Posted on 04/01/2002 11:06:47 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Every week, fewer American flags are flying from cars and homes. And it becomes easier to rationalize Sept. 11 as a terrible tragedy that happened to the folks in some other town rather than the ongoing threat to our way of life that this century's Day of Infamy really represents.
But out there in the global trenches, the war against international terrorism grows bloodier by the day, and as a consequence, more coffins draped with American flags will be turning up at Dover Air Force Base.
The first round in Afghanistan is still far from over, and then there are rounds two through 30: the running sore in the Middle East, and Saddam's weapons of mass destruction; ex-Yugoslavia, where we have thousands of soldiers keeping that fragile peace; and dozens of other Bad Lands either on fire or waiting to ignite.
This complicated conflict won't be won by the smartness of munitions or the sagacity of diplomats, but by the grunt on the ground digging out the terrorist and either nailing him or jailing him. There's no way we'll prevail and protect Main Street USA without tough, well-trained soldiers.
Having led infantry squads, platoons, companies and battalions in combat for a bunch of years, I know that to make it on the battlefield, grunts must be granite-hard both in body and mind, have the discipline of a Spartan warrior, know the basics of the fighting trade as well as what's on their dog tags, always sleep with one eye open and be able to shoot as straight and as fast as a Delta Force sniper.
But during the first serious fight involving U.S. conventional troops in Afghanistan, our soldiers were far from up for the game. They fought well but were just not strong enough for the rugged mountains of Afghanistan.
The commander of the operation, Gen. Tommy Franks, pulled our boys out of the battle early so they could catch their breath and brought in 1,700 fighting-fit British Marines. The British media recently reported that Franks said, "The British troops may be more accomplished at some aspects of infantry warfare than their U.S. counterparts." The report added, "They know how to walk up mountains. ... They don't expect to be given a ride in a helicopter every time they want to get somewhere."
The poor physical condition of so many of our soldiers was no big surprise to me. When I eyeballed our kids going through initial training last year in a warm-and-fuzzy basic course that's been made shockingly softer than the one I took 56 years ago, I concluded from my visits and the comments of scores of Army small-unit leaders that many of these boys and girls – some of whom could barely do two push-ups when they first reported to the Army Reception Station – wouldn't make it in battle.
Last week, 50 highly motivated recent graduates of Fort Benning's basic and advanced training programs and the storied Parachute School reported to Fort Bragg to prepare for further training that would allow them to join our elite Special Forces units.
"On Monday they took the PT test," a trainer there told me, "and over half of them failed to meet the standard."
So after eight weeks of basic, five weeks of infantry advanced training and three weeks of parachute training, more than 50 percent of this group of young soldiers couldn't pass the push-ups, sit-ups and two-mile run.
"We aren't talking about some way-out SF standard, but the bare minimum required for any soldier to graduate basic training," reports another Special Forces sergeant. "If this is representative of what's happened to infantry basic training, I'm afraid to even ask what the hell is going on at the co-ed basic programs of Fort Jackson and Fort Leonard Wood."
Our generals must bite the bullet and insist that the kinder, gentler standards that have castrated the conventional Army during the past decade be rooted out. Training must be returned to the reality-based standard that used to prepare our grunts to make it through the crucible of combat – or we'll continue to fail when and where it counts.
The Brits won't always be around to pull us up the hill.
Kidding, right?
I thought the same thing after watching Blackhawk Down. All of our military ground forces that have gone into combat have been mostly special forces. The typical grunt might have a real problem in combat.
Corrections will be made, I am sure. The field troops will get the physical and mental toughness needed from necessity and the training commands will make the necessary adjustments.
Of course what the good Colonel is saying has been warned about by many sources over the past decade and left un-heeded. That is sad, but today is the day and we must go forward, correct the problems, and answer the challenge or we will pay even greater prices.
I think perhaps that Rummy knows this and have faith he knows how to make the necessary changes and "accomplish the mission".
First of all, our schools are generally working overtime to eliminate a sense of patriotism in our kids. The folks who control our government schools believe that American patriotism is sordid nationalism and xenophobia.
Secondly, we have defined America in such a way that your desire for instilling patriotism is not really possible. America, by PC definition, is a mosaic of all races and cultures of the planet. There is no such thing as the "american people" and certainly no such thing as "american culture". Since America stands for everything and includes everybody, it essentially has no existence at all. A nation and culture of everyone is a nation and culture of nothing. Until we sort out this problem, it is not possible to imbue any sort of patriotism in our children (even if the Marxists in our school system had the desire to do so).
Men and material are being pushed past their limit. I know many guys who finally gave up and left the military due to endless overseas deployments (few of which had anything to do with national security).
The elites in this country have taken it upon themselves to remake the world...from somalia to haiti. And the military is their chosen instrument of "social change". In doing so, they have severely damaged our preparedness.
That brings back memories of my first night ops at Fort Stewart. We had just off loaded the 155 shells and powder to the guns and had crawled up in the back of the Duce and half. I was sleeping on the bench when they called a fire mission. I would guess the guns were about 75-100 feet from the truck. It raised my body off the bench. I yelled a variation of what in the world was that? The battery fired and all was silent. In the morning we were sent back to the barracks. Thrown off the range as it's called. Somebody was off on the coordinates and we had a short round. Next day we were back at it and quailifed for the year. Yea 155's go at about 90 pounds a piece I think.
The key to any good military unit is unit cohesiveness. Put women into the mix and that cohesion flys out the window.
To everything there is a season, a time to every purpose under the heaven...a time to embrace and time to refrain from embracing (Ecc.3:1,5)
On a combat ship readiness would be hampered and reaction times slowed down considerably. I wonder how long it takes to set Zebra now with a GQ call in the middle of the night? How about a manned and ready fire party in the middle of the night? Man overboard? Fact of life on a ship when I was in was you dressed on the way to the call. Time was not your friend and seconds mattered and were counted.
Reporting to man overboard muster in your fruit of the looms was common as well so a complete muster could be obtained quickly to see who all was overboard. You reported in person to your work center. Taking time to make certain all is covered would have resulted in a mess and questions from the ones waiting on you.
And then there was another Hillary picked "consultant" to Togo West, Professor Madeline Morris, who recommended that the Army adopt some organizational and structural changes modeled after Communist cells. I am not joking. I have the Washington Times article somewhere on one of my systems.
But for now...
Sara E. Lister, the Army's top personnel official and the Pentagon's most ardent advocate of women in combat, in a public forum called the Marines "extremists" and "a little dangerous."
Mrs. Lister, the assistant secretary of the Army for manpower and reserve affairs, also belittled the Marine Corps uniform.
"I think the Army is much more connected to society than the Marines are," Mrs. Lister told an Oct. 26 seminar. "The Marines are extremists. Wherever you have extremists, you've got some risks of total disconnection with society. And that's a little dangerous."
In response to a query by The Washington Times, the Army attempted last night to dampen a growing controversy that clearly rankled top officers:
"The statement attributed to Mrs. Lister was taken out of context. Her reference to the Marines and their relationship to society would be more aptly described as 'unique.'"
Gen. Charles Krulak, the Marine Corps commandant, issued a statement last night at his quarters vigorously defending a branch he has served 34 years.
"Assistant Secretary of the Army Sara Lister has been quoted as characterizing the Marine Corps as 'extremists,'" Gen. Krulak said. "Such a depiction would summarily dismiss 222 years of sacrifice and dedication to the nation. It would dishonor the hundreds of thousands of Marines whose blood has been shed in the name of freedom.
"Citizens from all walks of life have donned the Marine Corps uniform and gone to war to defend this nation, never to return. Honor, courage and commitment are not extreme." Mrs. Lister, a close adviser to Army Secretary Togo West, made the remarks to a group of academics and military personnel at a conference in Baltimore.
According to a tape recording of the remarks, obtained by The Times, Mrs. Lister, who was appointed by President Clinton, also mocked the uniform of the Marine Corps.
"The Marine Corps is -- you know they have all these checkerboard fancy uniforms and stuff," she said. "But the Army is sort of muddy boots on the ground."
Said Gen. Krulak, "I agree with Mrs. Lister's depiction of the U.S. Army as 'sort of muddy boots on the ground.' I need not recount the times where the muddy boots of soldiers fell alongside those of Marines as we fought side by side."
Kate O'Beirne, the Washington editor of National Review magazine, appeared with Mrs. Lister on the panel, along with retired Army Lt. Gen. Theodore Stroup. Mrs. O'Beirne, according to the tape recording, told the conference, sponsored by Harvard University's Olin Institute for Strategic Studies, that she was "shocked and incredulous" by Mrs. Lister's remarks.
"It is actually a slander at both the Marine Corps and the Army," she said in an interview later. "What attributes of the Marine Corps does she disrespect? Self-discipline? Courage? Patriotism? She believes these pose a danger to society and by implication she's grateful the Army doesn't share the Marine Corps attributes. Shocking.
"I just want to say something on behalf of the Marine Corps. Unlike Secretary Lister, I don't see them as an extremist organization nor do I fear them in any way. And I find myself grateful for them most of the time."
Mrs. Lister's caustic comments are sure to revive criticism within the military and among veterans groups that the Clinton administration is staffed at the highest levels with men and women with anti-military attitudes.
Mr. Clinton was sharply criticized by veterans groups in the 1992 campaign for remarks he made as a young man trying to avoid the Vietnam War draft, saying that he and his friends held a "loathing" for the military, and shortly after taking office he offended military ranks with an attempt to lift long-standing policy barring known homosexuals in the military.
Mrs. Lister has said she will leave her post sometime this year and was honored recently at a retirement party. Pentagon sources say she may be a candidate for secretary of the Army if Mr. West, as expected, is named to head the Department of Veterans Affairs.
The Marine Corps is the smallest and most tradition-minded branch of the military services. Commanders nurture the warrior spirit at a time when the Army has emphasized peacekeeping operations, mixed-sex training and "human relations" programs.
The Corps leadership vehemently opposed Mr. Clinton's homosexual policy, and the Corps is the only branch that still separates the sexes during basic training, in the belief that sexual tension and the stressful life of a recruit don't mix successfully.
Army officers at the Pentagon, who asked not to be named, said these positions run counter to Mrs. Lister's vision for the military and are what apparently prompted her remarks.
The Army's statement defending Mrs. Lister went on to say that "it is inappropriate to try to create controversy around what was meant to be an honest, intellectual exchange of ideas. The U.S. Marines, like the Army, have served the nation with valor and fidelity since the forming of the nation. Mrs. Lister and the Army are proud to share a common heritage."
Mrs. Lister has accused others of extremism, recently in a press interview labeling military advocate Elaine Donnelly an "extremist." Mrs. Donnelly is chairman of the Center for Military Readiness, which supports women in the military and opposes combat roles for them.
"I don't like to see my name in the same sentence with that word," Mrs. Donnelly said yesterday. "It shows that this person is very much out of step with the majority of women, both civilian and military. ... If she puts us in the same group as the Marine Corps, we're in very good shape."
Copyright © 1997 News World Communications, Inc.
I don't really know why it has come to this (100 channels of television? Cars? Office work?), but the phenomenon is starkly real, and as long as soldiers are drawn from a U.S. population getting heavier by the day our military will inevitably become less and less fit over time.
Having women in the military, with the concomitant lowering of fitness standards to accommodate them, undoubtedly contributes, but I would be surprised if it were a big factor.
I still see scrawny, ill-developed, asthenic and emaciated-looking young males everywhere.
In fact, I will say that I see ten of those, for every ONE in the age group 18-25, that is seriously fat, though rather many look like they get little physical exercise.
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.