Posted on 04/21/2017 9:25:02 PM PDT by pboyington
Yes, a disaster created by the Bitch and the Bastard and ISIS is their Frankenstein creation.
That is brilliant!
Thank you. ‘Pod
A lot of truth here.
Interesting theory of why our military got feminized. I buy it!
As we have seen and will see more, wars are either won conclusively with clearly-defined objectives and overwhelming force - or paid for by years and years of endless counterinsurgency.
I hope Mattis does reverse the politically-correct but destructive social crap (no, girls should not be in combat units and no, openly gay people should not be serving anywhere) but we haven't seen any movement yet to repair things.
AMEN.!
Both were clueless political boobs.
RLTW
HONK.
HONK, HONK....
RLTW
Excellent, right on target. The first order of business for Mattis should have been to fire every three and four star officer on the payroll. They led the charge for Obama to destroy the military and every one should have been fired. But this “drain the swamp” mantra seems to have been nothing more than a cheap campaign promise soon forgotten at the White House and Pentagon. There has been no draining at all from my vantage point. And Trump will pay for that if it continues.
Great post in a great thread commenting on a great article. BTTT!
“I hope Mattis does reverse the politically-correct but destructive social crap (no, girls should not be in combat units and no, openly gay people should not be serving anywhere) but we haven’t seen any movement yet to repair things.”
With daughter Ivanka and husband Jared Kushner sitting in White House offices, attending key meetings, and having access to the president after hours, it is difficult to expect any social engineering of the military to be reversed. The elected Trump seems to be conforming to Washington, not picking new fights with social justice warriors.
Excellent, well articulated article.
Hard to disagree, unfortunately.
You, Sir, just hit the bulls-eye. Great comment.
Caveat: I did not serve in the military.
I mostly agree with this article, but I would draw some slightly different conclusions.
1. Generational Change.
Yes, to some extent we are a victim of our own success. One thing I did NOT see in the article was any reference to the ‘end’ of the Cold War. I distinctly remember the mantra of the “peace dividend”. Iraq was annihilated in February of 1991, then the Soviet Union dissolved in December of 1991. Both of those were monumental events for the United States armed forces.
That was followed in 1992 by the end of the WWII Generation of presidents and the election of a baby boomer. George H.W. Bush was 20 years older than Bill Clinton. He might as well have been 200 years older. The approach that the latter took to the military was as different as daylight and dark. And that was not because of Desert Storm.
2. Liberal and Neo-Con Misapplication of the Success of Desert Storm.
In many ways, Desert Storm was prosecuted like WWII. We massed large numbers of troops and equipment and destroyed large numbers of troops and equipment.
However, the lessons learned were wildly different in interpretation and both led to the present day destruction mentioned in this article.
The liberals saw:
1. Several unnecessary magnitudes of overkill ability.
2. No enemy capable of standing up to us, hence no real threat on the horizon.
3. The demise of the number one reason for military preparedness.
4. The ability to strike targets with extremely high precision and not have large numbers of collateral, civilian casualties.
Conclusion: We need to DRASTICALLY slash military spending. There is no need for it. No war. We can achieve political ends (i.e go to war) with surgical military strikes with very little risk to civilians.
The neo-cons saw:
1. 1. Several magnitudes of overkill ability.
2. No enemy capable of standing up to us, hence no present, credible threat.
3. The demise of the number one reason for spending on quantity of equipment.
4. The ability to strike targets with extremely high precision with much lower risk of civilian casualties.
Conclusion: We need to cut weapons numbers and spend money of high-tech. We can wage war with much smaller fighting forces and do it much more cheaply.
IMO, the writer nailed it on the social engineering done. But the underlying reasons for doing it was not accurately addressed.
Many forget that 6 months after the end of Desert Storm, the political side of that conflict was seen as a failure. Saddam Hussein was still firmly in power, though his power was greatly reduced. That is why my reasons #1 and #2 are so important.
One of the most succinct statements of how to win a war I have ever read.
Terrible but true. If you fight you fight or forget about it.
Matt is wouldn’t give a flying fluck about this article. Park your hope.
The author seems fixated on the lack of press corps access to the fighting. Why should they give the news service (which since Vietman works for the enemies of the US) the opportunity to paint a sympathetic picture of the enemy?
Yup, most of the damage was done by Zero
Wow, he tells it like it is. Hope it gets to the Pentagon and the President.
Thanks for your input. Always interesting.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.