Posted on 03/27/2021 4:33:09 AM PDT by MtnClimber
Tucker Carlson highlights how Biden’s military is more concerned with social justice than with defending the nation.
SNIP
However, many believed that Obama’s firings were driven less by the need to create a leaner, more efficient bureaucracy, and more by the desire to get rid of people who were not on board with Obama’s increasingly hard-left politics. Even if that wasn’t Obama’s goal, there’s no doubt that, even before Biden became Commander in Chief, the Pentagon had become a leftist institution.
I won’t belabor the point here (the virtue of these posts is that they’re short), but I did belabor that point in 2019 here and here. As the second link shows, I wasn’t the only one with this concern. Sundance, at Conservative Treehouse, also suspected that the military officer class that Obama had created during his eight years in office wasn’t averse to a soft coup against a sitting president whose policies the woke officers disliked.
All of which gets me to Tucker Carlson. He’s been in the vanguard of highlighting how, that even as China keeps expanding its military, including its weapons, the Biden Pentagon is obsessed with racism, gender, and sexual orientation. When Biden boasted about maternity flight suits
SNIP
Tucker was back on Friday night with more concerns about the newly woke military. He explained that it’s no longer necessary to try to read the tea leaves to discern whether the Pentagon’s officer class (which is made up of the same college grads who have turned every other American institution into a progressive bastion) has unleashed progressivism on the military. Just go to the home page of the United States Special Operations Command (e.g., SEALS, Delta Force, Green Berets, etc.), and you’ll see this announcement about its Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Yeah. That model won't help us much if we go to war with China.
On a positive note, a lot less Americans are dying in the endless wars.
True. But we are still spending our treasure (plus some lives). The wars are endless because they never get won. No willingness to do what is necessary to really win. That has largely been the case since WWII.
Bet they would enjoy burning down whole forests in the United States. I don’t buy it.
I believe the military was the last institution one might have considered an apolitical meritocracy. I remember reading a few years ago in US Naval Institute Proceedings of someone congratulating themselves that the incoming class for the Naval Academy represented the racial and ethnic mix of the country as a whole. In 1969 I came within .06 of the GPA needed to Graduate Magna Cum Laude from Linfield College, but at Navy Officer Candidate School I managed only a C+. And I was one of those white Anglo-Saxon Christians who was supposed have an advantage.
I love the term apolitical meritocracy, though I have never heard it before you mentioned it in your post. Non-political and merit (ONLY) based are wonderful things! :)
It sounds near impossible to even pass Navy OCS judging by what you said. That must have been some seriously grueling coursework, classes, etc.!!
If you go back as far as the Constitutional Convention you can read in the minutes James Madison wrote of the constant fear expressed of a standing army taking over the government. That concern was drilled into generations of officers and became an overriding value for those pursuing a military career.
Meritocracy was a reaction to the British practice of the purchase of commissions by royalty.
WWII was a “declared war” with nations named as enemies; have we done that since then?
I get your point, but totally agree with it. I think Congress lacks the backbone to declare war. And even if we did, I have doubts that we would do what was necessary to win. The one case where we did "win" was Iraq War II, where we deposed Saddam and brought about regime change. However, I think almost no one would call what followed a true victory. Grenada and Panama might be other, smaller scale, examples.
So meritocracy is against obtaining rank for any other reason other than merit, right?
It will be foreign troops ready/sent to take over the US military.
That was the idea. West Point and the Naval Academy were supposed to make that happen. Now against fulfillment of the intent is the fact that the most senior officers are nominated by the President and have to be confirmed by Congress. By WW II you see politics creeping in with guys like McArthur compared to those holding to traditional values like Marshall and Eisenhower.
The government, etc. has been trying to destroy our military with that and lots of other BS and brainwashing, etc. since right after WWII.
I would agree.
I thought Iraq War I was a better example of winning in terms of achieving our goals (primarily the liberation of Kuwait), and it is no accident that like Korea it was done as part of a large multinational force. When we go it alone or with a few select allies, it doesn’t work as well - either uninvolved countries are critical of it or outright supplying the enemy. Arab countries assisted in Iraq War I to restore some semblance of the status quo (and NOT depose Saddam, seen as a stabilizing force in the region); at the time they warned us they didn’t want exactly what unfolded after Iraq War II.
Yes, technically, Iraq War I did achieve its stated goals. I think it was expected that Saddam’s regime would collapse shortly after that, but did not. That set us up for a messy decade or so of controlling Iraq with limited military action. But not nearly as messy as what followed Iraq War II.
In retrospect, as odious as Saddam was, his regime did check certain blocks. Especially providing a regional counter weight to Iran. So the countries who warned us were right on. Also very doubtful that Saddam had anything substantive to do with 9/11. The Saudis (or at least some of their factions) obviously did, but their money absolved them of responsibility.
The Arabs specifically wanted him to remain in power with clipped wings; they wouldn’t join us if toppling him was the goal.
The aftermath of Gulf War II is our shame...
he Arabs specifically wanted him to remain in power with clipped wings; they wouldn’t join us if toppling him was the goal.
It was also the last time that the Congress utilized the War Power correctly:
"...the President is hereby authorized and directed to employ the entire naval and military forces of the United States and the resources of the Government to carry on war against the Imperial Government of Japan; and, to bring the conflict to a successful termination, all the resources of the country are hereby pledged by the Congress of the United States.
The thing with "war" and "Congress" is this: Congress (in the original scheme) represents the People (House) and the States (Senate). Without the agreement of both, wars cannot be won.
Well put; I believe it is also why the draft is history.
Some countries maintained mandatory military service long after our draft ended, but they didn’t send the conscripts all over the world “nation-building”. I don’t know why anyone would answer a draft call-up today if the US wasn’t attacked on its own soil.
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.