Brawn vs. ?

 

More about the differences between the sexes.

From Blackfive, Deebow asks if you have to work at being as stupid as Col. Ellen Haring at the Army War College.   Why, yes, you do because you have to defy the "Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" repeatedly over a period of many years in order to firmly convince yourself that the sun really does rise in the west, that black really is white and that women certainly are just like men if you will only first strip men of the masculine traits which uniquely define them.  That is, once you re-define the world according to your own terms, you can be as far off base as Col. Haring.

In this article by Col. Haring, reported on here,  the colonel gets to the heart of her argument by calling into question what makes a good combat soldier.  Once she's pointed out that decorated hero Audie Murphy was physically unfit --by today's standards-- and that North Vietnamese soldiers are the size of women, she decides there's no reason to "rely on traditional notions of masculine brawn that celebrate strength over other qualities.”  Precisely.  Traditional notions are dangerous for feminists like Haring because tradition relies on the fact that physiological differences in the male body, like testosterone for starters,  account for greater male strength.  If she can define strength, brawn, out of the equation, women can play the game too.  To be sure, the colonel notes that  "Combat specialties, it turns out, are inherently endurance-based occupations. Evidence in hand, they [Canadian Forces] shifted from strength-based standards to endurance-based standards, and far more women began to qualify for combat specialties."  But as pointed out here, though women may qualify, they will likely not endure.   And as noted here  (8th paragraph), even if able to endure, they may not show. Now why in the world would a woman be more likely to have concerns about her family than a man?  Something about being a woman?

As argued elsewhere and in the comments to Haring's article, there is no reason to have women in combat roles other than to satisfy the politically correct, feminist entitlement argument that because they want it they should have it.  As Deebow writes, " . .  no matter how calm, creative, and quick thinking the fairer sex is, there are still less of them that can lift that 81 baseplate and walk it to the top of a mountain carrying a full combat load and their own gear than there are dudes who can do the same." 

But, even more to the point, brawn has a role to play, not just in being a soldier, but in being a man.   It's important not to define out of existence traits that make men manly and women womanly.  In fact, we can't.  Those "Laws of Nature of Nature's God" prevail. Society has a stake in the sexes knowing how they are different and in maintaining standards for traditional male roles vs. traditional female roles.  Will every man fit the stereotype?  Will every woman fit the stereotype?  Of course not, and those who don't will need to find their place but that doesn't mean the standard isn't useful. Along with re-defining soldiering, Colonel Haring might also wish to re-define the law of gravity, but if she chooses for some odd reason to jump from a 10-story building, she will likely find that she still goes down. With a splat.  

 

Captain Petronio On Differences Between The Sexes

 

Keeping with the theme of the previous post, I revisited this very well-written article on women in combat.  There's no substitute for the article itself, but in a nutshell, Captain Petronio acknowledges that there are women who are physically qualified to meet Marine combat standards, herself included, but she questions the female's endurance ability over long periods of time while also pointing out higher attrition rates for females even during training.  Regarding combat:  

It was evident that stress and muscular deterioration was affecting everyone regardless of gender; however, the rate of my deterioration was noticeably faster than that of male Marines and further compounded by gender-specific medical conditions. At the end of the 7-month deployment, and the construction of 18 PBs later, I had lost 17 pounds and was diagnosed with polycystic ovarian syndrome (which personally resulted in infertility, but is not a genetic trend in my family), which was brought on by the chemical and physical changes endured during deployment. Regardless of my deteriorating physical stature, I was extremely successful during both of my combat tours, serving beside my infantry brethren and gaining the respect of every unit I supported. Regardless, I can say with 100 percent assurance that despite my accomplishments, there is no way I could endure the physical demands of the infantrymen whom I worked beside as their combat load and constant deployment cycle would leave me facing medical separation long before the option of retirement.

Regarding training:

This said, we need only to review the statistics from our entry-level schools to realize that there is a significant difference in the physical longevity between male and female Marines. At OCS the attrition rate for female candidates in 2011 was historically low at 40 percent, while the male candidates attrite at a much lower rate of 16 percent. Of candidates who were dropped from training because they were injured or not physically qualified, females were breaking at a much higher rate than males, 14 percent versus 4 percent. The same trends were seen at TBS in 2011; the attrition rate for females was 13 percent versus 5 percent for males, and 5 percent of females were found not physically qualified compared with 1 percent of males.

If life were simple and human beings weren't complex creatures, it might actually be the case that  the only differences between men and women really were just superficial.   But scratch the surface, apply some thought and look a little more closely.  One can fit square pegs into round holes, but there's a cost.  Something gets destroyed in the process. 
.

Remembering on Memorial Day

Here is a good article from Blackfive for Memorial Day reading.  It's from 2004. Note the quote from the fallen Major's letters where he says how much he "loved serving under George Bush."  Note also how the reporters following turned tail and ran without covering the story.  

More on DADT

The Obama administration's drive to repeal the law barring homosexuals from serving in the military (mis-named 'Don't Ask Don't Tell') has continued apace through the summer. As always, Family Research Council (FRC) and the Center for Military Readiness (CMR) continue to spell out the real picture. CMR reports that the CBS poll showing 75% of Americans support repeal of the law is erroneous. FRC president Tony Perkins points out that,

"The survey currently being conducted by the Department of Defense assumes the repeal of the current law and asks service personnel only their views of how to implement such a plan. The survey does not address the much more profound and pertinent question of whether or not repeal should go forward.

FRC reminds readers over and over again that the real agenda behind the repeal of the law is, ultimately, the redefinition of marriage in our culture and the normalization of same sex marriage. From its report called Mission Compromised they point out that,

radical “gay rights” advocates/activists want to use the military to advance an agenda for the full acceptance of homosexuality in society at large.

Most disappointing is when members of the military offer themselves up like so many of Lenin's useful idiots and pander to the political elites and activists who are portraying open homosexuality as yet one more right that we all have to recognize. Back in May, this statement was released by military bloggers, and the Atlantic Monthly published this interview with Blackfive's Jim Hanson in June.

Judging by what Hanson says about military bloggers as a voting bloc, their narrow focus and their supposed acceptance of homosexuality in general seems to prevent them from realizing just how they are being used to further the social goals of liberals in Congress and homosexual lobbying groups. In the interview, Hanson says,

But the dialogue is good, because most of us agree that it's a generational thing now. Because of the ubiquity of gay people in our society, the young troops don't care, its very much "don't ask, don't care." This will be a non-issue once the policy goes into place. The young troops say, "Who cares? If
you didn't notice, there are people shooting at us. We've got other concerns."

Because gays are "ubiquitous" (which they're not) in society, it follows that they should serve in the military? Don't ask, don't care? Equally illogical, Hanson has the law already repealed when it still has not been voted on. As for his labelling the Obama administration's demand for repeal of the 1993 law as good dialogue, it's difficult to see it as good let alone even dialogue when Obama is ignoring the advice of the generals and feeding soldiers a questionnaire that pre-supposes repeal of the law.

It remains to be seen what Hanson's open-minded, gay-friendly young troops will think when they wind up on the receiving end of harrassment charges because they've failed to be sensitive to gay needs, they've rebuffed the advances of a gay soldier or superior, or they've expressed discomfort or concern over the gay 'family' next door, or sharing showers and sleeping quarters with homosexuals.

How Hanson and other military bloggers don't see this is disturbing.

Obama At The 2010 West Point Graduation

As a friend pointed out to me years ago, New York City is such a deeply blue place (and liberals are so parochial) that almost invariably, even the most casual acquaintances assume that you are as far left as they are! Thus, when friends or others heard that Barack Obama spoke at our son's graduation, they assumed that we, like they, felt whelmed with this good fortune.

Obama had plenty of support among the thousands at West Point's Michie Stadium on May 22nd, and the cadets would certainly render only respect to their Commander in Chief, but many among us discussed how we would stand for Obama out of respect for the office of the President, but we would be hard pressed to applaud, and, indeed, there was little call for applause.

For starters, Obama's speech went on too long, especially as we assume it was his late arrival that set the whole ceremony back by almost 20 minutes. While one can probably find the speech somewhere on the internet, it's hardly worth the time. After briefly recognizing the graduating class and pandering to the feminists by crowing about the fact that the two top-ranked cadets in the class were females, Obama launched into what was essentially a campaign speech and worse. In front of 1,000 soon-to-be newly-commissioned 2nd Lieutenants, Obama proceeded to talk about the importance of everything but soldiering. He waxed on about diplomacy, internationalism and the contribution that all Americans need to make to the world's future. If I'm not mistaken, he even covered the environment.

Obama, so out of touch and disdainful of all things military and manly, couldn't have provided a lower point to the day, but then again, the day offered so much more to celebrate than Obama's presence that his contribution or lack thereof faded quickly.

The speech that did leave an impression was given the night before graduation by Chief of Staff of the Army, General Casey. I know that Casey came under fire for his politically correct comment about diversity back during the Fort Hood shootings, but Casey's speech to the cadets at the graduation dinner seemed heartfelt and to the point. He spoke directly to them and he did know that they had been at West Point not to become Peace Corps volunteers or to further women's rights, but to practice the profession of arms. He did mention the words "warrior ethos." He did circulate among the cadets beforehand and his speech lasted all of about 15 minutes.

There were many such memorable moments to this wonderful graduation week.

Sign The Petition

Blackfive Sells Out To Political Correctness

Over at Blackfive, milbloggers are falling all over themselves in their rush to show how open-minded they are about sexuality, gender issues and how much they love the god of equality. Not only are they eager to hop on the political correctness bandwagon, but, in a notably uncourageous and unmanly way, they are calling a retreat before the battle is lost.

In the current debate over the repeal of the 1993 law erroneously called Don't Ask Don't Tell (DADT), Congress is supposed to be waiting for a report from the military before taking a vote on the issue of gays openly serving in the military. Not content to wait for the democratic process to take its course, however, certain Congressmen feel it is their prerogative to make unilateral decisions before all the information is in.

The milbloggers remind me of a bunch of scared schoolboys who are terrified of getting beat up by the bullying left-wingers waiting for them in the schoolyard. Hence, they are ever so thoughtful in their request:

We ask Congress to withhold action until this [the military's research and report] is finished, but no longer. We urge Congress to listen to the service chiefs and act in accordance with the recommendations of that study.

The US Military is professional and ready to adapt to the repeal of Don't Ask, Don't Tell without compromising its mission. Echoing Sec. Def. Gates and ADM Mullen, we welcome open and honorable service, regardless of sexual orientation.

Meanwhile, Congress in the person of Sen. Carl Levin (D-Michigan) shows no such restraint as he prepares to attach an amendment to the upcoming Defense Authorization Bill that will either place a moratorium on the 1993 law (mis-labeled Don't Ask Don't Tell) or repeal it entirely. The Center for Military Readiness (CMR) continues to provide insightful coverage of this issue. Or, read their policy paper which describes in detail some of the consequences of gays openly serving. As CMR points out,

Military men and women are about to be used in an involuntary social experiment, paying a high and possibly irrevocable price for the president’s political promises to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered activists of the LGBT Left.

Responsible congressmen and senators of both parties should step forward to clarify the situation and to reaffirm support for the 1993 law.

Gays Openly Serving in the Military

The issue of gays openly serving in the military continues to percolate. Over at the Center for Military Readiness (CMR), they are asking whether we will now have a European-style military given the passage of our new, European-style health care. In a report that makes for very interesting reading, General John Sheehan offered testimony on March 18th at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing which kind of took the wind out of the sails of his interrogator's attempts to minimize and normalize an openly gay military.

Committee Chairman Carl Levin (D-MI) asked whether the general had discussed the issue [of gays in the military] with them. “Did they tell you that they had unit cohesion or morale problems?” Much to Levin’s surprise, Sheehan answered “Yes” and proceeded to provide details.

Just as Obamacare is less about health care reform and more about a socialist-type direction for the United States, gay activists and their enablers in our society seem to welcome a de-fanged and soft military after the fashion of those in Europe. The particular case discussed in this report is the Dutch army. The report goes on,

The hearing transcript reveals that Gen. Sheehan's most insightful points about military culture went right over the head of Senator Levin and others present at the hearing. When Dutch officials decided to embrace peacekeeping as the primary mission of their military, embracing unionism and social goals more suited to a civilian institution, combat effectiveness suffered. Then and now, this issue is all about priorities.

Gen. Sheehan warned against a similar transformation of America’s military. “Our enemies, especially the extremists, do not care how enlightened or progressive our culture may be. The only thing that matters is the effectiveness on the battlefield.”

The Dutch ambassador countered General Sheehan's remarks by "expressing pride" in his country's gays and lesbians who serve. I hear similar comments about the wonderful things gays have contributed to the U.S. military, comments which are similarly completely irrelevant. The military doesn't exist to promote the self-esteem or success of any one individual much less some group that has decided they are due for recognition.

CMR continues to keep the priorities straight by constantly reminding that the question is not whether we are proud that some specific-identity group is serving in the military but whether or not their service is an improvement or a setback for the success of a strong U.S. military. This report drives home the point that the United States should not prioritize social engineering in its military as many European countries have done.

More on Women in the Military

I came across this radio interview with host Jim Hanson of Blackfive and Genevieve Chase who is one of the founders of American Women Veterans. Her organization is advocating for a re-evaluation of policy concerning women in the military so that official regulations reflect the reality of how women are currently serving. Apparently, women are already finding themselves 'outside the wire' in vulnerable situations where they are drawn into combat situations (think Jessica Lynch in 2003?). Commanding officers are then in the unenviable and difficult position of having to explain why women are in places where they technically should not be.

Chase's group is not promoting the entrance of women into combat roles and Chase herself is skeptical about the recently-lifted restriction against women serving on submarines (although her skepticism seems based more on the fact that the women who will be selected to serve aren't experienced enough and less skeptical about the fact that they're female). She claims only to want policy that recognizes how women are performing in and contributing to the military today. But, she gets caught up in the current cultural obsession with individual rights trumping the common good. She uses that familiar "I don't care if you're black, yellow, white or female, if you're qualified physically and you want to be a soldier, you should be able to serve."

The military exists to serve the larger society, not to satisfy the dreams and goals of its individual citizens. It is an institution with a specific mission and responsibility. It should accept those most qualified to carry out the mission of the institution and those who will permit the institution to operate responsibly.

I'm reluctantly yielding to the notion that there are valuable ways women can contribute to the military (see here), but I'm not convinced that it can be done without feminizing the military in ways that will compromise its quality.

LGBT Law in the Military--Bad Law and Bad News

The matter of gays serving openly in the military lingers on as a very troubling issue. Dick Cheney is now on board with his recent remarks that, "Twenty years ago, the military were strong advocates of 'don't ask, don't tell.' I think things have changed significantly since then ... I think the society has moved on. I think it's partly a generational question. When the chiefs come forward and say, 'We think we can do it,' then it strikes me that it's -- it's time to reconsider the policy. And I think Admiral Mullen said that."

The chiefs haven't actually come forward to say that, and Mullen's comments, as already noted, were his personal opinion not his opinion about what was best for the military. As for society having 'moved on,' what evidence is there that it's been for the better?

Cheney notes that views about gays are generational. Yes, I've noticed too that there's a tolerance, even a disinterested acceptance of homosexuality among the younger generations, but that only suggests to me that relativism, secularism and gay lobbies have successfully brainwashed whole segments of our culture, including, apparently, people supposedly as distinguished and smart as Dick Cheney. Just because the kids think being gay is not a big deal doesn't make it so, and that's especially true when it comes to gays in the military, an institution about which most of us, including young people, know very little.

The Center for Military Readiness held a news conference today on the question of how gays in the military would improve military readiness. As one of their policy papers explains, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, Rep. Patrick Murphy, is sponsoring H.R. 1283, legislation that would repeal Section 654, Title 10, U.S.C. (commonly, though erroneously, known as 'don't ask, don't tell') and would "replace it with an open-ended, radical “LGBT Law” that would forbid discrimination based on “homosexuality or bisexuality, whether the orientation is real or perceived.”"

This same policy paper contains charts showing the consequences that will arise if such a law is passed--how this social engineering project places fabricated rights above the needs of the military, the potential increase in sexual harrassment to include not only male/female harrassment, but male/male and female/female harrassment as well as demands for PC diversity training just to mention a few. As the charts show, open homosexuality in the military can only lead down a black hole--"Military Reputation and Recruiting Rates Down" and "Military Culture Irrevocably Degraded."

Unfortunately, we have a president who places his liberal social ideology above the best interests of the military, along with a culture so steeped in narcissistic self-involvement that its citizens have little motivation (and perhaps now lack the ability) to consider the greater good as opposed to what's good 'for me.' The Center for Military Readiness is rightly examining the issue of gays in the military in terms of the former.

Women in the Military

An article in the Times advocating women in combat units in the military prompted Blackfive's Uncle Jimbo to emphatically disagree. Rather strange that he opposes women serving in combat units, but finds the idea of gays serving openly to be acceptable. (He does acknowledge the irony.)

Catherine Ross, the female civil affairs sergeant who authored the Times article strikes that whiny, let-me-play-too tone as to why women serving alongside men in combat is no problem. After all, it wasn't a problem for her she says. When she had to share a container (hardly combat) with three male soldiers, they were, in her words, "perfect gentlemen." And if they hadn't been? I imagine that Ross would have been quick to file a sexual harrassment suit and seek redress for the wrongs committed against her person.

This article boils down to a few loosely connected thoughts on the part of a somewhat smug female who seems to place a lesser value on her innate feminine qualities and a greater value on her ability to be just like a man. Ross expresses the perverse twist of the feminist agenda which is not and never was a celebration of being female. Rather, it's an agenda fueled by women who covet entry into a man's world----but only on a woman's terms.

Far more interesting than Ross's article are the comments posted by readers of the Blackfive article. There is another set of comments here. As one reader comments:

I have an image of an interview with Navy Secretary John Lehman. I'll paraphrase: "Surely there are a few women who can run and jump and carry as much weight as men. Maybe 1 percent. But they are freaks. And we're not building a Navy on freaks." There are plenty of places for women in the military. We bring talents and a unique skill set to many different jobs. But battlefields and combat should not be on the list. I think they should interview every man who has been in combat and ask him "Would you want your daughter to experience what you experienced?" Bet I know the 99% answer.

Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10

It is worth mentioning again that 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' is not a law. 'Don't Ask Don't Tell' was an arrangement made in 1993 by then-President Clinton in order to satisfy his homosexual constituency. A law does exist, however, that prohibits homosexuals from serving in the U.S. Military. It is

Public Law 103-160, Section 654, Title 10—the homosexual exclusion law passed by both houses of Congress in 1993 with veto-proof, bi-partisan majorities. The flawed cornerstone principle of "don’t ask, don’t tell," to the effect that homosexual orientation is not a bar to military service, is conspicuously absent. Instead, the plain meaning of the law and legislative history affirmed the classic principle that "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service."

It is also worth mentioning again Frank Gaffney's article which points out what Obama is trying to do. Obama wants the repeal of the aforementioned law, Section 654, Title 10, which is "a statutory prohibition on openly homosexual individuals serving in the U.S. military." There are 15 points in this prohibiton which state why homosexuals should not serve in the U.S. military. You will find the law here.

What Obama can't get by fiat, he will seek to get by arm-twisting and the small incremental changes that Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mullen and Defense Secretary Robert Gates are agreeing to. They seem more than willing to do the president's bidding. Here is Mullen going on about his personal views regarding homosexuality in the military. (Mullen, spouting PC 'rights' rhetoric, isn't questioned by the mainstream media as to the relevancy of his 'personal' views on a matter of national interest. Recall the outcry of criticism when a former chairman, Peter Pace, expressed his views on the same topic. )

Lest there's any doubt about the far-reaching negative effects of open homosexuality in the military, Richard Black describes the threat to over-all discipline and moral conduct that homosexuality can pose. (Interestingly, Fort Hood, TX was the site of one such disciplinary breakdown.) Colonel Beady describes here how advancing the cause of homosexuality in the military has the potential to destroy the military community which tends to hold traditional values regarding marriage and family.

The push to have gays openly serve in the military is not about equality, rights or fighting discrimination. It is about the will of a few forcing disordered social policy on our country regardless of the cost.

Gays in the Military--Bad News

On the matter of gays serving openly in the military, Blackfive has published a disappointing and mis-guided opinion. It may or may not be 'silly for gay service members to pretend they're something that they're not,' but that isn't the issue.

Although Americans are pressured to believe otherwise, repealing the mis-named 'Don't Ask Don't Tell Policy'(DADT)has nothing to do with the desire of gays to serve their country. They can do that now if they are truly dedicated to service and to a cause greater than themselves. Nor does DADT have anything to do with rights. As others have pointed out, no one has a constitutional or God-given right to serve in the military any more than any of us has a constitutional or God-given right to be admitted to Harvard.

The repeal of DADT has everything to do with social engineering. The soldier has traditionally been the embodiment of manliness and manly virtue. If as a society we are willing to so pervert what it means to be a soldier by normalizing homosexuality, then we are also willing to pervert what it means to be a man. And that's what gay activists seek to do. They wish to redefine biology, defy nature and nature's God, and re-create society in their own image. Gays in the military is another step, perhaps the final one, toward re-defining normalcy and defining traditional manhood out of existence.

With a distinctly feminized and unmanly president in the White House, it is no surprise that this administration is "bludgeoning the Pentagon" and Congress to, as Frank Gaffney writes,

go along with him on the repeal, not of Bill Clinton's DADT executive order, but of a statutory prohibition on openly homosexual individuals serving in the U.S. military. But is he really up to the job of arguing that the fifteen findings why such a ban is necessary that were solemnly and deliberately enacted with President Clinton's signature somehow no longer apply?

Gaffney goes on to say,

Instead, the current law is an appropriate and necessary reflection of the realities of human nature. Sexual proclivities, especially in circumstances of forced intimacy (like foxholes, barracks, submarines, etc.), do interfere with the "good order and discipline" required if the military is to be able to recruit, retain, prepare and employ effectively in combat the sort of armed forces we must have in a dangerous world. This case will be made by more than 1100 senior retired military officers (see FlagandGeneralOfficersfortheMilitary.org.) who will speak for colleagues still in uniform who cannot easily engage in the public debate.

Family Research Council explains some of the subtle ways that the Obama administration will impose its will.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, together with Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, is rolling out a "relaxed" standard on homosexuality in the military that would strip the law of its teeth while the President tries to overturn it.

They go on to explain that,

the top brass has said it will dramatically shift the process of "outing" homosexual servicemen. For starters, the military would no longer investigate a soldier's sexuality based on a "third party" account. In other words, only "flagrant violators" would be ousted--dramatically cutting down on the number of dismissals. Also, generals and admirals will be the final authorities on which soldiers are discharged after years of processing those decisions in the lower ranks. In effect, the President is saying that he may not be able to overturn the law without Congress, but he can stop enforcing it.

Besides re-defining traditional notions of manliness, FRC also points out the violence and harrassment that will accompany open homosexuality in the military.

It's interesting to note that after the Fort Hood terrorist shooting, media pundits on the conservative side denounced General Casey for his PC remarks about preserving diversity in the military. Here, now, is the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mullen, promoting an equally insidious and dangerous type of diversity and, so far, I see
no criticism of his politically correct cooperation.

All told, this is another piece of Obama's hope-and-change puzzle that needs to go down to a blazing defeat.

Blackfive Covers General Pace

Blackfive recently posted a link to this clip of General Peter Pace giving an intensely emotional speech upon accepting the Keeper of the Flame award from the Center for Security Policy. The speech is from 2004, and I'm not sure why it's circulating now (or again), but I found it interesting enough to post and see if perhaps a lone reader out there would want to offer up an opinion or two.

Back in March of 2007, Pace, as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, created some fuss when he expressed his views on the immorality of adultery and homosexuality in general and in the military. (Hopefully, he'll speak up again on that point.) I was surprised to learn that Pace is a Roman Catholic of Italian-American heritage who originally hails from, of all places, Brooklyn, New York.

Blackfive Covers Haiti Disaster

Blackfive is covering Team Rubicon's privately-funded and privately-organized relief effort in Haiti. You can read about it here in what is a constantly growing multi-installment series. Team Rubicon's beginning goes back to one person , Jake Wood, a former Marine, who had an idea about how to help in Haiti and decided that he could do more without the encumbrance of bureaucratic and government-run relief efforts. Read more about Jake Wood and his effort here.

In part 13 of the Blackfive series, there is an account of an ABC reporter doing a story on Team Rubicon and founder Jake Wood. Wood, instead of gloating for the media, put the ABC reporter to work. Part 10 begins with a photo of foreign aid sitting at the Port-Au-Prince airport and follows that with an account of lost limbs, infection, potential amputations and scarcity of medicine. Part 6 is about the 'kindness of strangers.' These are all first-hand accounts written by doctors, former Marines and others who are directly engaged.

A Team Rubicon can exist at all because the United States is privileged to be a wealthy and charitable nation built on democracy, capitalism and the Judeo-Christian ethic that underlies our belief in the equality and dignity of human beings. Our country's ability to provide rescue and relief to a third-world country like Haiti should be more than enough reason for Americans to celebrate, defend and preserve those institutions and beliefs. Why would we ever want to give all this up for a weakened military, a government-run economy, nationalized health care and an arrogant political class ruling us from Washington, D.C.? Hopefully, we don't and as a nation, we won't.

Don Jenkins and Patrick Brady--Medal of Honor Winners and the Virtue of Courage

Blackfive offers today a very readable, if perhaps even eloquent, account of two Medal of Honor winners, Patrick Brady and Don Jenkins, on the anniversary of their actions. Tenacity and grit mark the deeds of both men, but, with no disrespect meant to Brady who flew repeated missions to evacuate wounded soldiers, there's something particularly poignant about the tale of Private First Class Jenkins.

After his unit lands in Kien Phong province, Jenkins is described as running to an 'exposed area' and then shooting his way across the terrain, picking up and discarding weapon after weapon in what reads a bit like a TV Western shoot-'em-up.

Jenkins ran to an exposed area and opened fire on enemy soldiers gathering near log bunkers with his M-60. When his machine gun jammed, Jenkins grabbed another rifle and fired upon the enemy while a teammate attempted to repair the M-60. He repeatedly charged through open terrain to grab ammunition from fallen soldiers until he could no longer find any ammunition. Then Jenkins picked up two anti-tank weapons from another fallen soldier. Despite incoming enemy fire, he closed within 20 yards of the enemy bunkers and destroyed two of them.Then the resourceful soldier picked up an M-79 grenade launcher and resumed his destruction until that weapon was exhausted as well. Meanwhile, a group of soldiers was pinned down just meters away from the enemy.

Medal of Honor winners most certainly exemplify the cardinal virtue of courage or bravery, but according to Aristotle, men are not brave because "they rush on danger without foreseeing any of the perils." That would simply be rash and foolish behavior. For Aristotle, bravery is action in the face of fear, but action tempered by reason, and action for a 'noble end.' One might ask whether Jenkins, who just the day before had required resuscitation after drinking 'poisoned wine,' was brave or whether he was just crazy and reckless.

If the embattled soldier has time for reasoned and prudent thought as he is dropped onto a battlefield under enemy fire, more power to him. In Jenkins's case, regardless of the state of his reasoning faculties, the virtue of courage that most certainly lurked within him was called out as he proceeded next to rescue not one but three wounded soldiers although he himself had been hit with shrapnel.

Previous rescue attempts had resulted in one death and many injuries, but that news must not have phased Jenkins. Ignoring serious shrapnel wounds in his stomach and legs, Jenkins crawled forward 100 meters to the embattled position three times over the course of the night, each time bringing back a wounded comrade. Following the battle, Jenkins was promoted to Staff Sergeant. Oddly enough however, Jenkins' commanding officer had threatened to bust him down to Private the day prior to his heroic actions: Jenkins needed to be resuscitated due to drinking a poisoned bottle of wine. Following his discharge, Jenkins returned to the coal mines of Kentucky, and received notification that he was to be awarded the Medal in 1971.

Regardless of whatever Jenkins may or may not have had in mind when he took off for that exposed area after landing, he finished the day with a fittingly Aristotelian 'noble end,' and such action is the reason we rightly revere and reward the virtue of bravery in our soldiers.

Pregnant Female Soldiers

The subject of pregnancy in the military arose earlier in the week when Major General Anthony Cucolo announced that he would punish female soldiers who become pregnant in the combat zone as well as the male soldiers involved. While court martial would be a possible punishment under Cucolo’s decision, it sounds as if he did not necessarily intend that this most drastic of punishments be implemented. Rather, he must have intended to underscore and control the seriously debilitating effects of pregnancy on troop and unit strength and was pointing out that pregnant soldiers are unable to carry out their responsibilities and so are a liability.

Kind of obvious, isn’t it? The Major General's stance was, of course, unpopular because it makes so much sense. That is, it is politically incorrect for a military commander to come out and state the truth. Cucolo's decision was also an uncomfortable reminder to our rights-crazed culture that, while men and women are equally entitled to the rights due all of us as human beings, men and women are not entitled to act the same because, quite simply, they are not the same.

Cucolo’s policy was over-ruled by higher authorities and a new policy will begin on January 1st which will prevent commanders in the field from implementing sensible policies like Cucolo's . Although the reporting on this subject consists mostly of snippets, Blackfive went into a bit more detail and mentioned a paper written back in 1999 on the subject of how pregnancy affects U.S. Army readiness. I’ve only read about 10 pages of this 36 page paper, and I’m not quite sure which side of the issue the author ends up on, but so far I remain wedded to my position that while women can and should find appropriate ways to serve their country, they should not deploy in company with men and they should not expect to serve in the military in the same capacity as men.

West Point As Stage for Obama, III

The fallout from Obama's speech at West Point continues. I refer not to the tactical military analysis; I leave that to the military blogs and other commentators. I refer rather to the spin and interpretation of the various media and other interested parties. As told to me by a reliable source, the cadets had to report to Eisenhower Hall, in dress gray, three and a half hours prior to Obama's speech. They could bring one book and one notebook, no cell phones, no computers and no food. Bathroom breaks were scheduled by group. All this was for security purposes.

As for cadets sleeping, there's some rumor that the camera was panning the cadet audience prior to the speech. The fact that a cadet may have dozed during the speech wasn't particularly flattering to the Academy, but it had little to do with Obama or his speech and more to do with sitting in an auditorium for hours and maybe also the media's camermen searching for an interesting tidbit.

Chris Matthews' remark about the "enemy camp" I found to be quite accurate, thinking he meant that Obama sees anything military as, if not the enemy camp, then at least as a foreign and undesirable force that Obama can neither identify with nor understand. I think there's evidence for that, as I tried to show in my article of two days ago at American Thinker, which is why Obama's choosing to deliver his speech at West Point was so hypocritically abrasive in my view.

Apparently, though, Matthews did toss off his "enemy camp" characterization in the spirit of unkindly bigotry toward the military. His apology states clearly that he embraces the stereotypical notion of the soldier (or cadet) as being a hawk who can't wait to go out and shoot 'em up, and that, naturally, such a person would be skeptical of Obama and his plan. There is almost no other word to waste on Chris Matthews than 'jerk.'

On the other hand, West Point English professor Elizabeth Samet had an article that probed more deeply. She is the author of Soldier's Heart, a book that discusses her experience as a civilian teaching Shakespeare and poetry to cadets who are also studying for the Profession of Arms. In the article, Samet opines that outside speakers often pander to the cadets rather than offer them "questions, difficulties and specifics." She seems to be suggesting that Obama overcame this tendency. Samet points out that cadets, who are "accustomed to being exhorted,become adept at responding with an automatic enthusiasm." Being exhorted during a briefing may indeed bring out an automatic response, but her suggestion, that Obama gave them something serious to think about and so they responded with genuine interest, is misleading.

From my second-hand observation, it appears that cadets constantly deal with difficulties and specifics and are routinely confronted with things to think about that elicit genuine interest. West Point is a bustling, interesting place where the range of individuals and opinions represented defies stereotyping, and where professors are involved with their students (as Samet is), and visitors of note engage close up and personal with the cadets in a variety of venues. And that's only a fraction of what's going on. Perhaps Samet only wants to cast the Corps of Cadets in the best possible light or maybe it's Obama whom she wants to prop up.

In contrast to Samet's view that Obama's presence at West Point was "an act of honesty," here is another article that begins ,"Never before has a speech by Barack Obama felt as false as his Tuesday address. . . "

Finally, it always makes sense to hear what a cadet has to say.

West Point As Stage for Obama, II

As the adage goes, when you stand for everything, you stand for nothing. During his speech at West Point last night, Barack Obama tried to put on a gritty, wartime president face, but would then switch it for his we-are-the-world-hands-across-the-peacetable, global president face. The changing faces of Barack Obama become tiresome.

He didn't indulge as heavily as I expected in hand-wringing over the pain of military service, but he did work it in.

Most of all, I know that this decision asks even more of you — a military that, along with your families, has already borne the heaviest of all burdens. As President, I have signed a letter of condolence to the family of each American who gives their life in these wars. I have read the letters from the parents and spouses of those who deployed. I visited our courageous wounded warriors at Walter Reed. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. I see firsthand the terrible wages of war. If I did not think that the security of the United States and the safety of the American people were at stake in Afghanistan, I would gladly order every single one of our troops home tomorrow.

The number of "I"s in the paragraph above is apparently an indicator of his admiration and thanks for how his fellow Americans serve their (and Obama's) country. When, exactly, does he see the 'terrible wages of war'? During date-night with Michelle? Lobbying for the Olympics? Behind closed doors since August working out how he can fight his 'war of necessity' and still get re-elected for a second term?

He put the military on notice that he may not be able to do much about their budget because the Iraq and Afghanistan wars have already taken too much money.

We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy. In the wake of an economic crisis, too many of our neighbors and friends are out of work and struggle to pay the bills. Too many Americans are worried about the future facing our children. Meanwhile, competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars.

Our president lets us know he has better things to do than worry about national defense, and, not coincidentally, Obama quotes a Republican president to bolster his point.

I must weigh all of the challenges that our nation faces. I don't have the luxury of committing to just one. Indeed, I'm mindful of the words of President Eisenhower, who — in discussing our national security — said, "Each proposal must be weighed in the light of a broader consideration: the need to maintain balance in and among national programs."

Obama is on more familiar turf when he mentions a return to national unity. He can be comfortable and straightforward on this topic because he doesn't need to be substantive. Criticism, albeit subtle, will do. His posturing at this point in the speech is particularly offensive. It is Barack Obama's party that created the national schism over the Iraq war. After members of Congress voted along non-partisan lines to support the Authorization for the Use of Force bill in 2003, it was the Democrats, with Al Gore in the lead and a complicit liberal press close behind, who proceeded to harangue the American public day in and day out that 'Bush lied.' Neither the Democrats, the liberal media or Barack Obama have let up since.

Barack Obama's speech last night showed that our feminized president is an embarrassment as a leader of our military. Obama managed to mention terrorism twice, once to refer to terrorism against the Pakistani people and a second time to refer to our country's "debate" over terrorism. He certainly didn't mention victory. He didn't characterize our military as brave or strong. He used the word 'courage' once to refer to the Iraqis and the word 'courageous' once to characterize wounded soldiers.

The closest our cowardly-lion president came to a call to arms was to declare that the military must "end wars and prevent conflict." Our military must apply "growing pressure." God help us. What sort of leader protects his country with such timidity? The answer is a non-leader who is neither manly nor principled and that, shamefully and unfortunately, is who we have elected as president.

West Point As Stage for Obama

When it was announced that Obama had chosen the U.S. Military Academy at West Point as the venue for unveiling his plans for Afghanistan, my formerly bright day grew cloudy. Obama has already been confirmed as the Academy's graduation speaker in May of 2010. How much Obama can one military academy stand? Obama has chosen to address the country from West Point rather than from the Oval Office for opportunistic and selfish reasons. I wrote about it in this article which appeared at American Thinker.