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.
NATION
INSIDE THE BELTWAY
Edition: 2
Page: A9
John McCaslinTHE WASHINGTON TIMES
NOT WELCOME
A paid adviser to Army Secretary Togo West on sexual harassment, who visited Rwanda last fall, is not welcome to return to the African nation - so long as Uncle Sam is footing the bill.
| We last wrote about Madeline Morris in April, when the Duke University law professor and hired consultant to Mr. West recommended that the military eliminate its "masculinist" tendencies and adopt an "ungendered vision," in which units look to Alcoholics Anonymous, religious orders and other groups as models. Miss Morris offered the recommendations as a way of reducing rape and sexual assault in the armed forces. Now, Inside the Beltway has confirmed that Miss Morris, on Sept. 4, accompanied a team of six military members to Kigali, Rwanda, to host a legal seminar for Rwandan investigators, prosecutors and magistrates. The focus of the eight days of discussion was a new Rwandan law addressing the domestic prosecution of genocide crimes. The military (and one civilian) International Training Detachment, or ITD, team was led by Navy Capt. P.H. Sennett. After the seminar, Capt. Sennett filed a report with Navy Capt. Ronald R. Winfrey, JAGC, observing of Miss Morris that "it is not recommended that she accompany any other ITD team again, especially to Rwanda." Without providing details, Capt. Sennett observed: "Issues surrounding the professor's other projects and her relationship with various members of the Rwandan government overshadow her ability to serve the interest of the ITD, the Expanded International Military Education and Training Program, and the United States Government." On March 5, in a report to the Defense Security Assistance Agency in Crystal City, Capt. Winfrey, officer in charge of international training, Naval Justice School Detachment, concurred with Capt. Sennett's "comments and recommendations regarding Professor Morris." Capt. Winfrey noted only that "reactions to her membership on the ITD team from members of the Rwandan government based on political relationships developed as a result of her other projects in Rwanda diminished her positive contributions to the ITD training mission." As to more information on the "political relationships" and "projects," neither Miss Morris nor Capt. Winfrey returned our calls yesterday. Capt. Sennett could not be reached for comment.
BALANCING THE SCALESDue to the high cost of contraceptive supplies and services, women of reproductive age are currently spending 68 percent more in out-of-pocket health care costs than men.So reveals Sen. Olympia Snowe, Maine Republican, who aims to balance the sexual scales tomorrow by unveiling major new legislation, co-sponsored with Sen. Harry Reid, Nevada Democrat, to assure insurance coverage of contraceptive prescriptions, with an added hope of reducing unintended pregnancy and abortion. EXPLANATION, OF SORTS "I appreciate your consideration in taking the time to contact me in this matter. I must, however, respectfully decline your request. Since first being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives, I have firmly adhered to and strived with the utmost of my energies and abilities to carry out my oath of office. No other oath, pledge or contract could be more solemn or binding with respect to my responsibilities as the Representative of the 20th Congressional District of Texas." - Letter from Rep. Henry B. Gonzalez, 19-term Texas Democrat, to L. Brent Bozell III, chairman of the Media Research Center, explaining why he couldn't sign a petition urging Hollywood to return, voluntarily, to the spirit of the "family hour" in television. A large cross-section of members, ranging from Jesse Helms to Tom Harkin in the Senate, and Joe Kennedy to Newt Gingrich in the House, did sign on.
|
To get a feeling for some of the Times articles and commentary about her, go to http://www.washtimes.com/archives.htm and do a search for Madeline Morris from 01/01/1997 to 12/31/98 and see the list of hits you get. (The search for article summaries is free).
She was truly one of Hillary's coven of lesbian witches.
That's interesting; your experience is certainly very different from mine. I teach about 80 freshmen and sophomores every term, and about 5 percent of them are morbidly obese, another 5-10 percent significantly overweight and another 30-35 percent somewhat overweight. Many's the time I've tried to have a conversation with one after class while walking up only two floors' worth of stairs, only to be see him stop before we get there to catch his breath, then seriously suck wind once we get to the second floor where my office is.
I'm in the Midwest, where the problem has always seemed to me to be much worse. In CA young people seem to be in better shape, as they do in NYC. In fact, the last time I was in the Bay Area, I made a point of looking and hardly saw a single seriously overweight person.
Oh please, he's talking about normal women. Not abnormal ones. And the simple fact of the matter is that women are not as strong as men. That's why there is a separate set of physical fitness tests for them. If they had to pass the male test there would be too few women in the Army to matter.
And I've got Army stories too. Like the time in basic when the entire female platoon dropped out of a run.
Here in N. Fla, they are out all year long, and almost all young men that age would find they were forced to work at something that was pretty physical and required them to move it, like construction, construction, construction...and the military as well! Not many young white men here could afford to go to college, but they are not dumb, not at all...
I specifically spoke of the poorness of the training of the Army basic training, the co-ed training and such. I received two or three angry posts from posters IDing themselves as "officers" in the Army. They did not like me saying things like this about people on active duty today.
Like I am suppose to just ignore it or something. Well, Colonel Hack says the same thing. This sergeant says the same thing. I said the same thing. Of course, the officers who posted here against me do not think that. Of course, Hack also addresses them in this article just as I also did in my post last week. The senior officer corps needs to decide if they are for the defense of the nation or trying to make rank. They need to change the training. If someone who finishes basic and advanced training AND airborne school cannot pass the minimum PT test requirements, then how in the HELL did they get out of those training environments with a passing PT score?
I am a 51 year old retired Army senior noncommissioned officer. Last night I pounded my thread mill for 13:30 minute miles for 45 minutes. I may not be able to max an Army PT test, but it sounds like I could beat some of the 18, 19 and 20 year olds who are getting out of basic and AIT today.
So, I am sure Colonel Hack, who wrote this article, has his ear much closer to the barracks doors than I do any longer, agrees. The Army needs to separate the men and women training (that is the Fort Leonard Wood item the sergeant was speaking of), and get down to hard and dirty training for the soldiers who war fight. They need to put more time in on getting people properly trained and physically fit to hump in the boonies and up those mountains. It seems Hack has hit the nail on the head here, once again!
I further think that the pay schedules should be changed to reflect support jobs from war fighter jobs. The military (through our giving Congress) gives overseas pay or combat pay, but that does not equal out to a grunt or chopper crew going into a hot LZ as it does to someone working at the finance office. The people who put their lives on the line each and every day, the combat MOS' and the direct combat support types deserve something above and beyond what the admin types draw. I was infantry until wounded in Vietnam. Because of those injuries I had to change to JAG as a legal NCO. So, I have seen both sides of that page. I still think the war fighters deserve something more in the time of combat. Maybe the combat pay should double their normal pay when they are in the combat zone. It busts my butt to think that a Navy Seal gave his life for $30,000 a year while over-paid congress assholes make six figures in salary and more in perks!
A paid adviser to Army Secretary Togo West on sexual harassment recommends that the military eliminate its "masculinist" tendencies and adopt an "ungendered vision" in which units look to Alcoholics Anonymous, religious orders and other groups as models.
The Army, she says, must combine its "aggressivity" with compassion and cultivate idealism and moral conviction instead of manly "posturing."
Madeline Morris, a Duke University law professor, offers these recommendations in a lengthy Duke Law Journal article on how to reduce rape and sexual assault in the armed forces.
"There is much to be gained and little to be lost by changing this aspect of military culture from a masculinist vision of unalloyed aggressivity to an ungendered vision combining aggressivity with compassion.
"Surely, if armed force is ever to be deployed, then idealism and moral conviction are preferable motives to macho posturing," she writes.
An Army official at the Pentagon identified Miss Morris as one of several consultants for the senior review panel appointed by Mr. West to recommend ways to counter sexual harassment.
"I don't know how much she has provided so far," the official said. "Her job is to respond to specific requests from the Army, to perform research and provide comments."
But Miss Morris, in a brief telephone interview yesterday, said she is a consultant to Mr. West and has spoken to him before and after her hiring on Feb. 18. She declined to answer questions about the article or discuss her advice to the Army secretary.
"I'm constrained because of my work for the secretary," she said.
The Army official, who asked not to be named, said she had no knowledge of whether Mr. West has sought specific advice from Miss Morris.
Mr. West gave the seven-member panel wide latitude to recommend changes in how the Army enforces policies to eliminate sexual misconduct. Some conservative critics are concerned that the group will propose removing the ban on women in land combat as a way to reduce sexual harassment. The panel's report is due in June.
Mr. West created the panel after allegations at the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland that drill sergeants had sexually harassed and, in some cases, raped female trainees. To date, 11 drill sergeant-instructors at Aberdeen have been charged with criminal offenses.
In the law review article, Miss Morris presents what critics call the feminist vision of the American armed forces, as more women take on nontraditional roles such as flying jet fighters and bombers and operating combat ships.
"People who don't like soldiers shouldn't be asked to make rules for soldiers," Charles Moskos, a leading military sociologist, said in assessing the article.
"These are pseudo-feminists who don't really articulate the real concerns and capabilities of enlisted women," said the Northwestern University professor. "Most enlisted women, 90 percent, do not want to go into combat arms."
Women make up about 13 percent of the current 1.4 million active-duty force.
Miss Morris proposes a radical departure from the military's male-dominated culture, which she blames for contributing to an atmosphere that encourages sexual misconduct.
"There is substantial evidence ... of themes of hypermasculinity, adversarial sexual beliefs, promiscuity, hostility toward women and possibly acceptance of violence against women within current military cutlure," she writes.
"The attitudes toward sexuality embodied in military culture also largely partake of those found to be conducive to rape, including both adversarial sexual beliefs and high valuation of promiscuity."
Retired Army Col. Dick Black, who saw combat in Vietnam before becoming a military lawyer, labeled such an assessment "nonsense."
"There is absolutely no acceptance of violence against women in the American military culture," Col. Black said. "If anything, really, the attitude is one of chivalry and respect for women."
Miss Morris argues that to change the culture is to switch from a reliance on masculinity to the use of idealism:
"Examples of cohesive groups centered on ideological rather than gendered bases for bonding include some religious orders, Communist Party cells, the French resistance underground and even Alcoholics Anonymous.
"Masculinist military identity, then, is not inevitable or indispensable to military effectiveness but, rather, is a matter of choice."
"Masculinist military identity, then, is not inevitable or indispensable to military effectiveness but, rather, is a matter of choice."
The premise of Miss Morris' article, "By Force of Arms: Rape, War and Military Culture," is that the military rape rate should be lower than it is currently, based on a comparison with civilian crime statistics.
Army men, for example, have a 50 percent lower rape rate than their civilian counterparts. But the Army rate for murder and aggravated assault is even lower -- about one-fifth the civilian rate.
Miss Morris calls this difference the "rape differential" and argues a change in the "masculinist" culture would help bring incidents of rape to the same level as other violent crimes.
However, Mr. Moskos said researchers should praise the current military culture for producing lower crime rates.
"Maybe there is something in the military ethic that civilian society should emulate," Mr. Moskos said. "It's an upside-down argument. When you find something good in military behavior, then you say you should change the military culture, when the point is the military culture is the answer, not the problem."
Miss Morris makes a case for ending the land-combat exclusion. She says it "may tend, in both concrete and symbolic ways, to reinforce the traditional military gender and sexual norms that may be contributing to the military rape differential."
Copyright © 1997 News World Communications, Inc.
Its true that Hack is given "Things we tougher in my day." grumbling, but his unvarying point is that one day this Country and its military are going to get into a fight with somebody who can't be finessed with technology, but has to be fought and beaten one on one, platoon on platoon, batallion on batallion. Hack's view is that we barely got by in Korea, lost in Vietnam, and are apt to get our head handed to us if we ever get in a fight with a worthy opponent.
I don't agree with everything he says, but given that he has more each of Purple Hearts and Silver Stars than he can count on one hand, and that he was so far as I know the highest ranking officer in Vietnam to deliberately destroy his career in order to publically criticize the bungling there, he shouldn't de dismissed out of hand.
Yeah, that's what we need. More "Compassion" for the Al Quaida among our soldiers. That'll solve all our problems.
Another f****** braindead feminist...
Next time you see her, ask her if she'd still support an "ungendered" Navy if it meant that HER husband was going to be assigned to shipboard duty for 6 months to a year, in close proximity to lots of teenage females and with lots of unsupervised spare time on his hands.
I predict she'll go apes**t and start babbling nonsense - Liberals live in a dream world where they have no conception whatsoever of the problems created by their naively idealistic world views, and one of the best tactics in any argument with them is to force them into applying the results of their dogmatic stupidity to *themselves*. They're always fun to watch when the dawning light of recognition arrives in their dim consciousness (even though it's only a 100 milliwatt lightbulb of recognition in their cases...).
Thanks. That's kind of how I like my Marines. It should be taken as a compliment.
That's why I like the idea of making different classes of MOS physical difficulty, and rating the PT tests on those, no difference for sex or age, only the ability to do the job.
Thanks. That's kind of how I like my Marines. It should be taken as a compliment.
Many marines were proud take it that way. That is why foreign agressors are loath to take them on.
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.