Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 40 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
The War on Warriors: Behind the Betrayal of the Men Who Keep Us Free
DoD Secretary Pete Hegseth has produced a powerful denunciation in his latest book of our current military and its policies (prior to his taking over). He does an excellent job of explaining, concisely and with passion, how all the branches
of the military (including our academies) have lost their way; their “woke” policies have not only put our country at risk, but our military people, too. He made a powerful point in this statement:
I reserve my greatest scorn not for politicians because, well, they’re politicians. Radical leftist leaders will push radical leftist prerogatives, consequences be damned. The real blame falls on the military itself. The question of this book is not: How did the military go woke? The real question is: How did the military allow itself to go woke?
We have the benefit of learning more about Hegseth’s early years as a teenager, and can observe his dedication and commitment to the military early on. He doesn’t mince words when he criticizes those who led the military’s distortion of values and policies. And those leaders are right at the top of the military organizations.
But I think the most eye-opening part of his book was his analysis of the role of women in the infantry; he shared data and arguments I hadn’t previously encountered. He supports women enlisting in the military, but emphasizes the importance of placing them where they can be most beneficial:
Wherever the United States military fought there were women in combat zones. They carried the banner of safety, peace, and care. They were mothers, sisters, and angels of combat. In the mythologies of the United States military, as well as in their ad campaigns, women represented all that was good and pure in the world. Of course, this was not always factually true, but all mythologies are attempts at creating order out of the chaos of the world.
But the secretary points out that we haven’t asked the right questions about women in combat. These are the four questions he asks:
First, do we want women to become killers?
[snip]
Second, how do we want men to treat women, both in our military and among the enemy?
[snip]
[Third] how do you treat women in a combat situation without eroding the basic instinct of civilization and the treatment of women in the society at large?
[snip]
[Fourth] Which leads to the vexing cliché that has plagued every warrior since Vietnam:
Veterans are damaged
Veterans are dangerous
Veterans do not matriculate normally into society after war.
What about women combat veterans? What does that look like? We have no idea.
For those people who demand evidence of the performance of women in combat, two trial groups were matched up during Obama’s presidency, with one group having 300 male Marines and 100 female Marines; the second group had 400 male Marines. They were told to complete 134 tasks that would have been encountered in combat. Here are the results:
The all-male Marines performed better 70 percent of the time—completing 93 out of the 134 tasks better than the gender-integrated units. The all-male Marines were found to be faster and more accurate with weapons. Which, you know, is pretty damn important when you are in the business of killing the enemy. The gender-integrated did lead the all-male Marines in one important category: injuries. Yes, the female Marines were injured at twice the rate of the men.
The media, however, tried to invent propaganda that assured the country that women were equal to men. This reaction is similar to the rise of feminism in this country, where women were told that they were equal to men in every way; that there were no differences between the two sexes; and that women should have the same opportunities, no matter their limitations, that the men did. To this day, women still succumb to the brainwashing that we are equal to men in every category, and anyone who disagrees must be a misogynist.
To ensure that we develop a capable organization of warriors, Hegseth advocates for a set standard of training that includes men and women. He insists that lowering the standards for women will lower the standards for our military. In further reviewing the results of the study, the results were glaringly clear:
All-male units were faster in moving to a target, the study found, especially with a heavy weapon like a machine gun. They also had more hits on target and at a faster rate.
[snip]
The study pointed to what it called notable differences in the amount of time it took an all-male unit to evacuate a wounded Marine compared to a mix-gender unit. In addition, women had trouble climbing over a barrier with their packs and often needed assistance. And they suffered more injuries, like stress fractures from carrying heavy packs. Still, the Marines included no specific time differences in the synopsis, and they said the findings do not necessarily mean that women should be barred from ground combat. [Hegseth quotes from NPR, September 10, 2015]
Keep in mind that I’ve primarily discussed the role of women in the infantry, but Hegseth provides a mountain of examples of how the woke military is in dire straits. They are unprepared to do their jobs and protect this country.
You’ll be glad to know that our new secretary, just as he did in his book, now spends a lot of time explaining how military policy has gone astray; how military leaders are more concerned with their next promotion than with developing strongly prepared warriors; that completing the Leftist, Marxist agenda is more important than the Military Code of Conduct. His dedication to this country and its security is exemplary, and he is fearless about taking on the powers of the Left.
At the end of the book, he has included “A Letter to My Sons.” It is quite moving; here it is, in part:
I urge you in this consideration to show courage. You are men. Act like it. But if you choose not to serve in uniform, that is your choice. Then my charge for you is to fight and lead at home—because our war is on all fronts.
I love you boys—and pray that your fight, like mine, means your kids (and may you have many!) and my grandkids live in an America that honors God, cherishes freedom, celebrates families, and lives in peace.
We have much to appreciate about our Secretary of Defense.
[originally published in American Thinker]
Published in Military
When he was nominated, I listened to the audiobook version. Afterward, I thought, “This guy might do a really good job.”
His Slack exposure caused me serious doubts. And what I’ve thought most about that incident is that LT. Hegseth would probably kick Secretary Hegseth’s @@@ for exposing operational details like that. That the latter actually did expose those details (and BS’d his way around what he did) says a lot about him.
He’s made some not-so-good choices, but I think he’s back on track.
They need to keep a few women in the military. The United States Army Field Band needs some sopranos to sing “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.” :) :)
And, like Rush used to say about leftist college professors, as exhibits.
As nurses. Nothing recuperates a man faster and fuller than a woman’s touch and care.
Depends upon the woman.
Methinks SecDef Hegseth is too hard on the military here. Our military is ultimately under civilian control, and some of the non-military civilians who ultimately command the military have changed, in all the wrong ways. For this post, though, all I’m going to say is that, like it or not, flag officers are political animals. They have to be, to keep their jobs.
My National Guard unit was designated “Stop – Loss” during the first Gulf War. After I retired it was activated for the Second Gulf War. Some of our lieutenants were drawn off, and put in charge of some co-ed Basic Training companies. They were disasters. Of all the women in the BCT companies (I don’t remember what the percentage breakdown was), ONE actually met the PT requirements. But that’s just the beginning. While the men generally did pass, their scores were at the bottom of what was needed to avoid recycling. The men, across the board, slowed down to help and encourage the women.
Then the order came down from above: “EVERYBODY WILL PASS. CAPISCE?”
One of those officers stated that, should he ever be ordered to take such an ill – prepared unit into combat, he would resign his commission on the spot.
QuietPi, is your main question about Hegseth’s description about the flag officers? Just wondering; it seemed like you were on the same page with him otherwise.
Oh, very much on the same page. It’s that the civilian side of the house is ultimately in charge, as it should be, and because of that it has the power to appoint top leadership that think like they do. Or select people who realize that they have to adapt to the current political thought in order to advance. That latter group is maybe both salvageable, and the most dangerous. Ridding the military of top leadership that permitted this disaster to occur will be a challenge. I am heartened, though, by what appears to be the rank and file members of our armed forces breathing a sigh of relief as they come out of hiding, as it were, and charging ahead with what they knew all along what they were supposed to be doing.
I just deleted the final paragraph of this post. My blood is getting a bit too hot for civil discourse. In place of that paragraph, I’ll leave you with one name, stripped of military appellation: Mark Milley.