Wednesday, September 22, 2021
HomeFeatured EntriesDefining Battlefields

Defining Battlefields

From the Dispatches Comes now the Report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, as reported today in Navy Times, via Drudge.  This commission was established by Congress two years ago.  We don’t really have to go into a whole lot of detail on the supposed purpose of this “commission”, now do we?  The ‘Big D’ in the title pretty much says it all.  One more feel good, PC, social justice blathering, fol-de-rol meant to embarass, humiliate, marginalize, degrade and distract  another heretofore time-honored, crucial, successful,  American institution, the US military.  By way of summation, we offer here the first sentence of the NT piece : “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.”

Well.  We expected no less.  In fact, we expected a report like this to include all the gory details about how there are only X% of this race in leadership positions and Y% of that gender in command slots and the whole nine yards of the perennial minority grievance-based affirmative action requests catered to by the concerned commissioners.  It’s all there, in the NT piece and in the report itself.  See the links below.   We also expected there would be a disproportionate number of retired Air Force Generals on the Commission.  And there were.  We did not expect to find a former top aide to Nancy Pelosi and current Board member of Planned Parenthood on the Commission, one Shamina Singh, but we are not at all shocked.

No, what really was disturbing about this little ditty was a statement made by the Commission’s chairman, a retired Air Force General named Lester L. Lyles.  The Navy Times article (Navy Times is owned by Gannett.  Why does Gannett…never mind, I answered my own question) dotes a lot on the gender angle.  Specifically, that since women have been traditionally barred from combat, that bit of glory missing from their resume creates a glass ceiling, preventing them from reaching the pinnacles of military success.  Well, maybe.  But in stressing the point, General Lyles argues that today’s military, and today’s world political map, and today’s war-fighting regimens, are more and more amenable to the talents and shared abilities  of the distaff side.  Says General Lyles:

“If you look at today’s battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s not like it was in the Cold War, when we had a defined battlefield.”

A defined battlefield.  In the Cold War.  Well blow me over.  I admit to not being a military historian.  I admit to not being a military or political expert.  My only bonafides in those areas are that I did a six-year hitch in the Navy and manged to squeeze out a BA in PoliSci.  But I lived through the Cold War.  And that “defined battlefield” that General Lyles glibly speaks of  as he tries to do the bidding of his sponsors was nowhere categorically or specifically described or delineated as far as I recall.  I remember it as being pretty much a multi-faceted, anywhere and everywhere, all-encompassing, almost all-consuming thing that was fought on so many fronts, and backs, and sides, and ins and outs, that it took the entire awake free world to look after it.  And as I recall, there were not a few women going once more and then again into the fray, perhaps not in hand-to-hand knife-fight combat but soldiering on nonetheless, and devoting their lives to the conduct of said Cold War.  So that General Lyles’  pathetic attempt to bring all of the knuckledragging white male command-and-control structure to heel and into the 21st century falls a little flat.

Look, this is not news.  The games the agendaites play are disingenuous, illogical, destructive and maddening.   The Commander-in-Chief is a black man.  The Commander of Abu Graib was a woman.  Colin Powell was Chairman of JCS.  All this multi-culti/diversity diversion is  propaganda, pap,  poop and pathetic.  But the arguments people make when engaging in it are instructive, albeit disheartening.  It is one thing for high-level career military types to soften with age.  It is quite another when they knowingly, or even more frightening, unknowingly, reduce one of the greatest and most complex conflicts in the history of the world to a mere testosterone-driven knockdown dragout brawl conducted on the plains of  some imaginary ‘battlefield’.   What do they teach at the Academies and War Colleges these days?

https://www.navytimes.com/news/2011/03/ap-military-report-too-many-whites-men-leading-military-030711/

https://mldc.whs.mil/

bobmontgomery
Poor. No advanced degrees. Unorganized. Feeble. Disjointed. Random. Past it. .... Intrigued, Interested, Patriotic and Lucky.

19 COMMENTS

Leave a Reply

19 COMMENTS

  1. What do they teach at the Academies and War Colleges these days?

    They teach Political Correctness, Diversity, – lots of hours given over to sensitivity training on race, gender, and soon to be added (if not already), homo/transexual acceptance. Everything is about a wimpy, neutered military. It must be something in the “water” of the past 50+ years to have brought us to such a point. What we’re seeing in the cultural slide, is being actively sought in the military.

    • LP: The ‘soon-to-be-added’ training you refer to apparently has already begun. I can’t cite it right quick but I read the other day that it has begun, of all places and times, on the battlefield, in Afghanistan, in the middle of a war.

  2. I do not want to go there. I will not go there.

    I was a blue-suit USAF-type military recruiter, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Suffice it to simply state that this [redacted] has been going on for decades. Basically, starting 20 years ago, it mattered less how many beans one put ‘into the bag’, than the exact classification (race, gender, ethnicity, now ‘orientation’, etc) of each bean gotten. With all the appropriate goals, requirements, punishments & rewards affixed thereto. ‘Nuff said.

    *grits teeth* Cheers!

      • Nope. Absolutely no surprise. Situation normal.

        Here’s another: During the ’emphasis’ on commissioning females, not only did our organization reject fully qualified, trained & commissioned men, but actually sent an unqualified gal to attend college (so as to secure a degree, becoming ‘qualified’ for a commission) and paid her a civil service wage to attend her classes during work hours. Once of the many things that hastened my retirement….
        (I won’t mention how she was later fired from her officer job for having an affair, long distance, using mil travel $$$ to visit her boyfriend, who BTW wasn’t her husband.)
        *still gritting teeth*

  3. This is just an outstanding piece, bob! What’s been happening to our military over the last 30 years is just downright scary.

    Had a young man who I coached in football in high school who went on to the Naval Academy in the mid-90’s and he regularly regaled me with stories about the double-standard that was there between men and women, especially in the area of PT (physical training).

    He basically said that if you were a guy, and you missed *any* aspect of your PT by *any* amount, no matter how small, you were toast. But if you were a woman, you could fail your already lessened standards with impunity and always manage to get a ‘waiver’. He said he’d had female platoon commanders who had ‘never’ passed their PT, and everyone knew it. And what everyone else also knew was that to complain about it was a quick way to find an exit from the Academy.

    As he put it, it’s kinda hard to respect someone when you know they’re being held to a different, lower standard.

    • Tks, TG. Just wanted to reiterate here that all the PC, pseudo-concerned, affirmative action crapola of course needs to be pointed out, but I wanted to highlight Lyles’ statement for a couple of reasons. One is that there is always revisionist history going on, with a theme often promoted that the Soviet Union and its satellites just sort of spontaneously collapsed and our Cold Warriors, male, female, black,brown, what-have-you just happened to be in the area. The other is the concept of professionalism.
      When we look at the corruption and misunderstanding and misstatement of purpose in the media, the sciences, et cetera and then see the same thing happening in our military, maybe it’s later than we think.

  1. What do they teach at the Academies and War Colleges these days?

    They teach Political Correctness, Diversity, – lots of hours given over to sensitivity training on race, gender, and soon to be added (if not already), homo/transexual acceptance. Everything is about a wimpy, neutered military. It must be something in the “water” of the past 50+ years to have brought us to such a point. What we’re seeing in the cultural slide, is being actively sought in the military.

    • LP: The ‘soon-to-be-added’ training you refer to apparently has already begun. I can’t cite it right quick but I read the other day that it has begun, of all places and times, on the battlefield, in Afghanistan, in the middle of a war.

  2. I do not want to go there. I will not go there.

    I was a blue-suit USAF-type military recruiter, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away. Suffice it to simply state that this [redacted] has been going on for decades. Basically, starting 20 years ago, it mattered less how many beans one put ‘into the bag’, than the exact classification (race, gender, ethnicity, now ‘orientation’, etc) of each bean gotten. With all the appropriate goals, requirements, punishments & rewards affixed thereto. ‘Nuff said.

    *grits teeth* Cheers!

      • Nope. Absolutely no surprise. Situation normal.

        Here’s another: During the ’emphasis’ on commissioning females, not only did our organization reject fully qualified, trained & commissioned men, but actually sent an unqualified gal to attend college (so as to secure a degree, becoming ‘qualified’ for a commission) and paid her a civil service wage to attend her classes during work hours. Once of the many things that hastened my retirement….
        (I won’t mention how she was later fired from her officer job for having an affair, long distance, using mil travel $$$ to visit her boyfriend, who BTW wasn’t her husband.)
        *still gritting teeth*

  3. This is just an outstanding piece, bob! What’s been happening to our military over the last 30 years is just downright scary.

    Had a young man who I coached in football in high school who went on to the Naval Academy in the mid-90’s and he regularly regaled me with stories about the double-standard that was there between men and women, especially in the area of PT (physical training).

    He basically said that if you were a guy, and you missed *any* aspect of your PT by *any* amount, no matter how small, you were toast. But if you were a woman, you could fail your already lessened standards with impunity and always manage to get a ‘waiver’. He said he’d had female platoon commanders who had ‘never’ passed their PT, and everyone knew it. And what everyone else also knew was that to complain about it was a quick way to find an exit from the Academy.

    As he put it, it’s kinda hard to respect someone when you know they’re being held to a different, lower standard.

    • Tks, TG. Just wanted to reiterate here that all the PC, pseudo-concerned, affirmative action crapola of course needs to be pointed out, but I wanted to highlight Lyles’ statement for a couple of reasons. One is that there is always revisionist history going on, with a theme often promoted that the Soviet Union and its satellites just sort of spontaneously collapsed and our Cold Warriors, male, female, black,brown, what-have-you just happened to be in the area. The other is the concept of professionalism.
      When we look at the corruption and misunderstanding and misstatement of purpose in the media, the sciences, et cetera and then see the same thing happening in our military, maybe it’s later than we think.

Must Read