Category Archives: Military

Next will be quotas

After writing about my skepticism regarding the female Ranger School graduates, I wondered if I might be wrong and what if they completed every task just like the men.  Well, here’s the truth of the matter, it’s not about them at all, it’s about a political agenda the President ordered and these females serve as propaganda tools – nothing more.  Their propaganda value mattered enough that he took time out from his golfing to attend their graduation.

Likewise, the careful test conducted by the Marine Corps doesn’t matter either, for the same reason – this is about a political agenda.

From watching this many times over the years, here is how this progresses from getting a female poster girl out there (Ms 1st at whatever), the agenda moves to getting more women into those male-only fields.  That means quotas and careful monitoring on how the integration is progressing.  Once the politicization moves to this stage, that’s where the standards end up being quietly altered (lowered where decisions are made to eliminate or lower requirements that women can’t meet) or standards just get ignored to pass women and a double standard emerges in practice , which always erodes not only actual job performance, but also unit cohesiveness and morale.

All failures are tossed at the feet of the male culture in the military and both women and men end up poorly served.

The end result is always a weaker, less effective team. In the real world weaker teams end up costing lives and losing wars, which rests as a high cost to pay to promote a political agenda

2 Comments

Filed under General Interest, Military, Politics

Revisiting the “best opportunity to succeed”

“Having been a guinea pig in the feminization of the American military plan for a very short time decades ago, I’ll share with you how this goes.  The political factions within the Pentagon will begin tinkering with new ways to make it appear that women can do these heavy-lifting, grueling combat tasks by eliminating as many of the tasks from the physical standards as necessary to get women into these positions.  The physical standards for men will lower and all sorts of concessions will be made to soften the ride for women to succeed in these jobs.  They’ll desperately seek a few über herculean gruntettes to become the face of the new Amazon band of sisters for the full court press, to “prove” women are just as strong as men.”

– libertybelle

In January 2015, I wrote the above quote in a blog post, “the best opportunity to succeed (code for lower standards)”, which was my cynical take on a statement from a Marine Corps spokeswoman in a USA Today article, “Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail”:

“Marine Corps Commandant Gen. James Amos wants training officials to “continue to gather data and ensure that female Marines are provided with the best opportunity to succeed,” Capt. Maureen Krebs, a Marine spokeswoman, said Thursday.”

The Marine Corps embarked on a careful evaluation of female performance in combat skills this past year and their report submitted to the Secretary of the Navy rained on the parade of the feminist hoopla over the two female US Army officers who recently completed the US Army Ranger School .  The Marine Corps report is available online and the highlights lead to huge questions about not only throwing open the doors to all combat jobs to women, but in my mind, it raises the question of whether slack was cut to the two female Army officers to get some females through the US Ranger School for political propaganda purposes. President Obama showed up for their graduation, which further suggests a political agenda at play and raises the specter that once again military brass might have compromised the truth to support Obama administration narratives.

Yes, there I said it, I am skeptical about whether some standards were lowered to accommodate women during this highly publicized and politicized US Army Ranger School effort to sell opening all combat jobs to women.  I wonder about upper body strength skills, in particular.  Having observed this sleight of hand in standards many times over the years, the Army brass often plays to the feminists within the Pentagon pushing female integration. No one ever admits to the standards being lowered, because for male leaders in the military to speak up is career suicide. In May, 2015 all 5 of the remaining females in the Army Ranger training had dropped out. They were then given a third chance to retry and graduated in August 2015. The feminists will argue their completion of the course vindicates opening all combat jobs to women.

The press cheered for the two female Army officers, but then along comes this report from the Marine Corps careful study and here are the key highlights:

Combat Effectiveness

Overall: All-male squads, teams and crews demonstrated higher performance levels on 69% of tasks evaluated (93 of 134) as compared to gender-integrated squads, teams and crews. Gender-integrated teams performed better than their all-male counterparts on (2) events.

All-male squads, regardless of infantry MOS, were faster than the gender-integrated squads in each tactical movement. The differences were more pronounced in infantry crew-served weapons specialties that carried the assault load plus the additional weight of crew-served weapons and ammunition.

Lethality:

All-male 0311 (rifleman) infantry squads had better accuracy compared to gender-integrated squads. There was a notable difference between genders for every individual weapons system (i.e. M4, M27, and M203) within the 0311 squads, except for the probability of hit & near miss with the M4.

Male provisional infantry (those with no formal 03xx school training) had higher hit percentages than the 0311 (school trained) females: M4: 44% vs 28%, M27: 38% vs 25%, M16A4w/M203: 26% vs 15%.

All-male infantry crew-served weapons teams engaged targets quicker and registered more hits on target as compared to gender-integrated infantry crew-served weapons teams, with the exception of M2 accuracy.

All-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties. For example, when negotiating the wall obstacle, male Marines threw their packs to the top of the wall, whereas female Marines required regular assistance in getting their packs to the top. During casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups, except in the case where teams conducted a casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty).

Health and Welfare of Marines

In addition to performance, evidence of higher injury rates for females when compared to males performing the same tactical tasks was noted. The well documented comparative disadvantage in upper and lower-body strength resulted in higher fatigue levels of most women, which contributed to greater incidents of overuse injuries such as stress fractures. Research from various U.S. and allied military studies reveal that the two primary factors associated with success in the task of movement under load are 1) lean body mass and 2) absolute VO2 Max. Findings from the physiological assessment of GCEITF males and females conducted by the University of Pittsburgh’s
Neuromuscular Research Laboratory include:

Body composition: Males averaged 178 lbs, with 20% body fat: females averaged 142 lbs, with 24% body fat

Anaerobic Power: Females possessed 15% less power than males; the female top 25th percentile overlaps with the bottom 25th percentile for males

Anaerobic Capacity: Females possessed 15% less capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with the bottom 50th percentile of males

Aerobic Capacity (VO2Max): Females had 10% lower capacity; the female top 10th percentile overlaps with bottom 50th percentile of males

Within the research at the Infantry Training Battalion, females undergoing that entry-level training were injured at more than six-times the rate of their male counterparts

27% of female injuries were attributed to the task of movement under load, compared to 13% for their male counterparts, carrying a similar load.

During the GCEITF assessment, musculoskeletal injury rates were 40.5% for females, compared to 18.8% for males

Of the 21 time-loss injuries incurred by female Marines, 19 were lower extremity injuries and 16 occurred during a movement under load task

The Army produced the required female poster gruntettes needed for propaganda, as I predicted, but the Marine Corps produced a careful study on combat performance.  Sadly, all soldiers will suffer if we play along with the feminist Amazon mythology.  The truth is females are biologically weaker than males and here’s the blunt truth, to quote this Marine Corps report:

“A military unit at maximum combat effectiveness is a military unit least likely to suffer casualties. Winning in war is often only a matter of inches, and unnecessary distraction or any dilution of the combat effectiveness puts the mission and lives in jeopardy. Risking the lives of a military unit in combat to provide career opportunities or accommodate the personal desires or interests of an individual, or group of individuals, is more than bad military judgment. It is morally wrong.”

Leave a comment

Filed under Culture Wars, General Interest, Military, Politics

In a boat without paddles…..

Why postcard

Why is always the question I ask.  Visual images hold the power to impact us in ways that words never will.  The image above is from a postcard I bought in Germany in 1980.  In a blog post, I had mentioned that I went to the border, near a town named Hof, and I saw the “Iron Curtain” in person as a young soldier on a trip arranged by the Army.  That trip, and of course being assigned to a Pershing missile battalion, set me on this path of studying military strategy and trying to understand, “Why war?”  Assuredly, I am not some closet 60s peacenik, but I do search for better answers to the world’s most difficult mountain to move, which is “finding a path to Peace?”

The huge displacement of people from Syria, Libya, Iraq and other areas in the greater Mid-East, an exodus that has been in progress for several years, I might add, has now captured the amnesiac public’s attention in the West. A photo of a drowned Syrian boy, lying face down on the beach, where he washed ashore in Turkey after drowning when the overcrowded boat his family was on capsized in the Mediterranean Sea, will become the iconic image of this war, just like the photo of the naked Vietnamese girl a generation ago.  The boy’s family was fleeing Kobani, the sight of an ongoing battle between Islamic State fighters and the Kurds.

I listen with interest to the simplistic answers to resolve this refugee crisis and also to the simplistic answers as to what caused this crisis too.  The answers range from British actress, Emma Thompson declaring the problem is because British people are racist and don’t want to help these refugees.  Across the pond, GOP presidential candidate, Marco Rubio, placed the blame squarely on President Obama for failing to act sooner and intervening in the Syrian civil war and dealing with the Islamic State.  The prime minister of Hungary, Victor Orbán invited  angry cries of racism and outrage, when he criticized EU policy.  The UK news site, The Guardian reports:

“Everything which is now taking place before our eyes threatens to have explosive consequences for the whole of Europe,” Orbán wrote in Germany’s Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. “Europe’s response is madness. We must acknowledge that the European Union’s misguided immigration policy is responsible for this situation.

“Irresponsibility is the mark of every European politician who holds out the promise of a better life to immigrants and encourages them to leave everything behind and risk their lives in setting out for Europe. If Europe does not return to the path of common sense, it will find itself laid low in a battle for its fate.”

The president of Turkey, Tayyip Erdogan, lashed out at the EU. The UK’s Daily Mail states:

Mr Erdogan, the Turkish president, today insisted Europe had to act to save refugees dying.

He said: ‘European countries, which have turned the Mediterranean, the cradle of the world’s oldest civilisations, into a cemetery for refugees, shares the sin for every refugee who loses their life.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3220885/EU-draws-emergency-plan-relocate-160-000-stranded-refugees-continent-Britain-ZERO.html#ixzz3kmSeOoZD
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

This same Daily Mail UK story includes the response to this refugee crisis by British prime minister, David Cameron:

“The Prime Minister told reporters: ‘Anyone who saw those pictures overnight could not help but be moved and, as a father, I felt deeply moved by the sight of that young boy on a beach in Turkey.

‘Britain is a moral nation and we will fulfil our moral responsibilities.

‘I would say the people responsible for these terrible scenes we see the people most responsible are President Assad in Syria and the butchers of ISIL and the criminal gangs who are running this terrible trade in people.’

Asked why Britain won’t take more refugees, Mr Cameron said: ‘We are. We are taking thousands of refugees and we have always done that as a country – running our asylum system properly and giving a proper welcome to people and helping them when they come here.”

My primary care doctor pulled out his cell phone a year or so ago and showed me photos of his parents’ home in Syria, where the neighborhood had been bombed in recent days.  His parents are here in the US with him, having been displaced by the civil war in Syria.  My doctor, a wonderful doctor and usually so calm and measured in speech, angrily stated that it was all because of one man trying to stay in power, placing blame squarely on Syrian president, Bashar  al Assad.

And so it goes, each response, points a finger at who is to blame for the problem.  Each response carries some truth, but none answers the big question of “why” this situation reached this point, nor do any responses bring us any closer to resolving the larger problem.  The real answer is people accept ineffective leaders around the world and people look for little picture scapegoats to resolve complex problems, which require international answers and more importantly international leadership.

One country, not even those who believe in the US as the global hegemon, can resolve the ongoing collapse of Islamic civilization.  And what the leaders in The West don’t quite grasp is simultaneously Western civilization is on that downward civilizational spiral too.  As I stated in a previous post, we are facing two large civilization collapses at the same time.  The West has set up a house of cards financial scheme that could fold without hurricane force winds.  Yes, it is that precarious!

The post card at the top of this post set me on a journey searching not only for a better national security framework, but a better international security framework.  Everyone, from Emma Thompson, horrified by that photo, to Victor Orbán, fearful of the collapse of western civilization, is right and yet, none captures the larger truth..  The larger truth is no one leader or country can resolve this crisis.  Only many leaders working in good faith can end the fighting in the collapsing Islamic civilization and only many leaders can stabilize the collapsing Western civilization.  In May, I wrote:

Now, how I started thinking about all this was because long ago, I was a young woman assigned to a Pershing missile unit in 1980 and trying to wrap my mind around “mutually assured  destruction” scared me.  I have been reading and thinking about our national security strategy almost every day since 1980 and asking myself “Why?”  I am seeking a different path forward to provide, not just a national security framework, but an international security framework for ALL of us. Yes, quite an insurmountable obstacle, a pipe dream perhaps, but there you have it – that is my personal mission and I’ll keep studying, reading history, and considering new ideas unto that end.  I am a nobody homemaker, but I am an American and no one ever told me I can’t succeed.  I started writing my thoughts and  ideas here and welcome other ideas.

“I believe too much effort is directed toward extremes of “kill them all” or “bow down in submission to Islamist nuts intent on killing all of us“.  Hopefully, my determination to explore other avenues, than the extremes, doesn’t make me a quisling, an armchair expert or naive.  I’m a mother and a grandmother wondering about the future for them and I believe, we need to explore new ways of bolstering an international security framework and that demands LEADERSHIP.”

I’ve written many of my thoughts about military strategy, war, and the complexities of understanding civilizations on this blog.  I like to consider and analyze problems from a little picture/ big picture perspective. At the heart of war and all conflict lies the human heart and a break down of trust:

Aquamarine vs. turquoise

Then there are larger issues like:

Who will defend our castle?

Global Zero: Another Nothing-Burger Plan
Paving the path to Peace

So, after thinking about “Why war?” since 1980 and reading endlessly about military strategy, history, and geopolitics.  I’m going to just repost my blog post from May and you can laugh, dismiss it out of hand, or consider it, but truly the answer boils down to “all of us”, not pointing fingers at another world leader or group:

If we build it; we can fix it

I want to write this post, which assuredly most people will dismiss out of hand.  This is my explanation of why I think Peace is possible and the fall of civilizations remedied.  I’ve been an adherent of a “God does not give us impossible missions belief” my entire life.  I believe God gave us FREE WILL.  We can choose to do or not to do, to soar or to sit on our butts whining that life isn’t fair and wait for others to do for us,  We can choose to live in FEAR or we can dare to stand up and say, “I don’t care if that’s the way it’s always been, I am going to think for myself and see if I can think, invent, build something better.”

As far as I can tell, the only human unit that is vital is the husband/wife combo, because without them reproducing , the human race will perish.  For a child to survive, requires both the mother and father.  Of course, living in groups – the “it takes a village” idea, definitely makes it much easier for humans to flourish. So, most people live in groups.

I like to analyze systems, even though I have had no formal training to do this.  One of my sons works for a large aircraft manufacturer as a software engineer.  He tells me about his travels to go diagnose and fix problems for customers, whose planes have something not working right.

Now, imagine if their planes had some fatal flaw where, say, inexplicably their most popular deluxe model of planes started suffering engine failure after hitting around the 20,000 mile mark.  The company would not accept the 20,000 mile failure of their planes nor would they want to have to rebuild engines, over and over or replace the ones that died.  They would send someone to do a systems analysis and try to detect what design flaws or equipment failure are leading to this problem.

I never accepted either the “belief” that civilizations are doomed to this endless “rise and fall” cycle, nor do I wander off into utopian pipe dreams.  My observation is that civilizations are built and deconstructed by man, just like planes – they are a man-made invention.  We find on earth some societies that remained content to settle for living in small groups and fighting to survive at bare subsistence level.  Others seek to live in a fancier deluxe model grouping, thus the most advanced civilizations are built to please those customers.  These deluxe model civilizations rely on several complex sub-systems to operate.

My mother used to get frustrated with my unwillingness to accept answers that began with, “that’s the way it’s always been”.   Accepting that premise dooms us to wasting a lot of, not only material wealth, but more importantly human lives and potential (often large portions of an entire generation), because lots of people perish when we have multiple sub-set systems failures.

So, far we’ve got most of the best geopolitical systems analysts (world leaders, scholars, statesmen, soldiers) not working on finding ways to fix the multiple, simultaneous, sub-system failures that lead to a collapse of a civilization.  They study the various sub-set systems and do some disparate diagnostics, then shrug and say, that’s just how civilizations are – “they rise and they fall”. Some try to design quick-fix patches.  Some recoil in fear and are content to be passive spectators to the collapse and murmur, “It’s always been that way”.  Brilliant geopolitics experts, almost to a man, say “that’s the way it’s always been  and I have seen nothing in history to indicate  it can ever change.” Of course, if you accept it can’t change, very few people will even bother trying to change it.

In fact, they invariably insist that when one of those sub-set systems, one intended to safeguard the entire system,  runs amok and helps destroy most of the frame and body of the entire civilization, we’re just supposed  to accept that these most complex advanced civilizations have some fatal flaw – it’s either that’s how God made the world, accept it, quit being a daydreamer and shut up about “utopias”.

I refuse to accept that belief.   I believe that if we build it, we can always improve on the design and come up with better sub-systems to build a newer, better performing model.   If your best systems analysts don’t ever even really try to find the design flaws and fix them, but instead wander off, halfheartedly fixing, only bits and pieces of some of the sub-system design flaws, of course the system will continue to reach the point where these sub-systems start falling apart and down the chute into the dustbin of history goes all that work that went into it. In the process usually many, many people perish, because most of these sub-set failures happen in midair, resulting in spectacular crashes, although some do implode and burn slowly on the runway too, so to speak.  Cleaning up the wreckage from civilizational collapses can take centuries, sometimes those people that survive don’t even bother, they wander off into the wilderness.

The known history of man provides us a great deal of information to study the various sub-sets, how they work together, which models work better and the flaws in the various systems.   For instance, we know that in governmental systems there are good kings and bad kings, dependent on one thing – the king.   For that system to work long term, relies on the accident of birth and hoping the genetic lottery of life works favorably for your kingdom, because all it takes to wreck a good kingdom is one bad king.

Others, say, in America, sat down and studied history and analyzed government systems throughout history and tried to select components that would provide a safeguard against the one bad king, as they had just got done ditching one of those bad draws in the genetic pool kind of kings.  In America, some men gathered together and said, even though no one in the known history of man has tried this first, we are FREE to come up with a better system.  We started with the premise that ALL MEN ARE FREE and constructed a governmental system that we thought would best safeguard individual freedom.  Many people in the world get sick of hearing Americans blabber on about our Constitution.  Lots of countries have constitutions, but none of them starts with the bedrock BELIEFS that ALL MEN ARE CREATED EQUAL and ALL MEN ARE FREE.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, we tried to transplant democracy, but democracy isn’t what leads to a better life for people;  FREEDOM does.  A Constitution is just a piece of paper.  Napoleon was one of the world’s premiere constitution writers in history.   As soon as Napoleon conquered a place, he wrote another constitution for those conquered people to obey.   Selecting a good governmental system, in my opinion, is the most important sub-system in a group’s organizational structure, because that sub-system determines how well any other component sub-systems you design will work.  We shouldn’t be telling the world that democracy makes us different, we should teach the world that the BELIEF IN INDIVIDUAL FREEDOM  does.

Many other governmental systems work, and all governments are subject to engine failure (where America is at now) and a host of other sub-system failures, because any government relies on many other complex sub-systems to work too, just as civilizations do.  Being willing to do the diagnostics and taking the corrective actions to prevent a total breakdown determines the fate of more complex groups, who rely on a more advanced organizational structure than a simple group, like a tribe or religious commune.

My son recently lamented to me that he doesn’t understand why some, way more experienced, software engineers he knows settle for creating sort of patches to fix problems, instead of trying to figure out what’s causing the problem to occur in the first place and fix that.  He asked why people are like that and I told him, that in my opinion, lots of people prefer to take the easiest road – believe me, growing up in PA, our pothole-patched roads attest to that.  Because throwing a patch on is easier than repairing the entire road.  And I should know, because my father built roads for a living.

3 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, History, Islam, Military, Politics

Where have all the gentlemen gone?

“I always thought it was so very American, when we were back in the days when Americans were known to be brash and bold. But I want to point out something while I’m thinking about Shane and the Virginian—both of them had impeccable manners. It was actually pointed out in the books, not by saying it, of course, but by having someone notice it and be shown thinking about it. It was a part of each man. Polite, filled with decorum toward actions and other people. Decent. Even knowing which fork to use—I loved it. Because the books set out the best of all worlds.”

– Minta Marie Morze

My friend, Minta, serves not only as a trusted friend, she’s also part cheerleader and part muse to keep me writing.  When she sent me her critique on my blog post the other day, where I had mentioned the 1902 novel, “The Virginian”, my thoughts turned to dissecting what it is about Donald Trump that bothers me the most.  The answer has nothing to do with Trump’s political views or flip-flops.  What bothers me is not just the brashness nor the bragging, it’s about his ungentlemanly behavior.  His supporters cheer that he isn’t bowing down to PC, but here’s the truth, he isn’t offering an example of behavior that is any better.  Going on Twitter and bashing Megyn Kelly as a ‘bimbo” doesn’t come across as “presidential”, but it also shouldn’t be acceptable behavior for any man.  Yes, I mentioned the Kelly/Howard Stern interview in a previous blog post and I find her behavior questionable too.  This all leads to the much larger topic of this post:  “Where have all the gentlemen gone?”

It seems that almost daily we are assaulted by more left-wing social-engineering insanity, accepting every sort of sexual disorder and deviancy as just a lifestyle choice, the expansion of imaginary gender categories too freakish and numerous to keep track of, and on to the angry racial animus tearing at the very seams of American society.  At the center of this turbulent storm swirls a core of rage and violence.  We have a lot of angry people in America, especially young men.  Across the seas lies another culture that has promised death to America, and the one thing they have in common with America is they have a lot of angry people too, especially men.  So, here we go as I ponder the history of gentlemen.  In a 2013 blog post, I delved into, “Why America needs gentlemen…. and ladies too”, but decided it’s time to revisit this topic.

In a 2013 column, Mark Steyn wrote about the groups of young black men engaged in knock-out crimes attacking innocent white passers-by.  He wrote:

“As things stand, if white youths target a black guy it’s a hate crime, but vice versa is merely common assault. I doubt this would make very much difference. “No justification of virtue will enable a man to be virtuous,” wrote Lewis — and, likewise, no law can prevent a thug punching an old lady to the ground if the thug is minded to. “A society’s first line of defense is not the law but customs, traditions, and moral values,” wrote Professor Walter Williams a few years ago. “They include important thou-shalt-nots such as shalt not murder, shalt not steal, shalt not lie and cheat, but they also include all those courtesies one might call ladylike and gentlemanly conduct. Policemen and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct.””

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/364659/knockouts-high-and-low-mark-steyn

The Islamic State nutjobs (more out-of-control young men) claim to be building a new Caliphate, as they crucify, behead, and topple every vestige of civilization, both modern and ancient.  These barbarians apparently read about as much history as the New Black Panthers, the thugs rioting in Baltimore, Dylan Roof and all these other violent young men.  Since 9/11 I’ve heard Charles Martel hailed for stopping the spread of Islam in Europe at the Battle of Tours in 732 AD.  He stopped the Moors, who had conquered Spain, but it wasn’t until the late 1400s when the Moors were driven out of Spain.  What followed was the Spanish Inquistion, where the Muslims and Jews were driven out of Spain and heretics (those who were not Christians) were rounded up, judged, then sentenced to extremely brutal punishments.

Most Americans, due to our lamentable education system, have no clue that the Moors(Muslims) in Spain had built an advanced civilization that far surpassed the rest of Europe at that time.  I came across a passage in the 1943 book, “The Discovery of Freedom”, by Rose Wilder Lane, describing where the European code of chivalry originated. It came from the Muslim world.  The Moors brought that code to Spain and during the Crusades, Lane notes the knights observed it in the  Saracens’ world  during their travels to the Holy Land. “Saracen” is an archaic term for Arabs/Muslims during the Crusades.  Lane writes:

But the returning Crusaders brought back to Europe the first idea of a gentleman that Europeans had ever had. Until they invaded the Saracens’ civilization, they had never known that a strong man need not be brutal. The Saracens were splendid fighters when they fought, but they were not cruel; they did not torture their prisoners, they did not kill the wounded. In their own country, they did not persecute the Christians. They were brave men, but they were gentle. They were honorable; they told the truth, they kept their word. This ideal of a gentleman especially impressed the English. It is still producing perhaps the finest class of human beings on earth today, the men and women of the British ruling class. It is an ideal that permeates all of American life. This is what surprises so many people in many parts of the world, when they see and meet the common American soldiers and sailors.

Lane, Rose Wilder (2012-05-02). The Discovery of Freedom (LFB) (Kindle Locations 2118-2125). Laissez Faire Books. Kindle Edition.

So, I looked for some more history to back up this notion of Muslims in the medieval world being the inspiration for European codes of chivalry and the development of the gentleman and here’s a passage from a 1900 history book, “A Short History of the Saracens: Being a concise account of the Rise and Decline of the Saracenic Power and of the Economic, Social and Intellectual Development of the Arab Nation” (a Google book page 519):

“But Cordova was not merely the abode of culture,of
learning and arts, of industry and commerce; it was
the home where chivalry received its first nourishment.

Chivalry is innate in the Arab character, but its rules
and principles, the punctilious code of honour, the
knightly polish, the courtliness, all of which were so
assiduously cultivated afterwards in the kingdom of
Granada, came into prominence under an-Nasir and his
son. “It was at this period that the chivalrous ideas
commenced to develop themselves, joined to an ex-
alted sense of honour and respect for the feeble sex.”1
Another competent writer states that chivalry with all
its institutions, such as came later into existence among
the Christian nations of the West, flourished among the
Saracens in the time of an-Nasir, Hakam, and al—Mansur.2
Here came foreign knights under guarantee of peace and
protection to break lance with Saracen cavaliers.”

Now, back to Minta’s astute observation that started off this post, well, here’s a passage from, “The Virginian”, where the Eastern visitor describes his first encounter with the Western cowboy, who happens to be the Virginian:

“As we went, I read my host’s letter–a brief hospitable message. He was very sorry not to meet me himself. He had been getting ready to drive over, when the surveyor appeared and detained him. Therefore in his stead he was sending a trustworthy man to town, who would look after me and drive me over. They were looking forward to my visit with much pleasure. This was all.

Yes, I was dazed. How did they count distance in this country? You spoke in a neighborly fashion about driving over to town, and it meant–I did not know yet how many days. And what would be meant by the term “dropping in,” I wondered. And how many miles would be considered really far? I abstained from further questioning the “trustworthy man.” My questions had not fared excessively well. He did not propose making me dance, to be sure: that would scarcely be trustworthy. But neither did he propose to have me familiar with him. Why was this? What had I done to elicit that veiled and skilful sarcasm about oddities coming in on every train? Having been sent to look after me, he would do so, would even carry my valise; but I could not be jocular with him. This handsome, ungrammatical son of the soil had set between us the bar of his cold and perfect civility. No polished person could have done it better. What was the matter? I looked at him, and suddenly it came to me. If he had tried familiarity with me the first two minutes of our acquaintance, I should have resented it; by what right, then, had I tried it with him? It smacked of patronizing: on this occasion he had come off the better gentleman of the two. Here in flesh and blood was a truth which I had long believed in words, but never met before. The creature we call a GENTLEMAN lies deep in the hearts of thousands that are born without chance to master the outward graces of the type.”

Throughout America, gentlemen still exist, although they are definitely an endangered species.  The US military used to be a bastion of fine gentlemen, but the Obama transformation marked them for extinction, under the guise of progress, where sexual orientation and progressive nostrums neuter gentlemen and turn them into parsing, mincing PC cheerleaders.  The ones who want to wear the skirts are being given top attention before being separated from the military, as it seems the Secretary of Defense spends more time working to make sure transgenders can serve openly than he does trying to make sure we defeat ISIS.

There are still glimmers of hope, like the young American men, who charged ahead unarmed to deal with an Islamist terrorist on a French train recently. so let’s hope across America, some Moms and Dads are still teaching their sons to be gentlemen, because they are sorely needed!

5 Comments

Filed under American Character, Culture Wars, General Interest, History, Islam, Military, Politics

Ex-Army Chief in Britain declares Cameron lacked “balls” to defeat ISIS

Ex-Army head: PM is to blame for rise of ISIS: Damning accusation by Chief of Staff in explosive new Cameron biography

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3215566/Ex-Army-head-PM-blame-rise-ISIS-Damning-accusation-Chief-Staff-explosive-new-Cameron-biography.html#ixzz3kGiblyqg
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, Terrorism

The Obama Narrative continues

IG Looking Into Allegations that Obama Admin Pressured Intel Analysts to Downplay ISIS

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics, Terrorism

What a tangled web we weave

Fudging the intelligence information led to endless rage from the political left, screaming that President Bush lied about the intelligence information on Iraq’s WMD prior to the US invasion in 2003.  This anger  fueled what some call Bush derangement syndrome, as lefties foam at the mouth, spewing about, “Bush lied, people died!”.

McClatchy DC ran a story on August 13, 2015, “Warnings of jihadists among Syria’s rebels came early, were ignored”, delving into how the Obama administration ignored intelligence about the radicals in Syria, while Secretary of State Kerry tried to promote the Syrian moderates narrative.  At the time Secretary Kerry was spouting this “Syrian moderate” line, open source information was available for anyone with a bent toward researching, to raise doubts about the Obama administration narrative.  I wrote a blog post, “Oh, those pesky” facts”. in the Fall of 2013 pointing to a UK Telegraph article citing IHS Jane’s, a highly regarded defense publication, stating that nearly half of the rebels in Syria were hardline Islamists/jihadis.  The mainstream press and punditry class, by and large, went along with the Syrian moderates narrative

Today the NY Times, “Inquiry Weighs Whether Data on ISIS Was Distorted”, reports on an IG investigation into whether military officers have distorted intelligence on ISIS to promote a political narrative that’s more positive and optimistic about President Obama’s ISIS strategy in Iraq. The report states:

“The prospect of skewed intelligence raises new questions about the direction of the government’s war with the Islamic State, and could help explain why pronouncements about the progress of the campaign have varied widely.

Legitimate differences of opinion are common and encouraged among national security officials, so the inspector general’s investigation is an unusual move and suggests that the allegations go beyond typical intelligence disputes. Government rules state that intelligence assessments “must not be distorted” by agency agendas or policy views. Analysts are required to cite the sources that back up their conclusions and to acknowledge differing viewpoints.

Under federal law, intelligence officials can bring claims of wrongdoing to the intelligence community’s inspector general, a position created in 2011. If officials find the claims credible, they are required to advise the House and Senate Intelligence Committees. That occurred in the past several weeks, the officials said, and the Pentagon’s inspector general decided to open an investigation into the matter.”

Stay tuned!

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics

Trump’s his own bimbo eruption

Donald Trump continues to lead in the GOP field and if you didn’t know that, just listen to one of his speeches, where he will remind you of that in every other breath.  He uses his poll numbers as vindication that he is right, but the truth is when it gets down to details – he’s vague, vacillates and frankly hasn’t offered much in the way of concrete proposals that have any real plan behind them.  He will build a Great Wall of Trump, but do we even need a “Great Wall” or do we need modern enhanced border security, faster interdiction of illegals trying to enter the US, enhanced e-verify, an end to sanctuary cities  and a revamped program to keep track of visa-holders?  He has offered no idea of how his mass deportation plan would work or how he would decide how the “good ones” would be determined and be allowed back in, which is nothing more than a tricky and costly word play that is really amnesty. Why not just deport the bad ones and save us the money of mass deportation of the “good ones”, if he’s going to have expedited reentry?  It does not make any sense.

Beyond illegal immigration, Trump’s plan to defeat ISIS ranks as ludicrous – he’s going to circle them and take their oil.  One can only wonder which of his friends he’ll appoint to oversee the Defense Department, because believe me, he knows the “best” people for everything, as he brags.  He’s for affirmative action and universal health care, he’s for taking care of women (whatever that means) and the rest of his platform may unfold as he rambles along, but rest assured the disjointed, angry tirades against anyone who treats him “unfairly” or disagrees with him, should clue people in to his character, but his “fans” love him and sadly many have begun emulating him.  I have watched in amazement as the comment sections on conservative pundits who disagree with Trump have become angry, name-calling, like you’d expect at a WWF match.

Polls don’t make Donald Trump’s policy ideas (vague as they are) right, all they indicate is the conservative base and some of his celebrity fan base have gravitated to his illegal immigration-anti-Washington spiel and his campaign slogan, “make America great again”.

Last week I bought one of Trump’s books, as I mentioned before, and I read it.  Assuredly, Trump offered many interesting insights into, as the book’s title stated, “TRUMP: How to Get Rich”.  The pride he takes in his children comes across and he offers some worthwhile advice on investing and negotiating, but trying to get to the character of who exactly is Donald Trump, well, he’s a man who has chapters in his book like “Be Strategically Dramatic”, “Sometimes You Still Have To Screw Them”, and “Sometimes You Have To Hold a Grudge”, replete with examples from his life and his guiding principles. Here are some quotes (page 138):

“When somebody hurts you, just go after them as viciously and as violently as you can.  Like it says in the Bible, an eye for an eye.”

Be paranoid.  I know this observation doesn’t make any of us sound very good, but let’s face the fact that it’s possible that even your best friend wants to steal your spouse and your money.”

The chapter on holding a grudge is even more interesting, because Trump relates how for years he had donated huge amounts of money to NY governor, Mario Cuomo and when he called Cuomo to ask for a favor from Cuomo’s son, Andrew, who was running the Department of Housing and Urban Development.  Mario Cuomo refused to do the favor (which Trump doesn’t explain in detail other than to say it was an appropriate favor involving attention to a detail). Trump blew up and for any who are confused with Trump’s vendetta against Megyn Kelly on Twitter, calling her a bimbo last night or his refusing to entertain a question by Jorge Ramos from Univision this evening, well, this chapter on holding a grudge (page 142) explains it.  Trump called in a political favor believing it was owed to him, because he donated a lot of money to Mario Cuomo  (crony capitalism is what most people call this greasing of palms).  Here is how Trump describes the phone call:

“I did the only thing that felt right to me.  I began screaming.  “You son of a bitch!  For years I’ve helped you and never asked for a thing, and when I finally need something, and a totally proper thing at that, you aren’t there for me.  You’re no good.  You’re one of the most disloyal people I’ve known and as far as I’m concerned, you can go to hell.”

My screaming was so loud that two or three people came in from adjoining offices and asked who I was screaming at.  I told them it was Mario Cuomo., a total stiff, a lousy governor, and a disloyal former friend.  Now whenever I see Mario at dinner, I refuse to acknowledge him, talk to him, or even look at him.”

When you hear Trump whining about being treated unfairly, here’s what I believe he means: If you agree with him, fawn over him and puff up his ego, that’s treating him fairly.  If you disagree or criticize him, I believe, he will wage an all out campaign to destroy you.  So, I keep wondering how his character will play in the long, arduous rough and tumble of presidential politics, where being ripped apart by opposition research, pundits and reporters only escalates as the campaign wears on.  We’ve got plenty of rounds to go, so it’s certainly not going to be boring.

10 Comments

Filed under Culture Wars, Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics

Random thoughts on the GOP field

I’m going to ramble off some random thoughts on the GOP candidates this morning. Call me a contrarian to the nth degree, but when it comes to politicians,  I spend my time finding contradictions in their public statements, comparing their past record or stated views with how they “evolved”, and I look for flaws.  Of course, I also look for some positive aspects of both the candidate and his/her policies.  And for me the defining issue for any candidate is character.

For instance, Jeb Bush flailed around on the Iraq War gotcha question, he’s tried to find a position on immigration that’s palatable to the conservative base,and he’s squishy on many other issues.  On the character issue, despite his impeccable manners, I believe he lied when confronted with reports of him making disparaging comments, referring to Donald Trump as an “a-hole”.

Now imagine if during that debate, Jeb Bush had looked Donald Trump straight in the eye and said, “Well, Donald, I said that and I really feel that you do act like an “a-hole”.   What would have Donald Trump’s response been?  I would have had a smidgeon more respect for Jeb Bush if he had owned up to his words and if he had the guts to say it to Donald Trump’s face.   He crawled behind weasel words and he keeps crawling further away from controversy.

Scott Walker has changed positions so many times, on so many issues, that I can’t even keep track anymore and while I admired his guts to fight back in Wisconsin, on the national stage he’s relying on too many consultants and too much polling data to find a position that gains traction.

Donald Trump garners so much attention and his followers seem to be galvanizing into more of a cult than a constituency and thus many of his supporters take each negative comment about Trump’s low-brow antics and  wildly vacillating political positions and programs as a personal attack on them.  I don’t understand what attracts conservatives to this vulgar, brash, obnoxious, disingenuous, faux-conservative egotist, but there you have it, his petty name-calling and bluster is working. Just paint me in his ” You’re Stupid” category, because I will NEVER vote for Donald Trump.

I believe Trump is a snake oil salesman.  Lots of conservatives desperate for real change in Washington have signed on, so let’s see how long his reality show campaign lasts.  He makes pie-in-sky promises, but with his immigration plan announcement, it’s obvious that he now has some actual experienced political professionals helping him create a coherent message and policy. Oh, and his plan to defeat ISIS is absurdly naive and insanely reckless, not to mention demonstrates an alarming lack of knowledge about history and geo-politics.  See below on John Kasich – we would create, perhaps, a larger problem in the region.  Time for them to actually read a little history and study power vacuums.

Ben Carson appeals to me on many levels – he’s humble, he’s thoughtful, he’s willing to carefully study and analyze problems and his personal story is inspirational.  Plus, he’s shown an independent spirit and a strength of character to speak from the heart, rather than using carefully tested sound bites.  I like him a great deal.

Carly – still like her too, but she runs the risk of sounding too scripted as she repeats the same sound bites over and over.

Ted Cruz shows an amazing ability to stay on message too.

John Kasich was on FOX News last night laying out his ISIS plan and it sounds tough, but it doesn’t come anywhere near dealing with the complexities in the region.  He’s got a Trumpian plan too – go take out ISIS and come home – no nation-building.  Sounds good, but then there’s that nasty power vacuum we’ve created again and someone(s) going to fill that and more fighting will ensue or perhaps Iran will move and gobble up that now ISIS-free territory.  How an expanding Iran works to our benefit or lessens our threat from Islamic terror, I don’t know, but hey, “American troops wiping out ISIS, in weeks”, sounds good.  In the real world, it ain’t that easy!

Just think we’ve got more than a year of this 2016 campaign to follow………. YAWN!!!

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics

White House Played Role in Iran Deal Letter Signed by Former Flag Officers

White House Played Role in Iran Deal Letter Signed by Former Flag Officers.

 

3 Comments

Filed under Foreign Policy, General Interest, Military, Politics