VIA| We’ve not often heard from generals who are willing to speak up about what’s happening with our military and the Obama agenda.
If you’re not aware, we’re witnessing a military with an Army at pre-World War II levels — we were woefully unprepared then. Our Marine Corps is at World War I levels. We have the smallest Navy since 1917, almost 100 years. And our Air Force is the smallest and oldest fleet since we created the modern U.S. Air Force.
Now, I can just predict the intellectually challenged will say “so what,” we spend too much and we don’t need a strong military. Yep, and that’s exactly why we’re in the pickle we find ourselves. The defense discretionary portion of our federal budget is only about 19 percent — some 64 percent is spent on the mandatory spending side of our budget — Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and net interest on our debt. As part of our GDP, the defense budget is less that 4 percent. And yes, we can reduce the size, scale, and scope of major military headquarters formations, which would better serve the effectiveness and efficiency of our force.
But the Obama administration has never been focused on the maxim of “peace through strength.” Their objective has been the insidious goal of “social justice” in our Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps. It has been about the inane concept of “everyone gets a trophy” as a policy to advance in our military. It has been about individual sexual behavior. But the military is about building the warrior team — not accommodating any individual behavior.
And Obama has always viewed serving in the military as just a job, so all jobs in the military are equal — and the opportunities to have those respective jobs must be open to all. It’s yet another example of the liberal progressive leftist dogma of equality of outcomes, as opposed to equality of opportunities. And just so y’all understand, I wish I could’ve made the basketball team in high school. But guess what? I didn’t meet the standards.
So it was a relief to finally hear a general address the issue of standards in our military — perhaps to the detriment of his career.
As reported by CNS News, “Marine Gen. John Kelly, commander of the U.S. Southern Command, said at a Pentagon press briefing on Friday that he believes that future generals will face “great pressure” to lower the standards for women in combat in order to get more women into combat roles.
“My greatest fear—and we see this happen a lot over the 45 years I’ve been in the Armed Forces–is right now they’re saying we are not going to change any standards,” said Kelly. “There will be great pressure, whether it’s 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we’ve let women into these other roles, why aren’t they staying in those other roles?
“Why aren’t they advancing as infantry people—persons–I guess? Why aren’t they becoming, you know, more senior?” he said. “And the answer is–I think will be–if we don’t change standards, it will be very, very difficult to have any numbers, any real numbers, come into the infantry, or the Rangers or the Seals, but that’s their business.”
So,” said Kelly, “I think it will be the pressure for not probably the generals that are here now, but for the generals to come, and admirals, to lower standards because that’s the only way it’ll work in the way that I hear some people, particularly, the agenda-driven people here in Washington–or in the land–the way they want it to work.”
Yes, I know what you’re thinking, General Kelly will be next on Obama’s hit list. But something tells me General Kelly couldn’t care less. Remember when SecDef Ashton Carter made his declaration about all combat positions opening up to women, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Marine infantryman, General Joseph “Fightin’ Joe” Dunford, wasn’t at his side? Oops sorry, perhaps I should have referred to General Dunford as an “infantry person” since the SecNav Ray Mabus sent a letter to the Commandant of the Marine Corps to make all duty positions in the Marines “gender-neutral.”
This is what the Obama administration finds important when it comes to our vital national security interests. And General Kelly is very correct in his assessment, unless… If America elects another progressive socialist who is more concerned with “fairness” and open access instead of realizing that there are duties in our military that are not geared towards “everyone getting to play,” then yes General Kelly is correct.
There is a quote attributed to George Orwell that aptly describes this situation:“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
Let me be clear, graduating from a 60-day school is not the same as being part of a hostage rescue mission of Iraqi Army soldiers from ISIS, being engaged in an 18-hour firefight in an urban environment against Somali Islamic militiamen, or being in a firefight surrounded by the Taliban. And if there are politicians who disregard the above-mentioned quote and the reality of the 21st century battlefield, then yes, General Kelly’s assessment will be a very accurate prediction.
However, if the American people will elect someone who will listen and not run a national security strategy based on campaign promises and ideological agenda, then maybe General Kelly’s prediction won’t come to fruition. If we elect someone who would bring on a SecDef who’s been on the current battlefield and is more concerned with a strong military, ready and prepared to defeat the enemy — not handing out trophies — then General Kelly’s prediction will end the day Barack Obama departs the White House.
Here is what I ask of you, our readers, ask someone who is in the military right now what’s happening — and I mean someone who can be trusted to give you the “real skinny.” I hear about what’s happening in our military way too often, and folks it’s not good. It’s all about political correctness and pressure on folks to comply with orders rooted in politics. Consider the assertion that intel reports on ISIS were being “cloroxed” — and wonder who was putting the pressure on for that to happen — which based on the news cycle, we don’t hear much about anymore.
It’s not too late to restore our military, it will be a rough final year. But if we make the right decision in November this year, we can have a military focused on its core mission: fighting and winning the wars of the United States.
Now, there are some folks reading this who will denigrate me as a “warmonger.” Ask yourself, is it being a warmonger to stand up and fight back against enemies who’ve declared war against you? Or should we continue down the path of these past seven years and allow the enemies of our Republic to thrive and expand?
Reagan’s maxim of “peace through strength” isn’t only a viable and vital national security postulate for today, it’s a time-proven means by which tranquility can be achieved. When evil arises it has to be crushed before it can metastasize into full bore cancer and pestilence. All too often we’ve seen those embracing global kumbaya fail — such is the case now.
General Kelly, your words are correct, but we have 10 months to go before we can determine if your words will become reality. I for one damn sure hope that’s not the case. How about y’all?