Monday, February 04, 2013

The New Military.

I was reading the Bayou Blog and he recommended this article.

Its well worth the time.  A tidbit....
Sending women into combat, like the end of the ban on official homosexuality, has been met with worried remarks about its impact on the "warrior culture". But the new military that the left has been building for some time now is not interested in warriors; it wants peacekeepers.

The old army fought for a nation. The new one fights for vague concepts such as human rights or international law. Its goals are as intangible as those of the ideology it serves. It doesn't fight actual enemies, but concepts and social problems. It fights against climate change, poverty and obesity. It fights for education, tolerance and the right of everyone to the gender of their choice. It isn't really the army, it's the hall monitors of the United Nations, the State Department, NATO and every liberal group on the planet.

Their ideal new soldier is not a warrior; he speaks three languages, appears non-threatening and can direct refugees, hand out aid to them and quickly pick up the local culture and religion. He is uncritical when witnessing child molestation, human sacrifice or any other quaint local custom. He is willing to die, not for his country, but to win the hearts and minds of the locals. He will not fire in self-defense if there is a single unarmed man, woman or child within twenty miles.

. . .

The new soldier is expected to be a psychological cripple or a social worker with nothing in between because there is no longer any room for the warrior, only the worrier, the neurotic who knows that he is moral because he is always questioning everything except his own intelligence and his premises. He knows that he will more likely be honored for cowardice under fire, than courage under fire, and that the greatest honors will go not those who dare, but to those who exemplify a political quota. And yet among the ranks of the new soldiers, the old soldiers still predominate, doing the hard thankless work of keeping a national defense establishment that does not care for them from falling apart.
Read the whole thing here and then consider what you've been seeing from leadership.

Its my belief that some of those in charge believe that this "change" can be managed and that the social/political desires of their civilian masters can be moderated to such a degree as to mitigate any harm done to national security while still satisfying their master's desire for societal change.

I don't think they'll be successful.

1 comment:

  1. The Liberal democrat supports the troops when they kill their Officers.
    That's the sum of it.
    The plan is to make it where the United States Military cannot win a small battle much less a war because liberal democrats see the United States as "THE PROBLEM IN THE WORLD" and the United States military as "THE BIGGEST THREAT TO WORLD PEACE" So the liberal democrats will make it so that never again can the United States military go anywhere to fight anyone and especially win in any war.
    All the liberals desire for the United States military is that each man and women who enlist die for liberal ideals and ideology but mostly just to die.
    Four years from now there will be no military in the United States just prison guards and security detachments designed to keep the citizens of the United States in line.
    The folks now in charge in D. C. hate the military and their desire to kill them overwhelms their desire to defend themselves and their country. These liberals wish to be a nation that suffers at the hands of the world to assuage white guilt and to pay back the nation for everything from manifest destiny to the election of G. W. Bush and the Iraq and Afghanistan wars.
    The US Military is destined to become the United Nations bitch sent to obscure places to police what the UN wishes policed.
    I would not advise anyone now to join the US military the gay and lesbians, the muslims and politicians are running the show now.

    ReplyDelete