 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Big Kahuna
Lieutenant
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 219
Location: SE Texas
|
 Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:15 am Post subject: Liberals and the Military |
 |
|
A very good book is Buzz Patterson's Dereliction of Duty. Buzz was the officer that carried the nuclear football around for Klinton. In the book he tells of the Liberal hatred for the military and how generals were used for the Klinton's gofers.
Below is chapter five -- it ought to encourage you to buy this book.
| Quote: | NATIONAL DEFENSE OR SOCIAL PETRI DISH?
My last trip as a member of the Clinton administration was to accompany the president on his 9-day junket to six African nations – in March, of 1998.
While visiting South Africa, I was riding in the “Control” van of the presidential motorcade – along with Melanne Verveer (the first lady’s chief of staff) and Bruce Lindsey. The motorcade was weaving its way from Johannesburg to the outlying township of Soweto – and the Hector Peterson Memorial. President Clinton was scheduled to address the citizens of Soweto.
From the outskirts of Johannesburg – a clean, cosmopolitan city – we drove through miles and miles of shantytowns. The radio chatter between vehicles that normally occurs during motorcades – was reduced to stunned silence, by the extent of the poverty.
Ms Verveer finally asked me, “How big is the South Africa military?”
“Ma’am, I believe it is the largest standing army on the continent. About ten-thousand strong, I think. Fairly effective … and well equipped.”
She paused – and thought for awhile. She then became visibly appalled.
“Then, why aren’t they out here … building housing? Developing schools? Road projects? Things like that?”
The other passengers, in the van, echoed her sentiments.
“Ma’am, I don’t think that’s the charter of their military. Any military. In spite of the poverty … and the obvious problems … that we’re seeing, I don’t believe any country’s national self-interests are served … by using the military for public works. That’s not why they exist. They’re not trained for that. And they’re certainly not equipped for it.”
“Well, then they’re wasting their money. They need to be doing something.”
And that – in a nutshell – was the Clinton administration’s attitude.
For the Clintons – and their senior staff – the military was a social-service project.
It had been transformed – in a few short years – from an instrument of national defense, to an armed social-work agency. Certainly, humanitarian relief, peacekeeping operations under the direction of the United Nations were accepted uses of the military, by the Clinton Administration.
But, it went far deeper than that!
A similar revelation had occurred months earlier – for another military aide, U.S. Coast Guard Lt. Commander Graham Stowe. Graham was riding in a presidential motorcade – in Rio de Janeiro – in October, 1997. Graham’s van mates included Verveer, Deputy Chief of Staff John Podesta, and White House press secretary Joe Lockhart.
As they wound through the squalor and poverty of Rio’s slums, Melanne Verveer said that our military – and Brazil’s – should be doing something about the living conditions in Rio de Janeiro. Podesta and Lockhart agreed.
Graham remarked to the Secret Service agent – driving the vehicle – that the military existed to inflict violence on the enemy. Not to improve living conditions in Brazil. The agent laughed – and nodded his head. That ended the conversation.
I mention these anecdotes – because they reflect more than an antimilitary prejudice. They reflect what was a Clinton administration policy!
While President Clinton was slashing the total active-duty force, by about a third – and increasing deployments by almost 300% -- he also set out to reengineer the defense culture, which was historically geared toward fighting the nation’s wars.
Under the Clinton administration, the military was to be refashioned – as a tool that could be implemented for political gain, social engineering, and cultural experimentation.
Issues such as “gays in the military”, “women in combat”, and the subordination of American troops to foreign commanders – under the United Nations banner – quickly became benchmark issues for President Clinton and his military.
Robert Bork in his book, Slouching Towards Gomorrah calls the social agenda that liberals push – at the expense of national security – “radical individualism”.
Liberal thinkers and revisionists – like the Clintons – are attracted to the military as a foundation for social change, precisely because of the military hierarchical command structure. It is the very same reason that liberals are attracted to academia – and to “reforming” the nation’s churches!
The hierarchy – and authority – of these institutions make them valuable targets, for those who want to effect “social change”. The case of the military is unique, however. Because it is the one institution that liberals would like to seize and redirect – without actually serving in it!
Lt. Commander Stowe told me that – when he’d mentioned to a young lady, who worked for the White House Advance Office, responsible for planning and executing presidential trips – that he’d received his undergraduate degree from the United States Coast Guard Academy, her jaw dropped!
“I didn’t know that military officers had degrees,” was her response.
When she told him about her friends currently working on their master’s degrees – or going to law school – Graham mentioned that he, too, had a master’s degree. In fact, he noted, all the president’s military aides had advanced degrees. She couldn’t believe it!
In the collective mind of the Clinton administration, a military career was unimaginable! As such, military men and women were of no consequence. More than that, as an institution, the military was putty – to be manipulated!
Just one week into his presidency, Clinton tried to life the 50-year ban on homosexuals in the military. The original policy had been developed out of necessity – during World War II. Congress had reaffirmed the World War II-era policies, in 1982 – when it declared that “Homosexuality is incompatible with military service … because it undermines discipline, good order and morale”.
But, on day three of his infant presidency, Clinton announced that he was ordering Defense Secretary Les Aspin to stop enforcing the ban on recruiting homosexuals – and to halt prosecutions of homosexuals. He would be signing an executive order removing the ban.
At the time, I was attending the Air Command & Staff College at Maxwell Air Force Base, in Alabama. My class included some of the smartest officers I’d ever met.
Our reaction was uniform: There’d been no debate. No discussion. No solicitation of ideas from the military. “Does anyone care what we think?”
There could have been pre-inauguration meetings, in Little Rock, with senior military leaders – to discuss the ramifications of such a radical change to military life. There could have been lobbying efforts – and the soliciting of support – from a very popular chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Colin Powell! But there wasn’t!
This policy would be water-cooler talk – at every U.S. military facility in the world.
Regardless of whether it was an issue of basic human rights, or an issue of military readiness, the consensus among my peers was that the military was not – and should not be – the test tube for social change.
Fortunately, for U.S. military capabilities and morale – and unfortunately for the political popularity of President Clinton, he didn’t have the power to follow through on his promises. Just as he made a poor decision to pursue this issue so early in his presidency, so too he made the mistake of not solidifying a congressional consensus – prior to releasing the policy.
In particular, he ran into Georgia Senator Sam Nunn – chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. Congress generally retains the power to make substantive changes to military policies and regulations.
As a result, President Clinton declared that an “honorable compromise” was reached – and the infamous “don’t ask – don’t tell” policy was implemented.
On the heels of the gay issue, the administration pursued that of women in combat roles. The 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces recommended – by a vote of 10-to-0 – to retain the Pentagon ban on women joining ground combat units. They voted – 8-to-7 – against female pilots flying combat missions.
The commissioners who voted against women in integrated combat units were concerned about unit cohesion. They also cited studies showing women’s short-comings in upper-body strength. And the natural tendency of men – to protect women, from physical threats.
But, the Clinton administration ignored these findings – and moved to assign women to combat aircraft.
The Navy – reeling from scandals involving sexual harassment in the service – aggressively implemented the new direction. It was a means to make amends.
It also supported the repeal of the law exempting women from service on combatant ships – with the exception of submarines.
The Air Force also aggressively implemented personnel policies to place female aviators in combat aircraft.
In 1994, Secretary of Defense, Les Aspin, opened hundreds of new positions, to women, in or near combat operations – from which they had previously been excluded.
The Pentagon’s Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) – a tax-funded defense feminist lobby – ignored the advice of experts and combat veterans, and lobbied for the inclusion of women in direct combat roles, such as field artillery units and Special Operations helicopters.
The irony is that – during this same period – a poll of female soldiers found that only 11% of enlisted women in the Army would volunteer for combat. That 90% of enlisted women were self-described as not warrior material might be considered damning enough.
To give women a combat role – that neither they nor the military thought appropriate – was an example of the administration’s social engineering trumping reality. Reality, in this case, being that the military exists for fighting wars!
But, combat effectiveness was not only not a priority of the Clinton administration – it didn’t even register on the administration’s radar screen. And neither did the experience of other nations – like Israel, Germany, and Russia (which now have stricter bans on women in combat roles than we do).
The edicts by Aspin – and the lobbying of DACOWITS – led to the introduction of co-ed basic training.
The Army introduced co-ed basic training, in 1994 – at its training facilities at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, and Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri. The Air Force and Navy quickly followed suit.
Within two years, the military was rocked by sexual abuse scandals – at basic-training centers at the Army’s Aberdeen Proving Ground, Fort Jackson, For Leonard Wood, the Navy’s Great Lakes Training Center, and Lackland Air Force Base.
The Marine Corps, on the other hand, enjoyed greater success in its training – by housing and training male and female recruits separately.
The Marines were also the one service to oppose deploying females in combat roles.
Assistant Secretary of the Army Sara Lister – a Clinton appointee – responded to this success, by charging that the Marines were “extremists” and “dangerous”, for not complying with the new-found need for integration of women into what were, historically, male roles.
She also proceeded to make a joke about the Marine uniform.
Madeleine Morris – a Pentagon consultant on “gender” integration – suggested that the U.S. military should eliminate “masculinist attitudes,” “assertiveness”, ”aggressiveness”, “independence”, “self-sufficiency” and “willingness to take risks”. She was serious!
God bless the Marines for standing by their tradition – and not backing down under political, and media, pressure..
America needs soldiers who are “dangerous” – to the enemy. And we damn sure need soldiers who are Assertive, aggressive, and willing to take risks” – when their lives, and the safety of our nation, are at risk.
I’ve worked with – and flown with – female pilots and officers, over my 20 year career, and can say, without a doubt, that they are as qualified and as professional as any man I’ve ever flown with.
That women can fly as pilots is obvious. That unit cohesion and effectiveness is best served by putting women into combat roles is not so obvious. In fact, the evidence leans – heavily – in the opposite direction.
But, military readiness and effectiveness took a back seat in the Clinton administration – to forced social engineering.
Not a single officer I’ve talked to doubts that women are every bit as capable as men in many military occupational specialties. But, there are also significant costs to women’s integration into many units – combat units in particular. Many officers, indeed, questioned the necessity of placing women on the front lines.
The issues of forced sex integration, co-ed training, “dual” fitness standards, the need to redesign expensive equipment to make it co-ed – and the natural tensions and social awkwardness that these things bring with them – are serious problems, that lessen, rather than improve, the military’s war-fighting ability.
The Navy’s policy of “mixed gender” crews on surface ships – such as aircraft carriers – has resulted in unexpected crew shortages, which debilitates combat readiness.
For example, during 1994-1995 – on the first major war deployment of women aboard the carrier USS Eisenhower – 39 women did not deploy (or were evacuated from the ship) because of pregnancy. During the 1999-2000 deployment of the Eisenhower, 60 – out of 492 – female sailors (more than 10%) were nondeplyable or evacuated from the ship, again because of pregnancy.
On the USS Roosevelt, 45 – out of 300 – women (15%) could not deploy, or were unable to complete the mission, because of impending childbirth.
A Navy survey found that the overall evacuation rate for female sailors was at 2½ times the rate of men – primarily because of pregnancies.
The Clinton administration attempted to cover up – rather than deal – with the shortcomings of its policy. Assistant Secretary of the Army Sara Lister told the press that the Army was reluctant to discuss physical strength differences between men and women – and pregnancy issues – because these subjects would be ammunition for conservatives, seeking to “limit women’s role in combat units.”
In other words, reality and facts – in the administration’s eyes – were inadmissible, because they contradicted the administration’s policy. Reality and facts were ideologically biased – in favor of conservatives!
So, it’s no wonder that – in the Alice In Wonderland looking-glass world of the Clinton administration – reality and facts were dismissed, in order to cater to feminists and gays, other special interest group agendas, and liberal social dogmas.
While women and gays were welcomed into the military – veterans were handed their pink slips!
When Vice President Al Gore was given the task of “reinventing government”, he and the White House took credit for removing 305,000 people from the government’s payroll. What they didn’t tell you was that 286,000 of those cuts – more than 90% -- came from employees of the Department of Defense.
During his command, President Clinton reduced the active-duty force by one-third to one-half – eliminating approximately 800,000 personnel. He reduced the Army from 18 divisions to 10.
He cut half of the Air Force combat fighter wings – chopping 12 from the existing 24. He eliminated 232 strategic bombers – and 2,000 Air Force and Navy combat aircraft.
He reduced the Navy from 567 ships to just over 300. He decommissioned all of the Navy’s battleships – a traditional symbol of America’s ability to “show the flag”, off the coast of international trouble spots, as well as providing accurate long-range naval artillery fire, in support of Marines and soldiers, during beach landings – as well as littoral combat operations.
He eliminated 13 ballistic submarines , four aircraft carriers, 121 surface combat ships and submarines, and most of the support bases, shipyards, and logistical assets needed to maintain these forces.
He gutted military infrastructure and readiness capabilities – causing entire tactical air squadrons to ground half of their flights.
He inflicted a dramatic decline in readiness ratings for ships in the Atlantic and Pacific Fleets.
In late 1994, House Armed Service Committee chairman Floyd Spence issued an emergency fact-finding report – stating, “Our forces are suffering through the early stages of a long-term systematic readiness problem that is not confined to any one quarter of a fiscal year, or portion of the force. The damaging effects of this readiness problem are being felt all year long … throughout the forces. And in every service.”
The president also gutted morale! He immediately froze military pay – at a time when it had already fallen behind the private sector by almost 20%! The pay freeze was especially egregious – when approximately 80% of the force was earning less than $30,000 annually. And more than 20,000 enlisted personnel were eligible for food stamps!
The Association of the U.S. Army coined a phrase – “The Military Poor” – to describe the growing numbers of enlisted personnel throughout the Clinton presidency, who were reduced to depending on food stamps and other forms of public assistance to support their families.
Both the Army and the Marine Corps reported dangerously low reenlistment rates for their enlisted ranks – while overseas deployments were escalating!
“Too many good young Marines are leaving,” said First Marine Expeditionary Force Sergeant-Major Michael McGraw. “Many lance-corporals and corporals are bailing out … after their first hitch. Because our operational commitments have been burning them out. And the pay they receive … isn’t enough to take care of their families.”
A 1994 service-wide, state-by-state study, by Parade magazine, of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) supplemental food aid program found that the number of enlisted military families living beneath the poverty level – and using WIC services averaged between 12% and 20% of the total population of major military bases.
Out of 5,400 sailors, stationed at King’s Bay, Georgia, there were 1370 WIC families. Some 4,700 families were among the 14,000 soldiers and Air Force members in the San Antonio, Texas, area. And, out of 35,000 Marines, In North Carolina, some 4,500 were WIC recipients.
The true measure of the Clinton-Gore team – and its views toward military men and women – can be summed up in its actions during the presidential campaign of 2000.
With the race down to the hotly disputed electoral votes in Florida, the Gore campaign attempted to disallow the votes of military personnel stationed overseas, who had voted via absentee ballot!
While the Democrats screamed disenfranchisement – on the part of minority and elderly voters in Palm Beach – they were attempting to disenfranchise the men and women whose lives were on the line, serving their country in a combat zone in the Middle East!
The Gore campaign’s lawyers asked the court to throw away the service members votes – claiming the technicality that absentee ballots needed postmarks!
That was sordid and unjust. But, what was even worse was that President Clinton left his successor with and American foreign policy – that was not adequately responding to the world’s hornets’ nests. And with a military that was a shadow of the force that won the Gulf War.
And – as with so many scandals of the Clinton administration – it wasn’t Clinton, but our nation, that paid the price!
|
_________________
Top 10 Weasels.com is where Kerry is Weasel #1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
nakona
Lieutenant
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
Posts: 242
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 4:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
You forgot the worst part.
Liberals, under the premise that you inherit the army that your predecessor left you, tried to claim that it proved that clinton crafted the finely honed military that captured Iraq in mere weeks.
When you try to explain to them that the military does as well as it does in SPITE of clinton, rather than because of him, they get dismissive, and start posting links to a bunch of left wing pundits who "prove" them right.
_________________
13F20P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The bandit
Commander
Joined: 15 May 2004
Posts: 349
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
You want to look at a true liberal vet, look no further then Kerry and Reese's buddy Joe Bangert, whom is working Vets for Kerry. He has worked for Kerry's elections in the past.
Some of Bangert's "testimony" at WSI:
| Quote: |
My name is Joe Bangert. I'm a Philadelphia resident. I enlisted in the Marine Corps for four years in 1967. I went to Vietnam in 1968. My unit in Vietnam was Marine Observation Squadron Six with the First Marine Air Wing and my testimony will cover the slaughter of civilians, the skinning of a Vietnamese woman, the type of observing our squadron did in Vietnam and the crucifixion of Vietnamese either suspects or civilians in Vietnam.
|
He claimed he was a helicopter gunner, but awwww that wasn't so. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big Kahuna
Lieutenant
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 219
Location: SE Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 2:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that's one of the mild chapters -- THE BOOK will make your blood boil. Hitlery hated the military so much, that she demanded they not wear a military uniform when coming to the White House. She'd send Generals for her lost baggage. If a major military event occurred when William the Impeached was on the golf course -- he refused to be bothered with it.
If Vets really knew how much people like the Klintons and Frenchie hated them -- they wouldn't even consider a traitor like F'n.
Click the above image for more info on the book
_________________
Top 10 Weasels.com is where Kerry is Weasel #1 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
LewWaters
Admin
Joined: 18 May 2004
Posts: 4042
Location: Washington State
|
| Posted: Sun Jun 13, 2004 3:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I liken it to a little tale that was said about Clinton's first inauguration. One of the Hollywood elite, Alec Baldwin I believe, was said to have noticed the flyover performed by Air Force jets and commented how inappropriate it was. He then was reported to have said words to the effect of, "oh, there ours now, so it's okay."
I was on track for 20 years after my time in Vietnam, but after Carter got in, I decided to pack it in due to cut backs and overall treatment of the military. I was able to care for my family better as a civilian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
