Making Military Less Formidable to Enemy Endangers Lives
The times, they are a-changin’, the Dylan song goes, and they certainly are for the military.
The announcement that the Navy is adopting “gender neutral” unisex uniforms is just the latest in a series of developments that raise the question of just what agenda is being promoted, and to what ends. The orders came down from Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus, a career Democrat insider politician and bureaucrat.
I guess the story stood out because I’d just got done with a regular visit to Fred on Everything, the website of one of my favorite contemporary writers, Fred Reed. The guy reminds me at times of Mark Twain, at others of H.L. Mencken. I don’t always agree with him, but he has a lot of experience, he sure is perceptive, and he just has a way with words that makes me want to read more. His “A Petticoat Military: Comedy in Uniform” is such a piece, and I’d recommend you either go over there right now and return when you’re done, or else make sure you get to it soon, before you move on to other things and forget.
I’d heard about cadets marching in high heels, and giving new meaning to the term “foot soldier,” earlier this year from an April Army Times story:
On April 1, about 15 cadets from Temple University participated in a school-sponsored Walk a Mile in Her Shoes event, during which men stumble through a pre-set route while sporting high heels as a way to raise awareness for sexual assault victims. Several cadets walked while wearing Army Combat Uniforms, as did the school’s professor of military science, Lt. Col. Greg Nardi, who runs Temple’s Red Diamond Brigade.
What I had no idea existed was a contraption called an “empathy belly,” a so-called “pregnancy simulator” something no “progressive” male can apparently do without. Hey, if some want to do this, fine, we all have one life to live and it’s not appropriate for one person to force his ways on another (although it would be nice if politicians realized that). But when such concepts migrate to the military, you have to wonder just what that has to do with the mission, just what the priorities of the command are, and who set those priorities and why. It’s also fair to wonder what pressures are put on subordinates to participate or otherwise support such “politically correct” efforts.
So when we’re told “A few male Soldiers got an unexpected addition to their Army Combat Uniforms last week – not to mention an interesting change to their silhouettes,” can we follow up by asking what would have happened to one who refused? And what career and other impacts would enlisted men and officers who objected have endured?
And, of course, there’s a more important question Fred asked:
What must the Taliban think?
Not to mention Vladimir Putin. And the Chicoms.
How will this trend encourage contempt and embolden an enemy who might otherwise think twice about attacking? How will that increase the danger to men placed in harm’s way? How many more Americans will be killed or maimed for life?
And while it’s not included in the “Declaration of Orders We Will Not Obey,” active duty Oath Keepers might want to think about what they would say to a superior ordering them to take part in an activity they consider humiliatingly and dangerously subversive, and what their options for getting out of it might be.