no push to make the US Military "female and minority friendly" during past administrations. "
ReplyDeleteSure there was. Whiskey, have you thought of taking a job as an inverse weathervane?
Steve S. said
ReplyDeleteIn other words, enlisted women don't want to be in combat. The only women who do are the most promotion-crazed female officers, and the enlisted women aren't excited about getting themselves killed to help get these officers promoted.
[data free speculation alert]
Not to put too fine a point on it, but alot of women enlist in the military for personal as well as professional reasons. They are looking for a male mate, and the military is the perfect dating service, filtering out all the pyschos, criminals, drug users, wimps etc. NTTIAWWT.
Its probable that some females would be good at combat. These would more likely be the kind of women who are not looking for a male mate in the military.
But most females are not all that keen in impressing males with their macho valour. Males tend to be apprehensive of overly aggressive females.
Still, its International Womens Day today, so perhaps we should not be too skeptical of the more far-fetched dreams of our feminist sisters.
International Mens Days begins tomorrow and lasts for a further 364 days.
"My guess is that when we start putting women into combat, we will see a big drop in the number of women enlisting, since they will no longer have that assurance that they'll never be put into combat."
ReplyDeleteThere are already women in combat, just not in designated combat arms branches in the army (infantry, armor, etc.). In irregular wars like Iraq, combat support units (transportation, military police) end up in combat too. A female MP was awarded a silver star for her actions during a battle in Iraq.
By the way, like the Soviet air force in World War II, our air force now has female combat pilots.
"Jews are under-represented in the U.S. army" - http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/jews-are-under-represented-in-the-u-s-army-1.347683
ReplyDeleteApparently, it's because of the Holocaust.
Meanwhile, Israel will ask for another $20 billion:
http://www.haaretz.com/news/international/israel-may-ask-u-s-for-20-billion-more-in-security-aid-barak-says-1.347866
and idiot said:
ReplyDeletei think most folks who join the military do it as their best careerism chance.
yeah, getting your ass shot off in the badlands of central asia. then spending decades in post-traumatic stress disorder.
real good career move.
During the WWII, the great mass of dying was done by whites. 20 million of them in Russia.
ReplyDeleteThe sucking up to the military that goes on even in alternate conservative and libertarian circles is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteThese people won't hesitate to turn their guns on you at the very first order from DC.
Believe me.
Whiskey says . . .
ReplyDeleteThere was no push to make the US Military "female and minority friendly" during past administrations.
Echoing Greg Cochran, how does Whiskey manage never to say anything true? It's quite a trick.
Once a hostile elite replace the office corp with people unlike the core culture, violence against the people is just around the corner.
ReplyDeleteBy the way, like the Soviet
ReplyDeletethat's not the only way we're 'like the soviet'
"Fred said...
ReplyDeleteBy the way, like the Soviet air force in World War II, our air force now has female combat pilots."
It should be noted that the soviet air-force in WWII was considered to be pretty lousy. Germany's top air-ace in WWII (and the top air-ace of all time by the numbers), Erich Hartmann, shot down 345 soviet planes. One man...... and he shot down 345 of their planes. No such number of kills was ever attained by opponents of the British, American, German, or Japanese air-arms. Even Hartmann admitted that his feats were not as great as the numbers would suggest, as the soviets weren't very good.
I'm beginning to agree with Whiskey.
ReplyDeleteIt's why you get such idiotic articles such as this:
http://diversityinc.com/article/8233/The-Future-of-the-Navy-Lies-in-Diversity/
http://legacy.signonsandiego.com/news/military/commandos/20000917-0010_mz1n17rank.html
Coupled with this brilliant article:
http://www.alternativeright.com/main/the-magazine/gi-jane/
I personally believe this is one of the reasons Pat Tillman was so disgusted with the regular enlisted men he went through basic with, and was so elated to be in the special forces.
Special Forces basically means the elite of our nation: white soldiers who has Steve points to, do all the dying in combat.
Just remember the scandal at the Naval Academy, where the goal of lowering standards for a more diverse officer corps has completely damaged that institutions effectiveness and cadet moral.
"Any study that says too many Jews are running Hollywood, Wall Street, and top government positions? Or one that says too many blacks are in professional sports and popular music? ..."
ReplyDeleteBeautiful.
"There was no push to make the US Military "female and minority friendly" during past administrations. "
ReplyDeleteWhiskey - have you been in a coma since the 1970s? Hell, the push to make the military "minority friendly" began in the Truman era. Obama is not a break with the past, he's the logical culmination.
"These people won't hesitate to turn their guns on you at the very first order from DC."
ReplyDeleteGiven curent trends, this could happen. Fortunately for us, given current military trends, a rifle team will consist of two girls and a fairy.
The military is the only institution left in the US that is still respected by a majority of the population. Politicians, bureaucrats, judges, media, business, religion -- nothing else even comes close.
ReplyDeleteRemember the clamor to put the military in charge of the Gulf Oil Spill?
The Spanish Civil War was not supposed to be a civil war. It was supposed to be a coup by a military that was sick and tired of the growing unrest between Left & Right.
My prediction is that at some point in the future there will be a crisis that our dysfunctional government cannot handle. Collapse of the dollar, collapse of Mexico, pandemic, a too-close-to-call presidential election. The US military will see no other option but to step in, and both Left and Right will welcome them.
I'll be sad to see the Constitution finally go, but a military takeover sure beats most of the alternatives I can imagine.
We knew that Obama would see all military conflicts in terms of his crypto-Marxist concern with "fairness". Frankly I'm not to worried about this kind of "fairness" dispute.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm a little more troubled by his attitude on fairness over nuclear weapons. Obama seems to be signaling that: we have nukes so its only fair that the Iranians (and everyone else) also has nukes.
I'm also concerned that Mutual Assured Destruction no longer works when Obama's likely reaction to a nuclear attack on America would be acceptance and understanding. Obama has already signalled that he expects the US to absorb terrorist attacks. His attitude toward nuclear aggression also seems entirely too fair minded for my taste.
Albertosaurus
"During the WWII, the great mass of dying was done by whites. 20 million of them in Russia."
ReplyDeleteBut then, the great mass of killing was done by whites too.
Did anyone who served *really* serve with an outstanding woman- excuse me, female (stoopid language games)?
ReplyDeleteI knew a few who were decent enough people, and performed well enough (I guess) in office situations. But the bulk were a bunch of whiny, malingering, politically self-serving whores who used the military as a dating pool or a cushy job center. I don't say this as a misogynist- I genuinely like women- but just being honest, that was my overwhelming experience across services, commands and geographical areas.
If you can do everything a man can do, then carry two steel roadwheels through the mud and then piss your name in the snow. No on both counts? Hmmm.
I served with one in 9 years who was outstanding, and since ahe was outstanding, everyone wanted to bone her, so no, women still don't belong.
DeleteI don't know why anyone would join the U.S. military. Your NOT defending America. You are enabling the Washingtonian hegemonic empire around the world.
ReplyDelete"where some army sniper is evacuating a Jihadi's cranium with a 0.50 caliber bullet or an Apache helicopter pilot is turning a band of Iraqi hooligans laying IEDs into a bunch of bright smudges on a night vision scope,"
ReplyDeleteCongratulatoins, you've just outed yourself as a keyboard kommando who's closest brush with military service was bumping into a guy doing an ROTC drill in the 9th grade.
*The military is too male. *
ReplyDeleteI am reliably informed that men are disproportionately excluded from motherhood and pregnancy.
Perhaps these injustices balance out.
Osvaldo M.
"I personally believe this is one of the reasons Pat Tillman was so disgusted with the regular enlisted men he went through basic with, and was so elated to be in the special forces."
ReplyDeleteWas he elated when those brilliant white special force guys "accidentally" shot him in the back?
"Remember that there are plenty of Mexicans in the U.S. military"
ReplyDeletehispanics in the US military are patriotic and 'citizenist'
-Osvaldo M.
"If you can do everything a man can do, then carry two steel roadwheels through the mud and then piss your name in the snow. No on both counts?"
ReplyDeleteI see utility to being able to do the former, but don't even want to do the latter, even metaphorically. Makes me giggle just thinking about it.
So if that is the psychology you need, you're right sir. Women don't belong in the military unless they're Joan of Arc.
But really, why is anybody in the American Army? There's no America anymore. You're fighting for fat-cat CEOs and power-pscho trippers that slime around the halls of "government" today, cliche as that sounds. Don't trust me. Gen. Smedley Butler said so 80 years ago and they're STILL AT IT! I just don't get it. I mean really...what are you fighting for? Jobs? Only for as long as you're in the military.
@SGOTI
ReplyDeleteMost of the women in the Army when I was in were of these types:
1) medical personnel - the majority of which barely acted as if they were in the military, probably intended to use the military to springboard to a regular medical practice.
2) glorified government workers - by this I mean the paper pushers who varied very little from any local/state/federal workers; this group probably fits the majority of female 'soldiers'.
3) Lesbians with an authority complex. Civilians would recognize this sort as the same kind of women who end up becoming cops. The wannabe soldiers would probably come from this class.
16 percent are women
ReplyDeleteThat's pretty high.
Any mention of women registering for the draft? You know, that "equal protection under the law" and discrimination by sex stuff we hear so much about.
" knew a few who were decent enough people, and performed well enough (I guess) in office situations. But the bulk were a bunch of whiny, malingering, politically self-serving whores who used the military as a dating pool or a cushy job center. I don't say this as a misogynist- I genuinely like women- but just being honest, that was my overwhelming experience across services, commands and geographical areas."
ReplyDeleteRight. Either the Army turns decent women into whores and harridans, or the kind of woman who joins is trailer trash. Probably a mix.
-Osvaldo M.
Huh...white men do the majority of fighting and dying in the Middle East? It's probably worse. The vast majority of the white men doing the trigger pulling in these places are white guys from small, red-state towns and cities.
ReplyDeleteIn effect, the entire War on Terror is really designed to make America safe for the Democratic Party.
Think about. On 9/11, "diversity" that Democrats love so much hijacked a plane full of Democrats; crashed it into a skyscraper full of Democrats; and did all of this in the heart of a Democrat city. And what do Republicans do? They send their constituency to go fight and die to protect these Democrats.
I say let the Democrats take the lead on national security matters, since it is their cities under attack. If New Yorkers think Al Qaeda is a threat, then they should recruit among their own citizens to fight.
As far as the feminization of the military is concerned, well, that depends on what role the military will play here. As a supporter of the military-industrial complex, I do see the wars in the Mid-East as a useful exercise in urban pacification. Combine these skills with the white demographic military makeup and a Republican, anti-leftist dictator, and liberalism could easily be purged out of all American institutions.
On the other hand, if the military is going to be captured by left-wing interests, then it is better to dilute that combat skill-base with homosexuals and women.
In fact, it may be preferable to dilute the formal military combat arms. If military soldiers are driven to private companies like Blackwater and Diligence, then the Repubs can have their own private army of mercenaries.
Albertosauris:
ReplyDeleteHuh? The Obama administration appears to have continued the same policy toward Iran as the Bush admin had--threats, sanctions, covert ops, everything. Where's the difference?
We are constrained in our actions by the fact that, after a decade of pouring money and blood into Iraq and Afghanistan and Pakistan, there's no appetite at all for another war. Bush faced the same problem, as will Obamas successor.
What has given you the idea that we wouldn't retaliate against a nuclear attack? That's nuts--a president who didn't retaliate would be hounded out of office, impeached and removed by his own party.
Whites are superior warriors and always have been. That is why they see more combat. Killing is a skill like anything else, and smart white people do it better than anyone else, since it takes intelligence with testosterone.
ReplyDeleteActually whites are mediocre warriors who win most of the wars not due to fighting skill, even smart fighting skill, but superior technology, logistics, planning, and budgeting.
Actually whites are mediocre warriors who win most of the wars not due to fighting skill, even smart fighting skill, but superior technology, logistics, planning, and budgeting.
ReplyDeleteKnight of Malta against the Sulton's forces? the British in India where the outgunned and out manned the whole time, especially during the sikh wars and the mutiny.
"Congratulatoins, you've just outed yourself as a keyboard kommando who's closest brush with military service was bumping into a guy doing an ROTC drill in the 9th grade."
ReplyDeleteMy closest brush with military service was our last family reunion: I have uncles, cousins, and a father who fought in WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. Having come of military age during the Carter Administration, I feel I must be forgiven for opting out. And I do regret it.
Truth is a troll.
"I feel I must be forgiven for opting out. And I do regret it."
ReplyDeleteI forgive you for opting out, I didn't serve in the military,and you shouldn't regret it.
What you should regret is swagger-talking like you are in a Burt Lancaster movie AFTER you decided to opt out.
Your opting out had nothing to do with Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Rutherford B. Hayes or any other politician. You opted out because you feared receiving 50 bullets in your ass...the same reason I did.
I've met a fair number of ex-military who actually served in firefights, and I have not yet met one who has spoken about murdering people with the excitement and reverence you did.
Maybe your family is different, but from my limited sample size, Sport, that is not a "special forces" thing, it is a "chickenhawk" thing.
"Your opting out had nothing to do with Jimmy Carter, Gerald Ford, Rutherford B. Hayes or any other politician. You opted out because you feared receiving 50 bullets in your ass...the same reason I did."
ReplyDeleteNo I didn't. I was too young to believe I could be killed. Besides, as an Ivy grad, I would have been an officer -- in the rear with the gear.
Looks like "sport" has offended Twoof's delicate, lady-like sensibilities. Apparently you just can't talk about war that way - you know, with blood and gore. Cause Twoof can see into your soul and all.
ReplyDelete"Sure there was. Whiskey, have you thought of taking a job as an inverse weathervane?"
A paid job, you mean.
Whiskey and Twoof are our two politically polar opposite buffoons on this forum.
"Apparently you just can't talk about war that way - you know, with blood and gore."
ReplyDeleteI think you misunderstand, chief; he can talk about war however he wants...and I can talk about him however I want...That's the American way.
A paid job, you mean.
ReplyDeleteOkay, we now have a new "funniest comment yet."
"In other words, enlisted women don't want to be in combat. The only women who do are the most promotion-crazed female officers, and the enlisted women aren't excited about getting themselves killed to help get these officers promoted."
ReplyDeleteNo one wants to be in combat unless they have some major delusions about their ability to be a hero and avoid being shot, the kind of thoughts that Hollywood likes to put into young men's heads. Officers may have a different outlook, as they may be in less danger than their subordinates.
Women want to have their cake and eat it too. Not just in the military, but other fields, with benefits for danger, bad hours, etc. They don't want to endure what men have to endure, but want to be able to share the credit and pay for those things as though they had done them.
What has given you the idea that we wouldn't retaliate against a nuclear attack? That's nuts--a president who didn't retaliate would be hounded out of office, impeached and removed by his own party.
ReplyDeleteI wish what you say were true. Even in the Cold War there were always those who adopted the attitude "Better Red than Dead". Fortunately the national leadership adopted a firmer line. For example Nixon adopted what he and Kissinger called the "Mad man" strategy. They tried to project the notion that they were just a bit unstable and were eager to launch.
With MAD of course it's not so much what you would do as it is what the enemy thinks you would do. That makes it important to keep the enemy off balance. For example Islam and Islamic nations should believe that our President wouldn't hesitate to nuke Mecca under the right circumstances.
Your notion that the Democrats would impeach and hound Obama out of office for compromising the credibility of MAD is pretty funny.
Obama refuses to recognize that Islam is a danger to the US. He refused to let his administration use the term "terrorism". He has redefined NASA's mission to be pro-Islam. He bowed to the King of Arabia.
He certainly doesn't convince me that he will retaliate against a Muslim attack. Why doesn't he round up some domestic Muslims when there is one of the many terrorist incidents? His policy seems to be to absorb these violent insults. I fear that as the incidents crescendo he will do nothing if and when the Islamists manage a nuclear incident.
It is true that Bush might have done more but at least he attacked a Muslim nation after 9/11. With that he signalled that we would act decisively - it hardly matters which Muslim nation we attacked. It would have been more dangerous to have done nothing.
It should be clear by now that Obama is pro-Muslim. It could be because he was born a Muslim, raised a Muslim, and most of his relatives are Muslims. He claims he converted to Christianity. Maybe so. Maybe not. It hardly matters. He leans towards Islam - that much should be noncontroversial.
In any case at least there is some cause to suspect that some Islamist leaders might doubt that he would ever retaliate against a Muslim nation. That should worry everybody.
Albertosaurus
Has any one taken the time to see who the members of this "independent commission" are?
ReplyDeleteTake a look at what "diversity" really is and it isn't white male or straight female. The "independent commission" members came in with an agenda and simply wrapped a report around them.
Knowing some of the senior retired military officers, they got their stars by being quota fillers who had talented staffs specifically to keep them from screwing up.
If an "independent commission" composed entirely of white, straight males and straight women came up with the recommendations that their are too manhy minorities in the military (Blacks make up less than 10% of the civilian labor force but 22% of the army and 18% of the military overall)--then said that both minority and female service members were being moved from support jobs to front line combat to ensure they had experience, there would be cries of sexism and racism. But it is OK when minorities claim discrimination.
This "independent commission" was a sham and needs to be outed for what it is. A commision more fixated on quantity of race and gender rather than the quality of performance. How have we sunk so low??
"It should be clear by now that Obama is pro-Muslim."
ReplyDeleteI thought he was pro-Jew.
Albertosaurus:
ReplyDeleteWhat you're saying here conflicts with all the observable evidence. Use Greg Cochran's line: how would the world look different if this were true?
First of all, if Obama is unwilling to strike at or retaliate against a Muslim country, then how can you explain what's going on in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Yemen? We've *expanded* the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan under Obama, and we've started running drones and assassins in Yemen under Obama, in response to some failed terrorist attacks. How is this consistent with the idea that Obama won't order a strike against a Muslim country?
The answer is, it's not consistent with that idea. Obama's administration has been just fine with blowing up, shooting, imprisoning, and kidnapping Muslims in Muslim countries. He's even claimed the power to assassinate US citizens with no trial or review ever, and one American Muslim living in Yemen is apparently on the hit list.
If your beliefs were true, none of that would be happening. Obama would have necessarily stopped operations in Pakistan, and pulled out of Afghanistan as quickly as possible, exactly as the liberal part of his base wanted him to do. He would have refused to get involved in Yemen. All this would have probably hurt him politically, but would have looked exactly like a guy who ran as a centrist and governed as a liberal--something that honestly wouldn't have surprised many people. I'm not even sure his re-election prospects would be any worse, had he followed that strategy--the wars aren't too popular.
But he did the opposite. The Obama administration's actions in the Muslim world are simply not consistent with this idea you have that Obama refuses to strike at Muslims.
Given that, what would make any Muslim leader imagine that nuking us would not get retaliation? I mean, having some idiot board a plane with a bomb in his pants from Yemen got us sending assassins and drones into Yemen.
Anonymous:
ReplyDeleteGee, what a surprise, they stacked the commission with people who were very likely to give them the answer they wanted. Who could have foreseen such an occurrence?
"What you're saying here conflicts with all the observable evidence."
ReplyDeleteThat was a wise, well thought, and educational post, NOTA.
The problem is, it does not address the underlying and covert issue with a lot of the silly, immature, and totally, reactionary criticizm of the Obama administration.
You see, my friend...Obama ia black.
"No one wants to be in combat unless they have some major delusions about their ability to be a hero and avoid being shot,"
ReplyDeleteso they keep saying, and yet, wars and armies keep on keeping on, as do gangs and any number of quasi-military activities involving voluntary (usually) male participation. Why doesn't everybody just say no? Oh--that would be too "feminizing" of society. All this "alpha" male stuff, which I consider pretty much a crock, because people are so much more complicated than that, is all about fighting in some way or other.
As for women not enduring what men endure--they have in many parts of the world and in many times in history, with the added burden of children. Modern, western society has been what England of the 16th century claimed to be, "a hell for horses and a paradise for women." except America was never a hell for horses but it has been a comparative paradise for women.
Diversity is a cancer!
ReplyDelete