QOTD: The Military Has One Job: Winning Wars

 

Question: How can President Trump claim to represent all U.S citizens, regardless of sexual orientation, when he banned transgender individuals from joining the military? Isn’t that discrimination?

Trey Gowdy’s Response (in a CNN interview): “Nobody has a ‘right’ to serve in the Military. Nobody. What makes people think the Military is an equal opportunity employer? It is very far from it….and for good reasons–let me cite a few. The Military uses prejudice regularly and consistently to deny citizens from joining for being too old or too young, too fat or too skinny, too tall or too short. Citizens are denied for having flat feet, or for missing or additional fingers. . .

“The Military has one job: Winning War. Anything else is a distraction and a liability. Did someone just scream ‘That isn’t Fair’? War is VERY unfair, there are no exceptions made for being special or challenged or socially wonderful.

“YOU must change yourself to meet Military standards…..Not the other way around. I say again: You don’t change the Military… you must change yourself. The Military doesn’t need to accommodate anyone with special issues. The Military needs to Win Wars….and keep our Country safe….PERIOD! If any of your personal issues are a liability that detract from readiness or lethality… Thank you for applying and good luck in future endeavors. Who’s next in line?….any other questions?”

 

Trey Gowdy isn’t serving in our government any longer, and I sure miss his direct, no-nonsense style. He knows that people’s belief in their entitlement could put this entire country at risk. The Left believes that every one of us must bow to their gods, whether they are sexuality, equality, fairness (on their terms), political correctness and accepting everything from transgenderism to climate change.

I disagree.

As Trey Gowdy says, the military has one job: winning wars.

Published in Military
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

There are 56 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. JoelB Member

    Common sense is so uncommon these days.

    • #1
    • June 12, 2019, at 6:50 AM PDT
    • 8 likes
  2. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    JoelB (View Comment):

    Common sense is so uncommon these days.

    Truer words could not be spoken, @joelb! The narcissism of the Left is completely counter to the selfless service of the military.

    • #2
    • June 12, 2019, at 6:52 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  3. DonG Coolidge

    Transgenderism is not a sexual orientation, so the question to Trey is dumb.

    I agree the military *should* be very discriminating, when it comes to execution of its mission. It needs to be a meritocracy based on effectiveness. 

    • #3
    • June 12, 2019, at 6:58 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  4. Zafar Member

    Banning fat people from the military because they are fat may help achieve this win wars mission. It’s hard to see how banning trans people because they are trans does that. In fact banning capable people for things like race or religion or gender or sexual orientation seems like sacrificing military efficiency to make a culture wars point. Which the US can probably afford to do at this point, but anyway, not part of the mission statement.

    • #4
    • June 12, 2019, at 7:05 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  5. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Zafar (View Comment):
    In fact banning capable people for things like race or religion or gender or sexual orientation seems like sacrificing military efficiency to make a culture wars point

    I think you’re lumping some things together that shouldn’t be together, @zafar. I don’t know of any religion or race that is banned. Do you?

    • #5
    • June 12, 2019, at 7:08 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  6. Zafar Member

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    In fact banning capable people for things like race or religion or gender or sexual orientation seems like sacrificing military efficiency to make a culture wars point

    I think you’re lumping some things together that shouldn’t be together, @zafar. I don’t know of any religion or race that is banned. Do you?

    Any more, no. 

    The point is: it was stupid, from a military POV, to ban African Americans because they were African Americans, just like it was stupid to ban gays because they were gays.

    Banning trans people because they are trans similarly doesn’t address the issue of individual capability.

    • #6
    • June 12, 2019, at 7:18 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Zafar (View Comment):
    Banning trans people because they are trans similarly doesn’t address the issue of individual capability.

    I’m not going to argue the gay issue with you, Zafar, but the trans issue adds all kinds of complexities that the military shouldn’t need to deal with–both the leadership and the military members. And I’ve written on this a number of times, the confusion over gender identity and how their “feelings” about their gender, not their biology, determines which sex they should be quartered with, for example. There are all kinds of ways they can serve this country that creates less disruption.

    • #7
    • June 12, 2019, at 7:23 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  8. Hang On Member

    Susan Quinn: The Military needs to Win Wars

    So the politicians can p**s it away.

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Banning trans people because they are trans similarly doesn’t address the issue of individual capability.

    Group cohesiveness and group effectiveness are what is important in the military rather than individual capability. If there is a very capable individual as measured by one dimension who destroys group effectiveness, then it isn’t worth it unless you can isolate that person to use that effectiveness in that one dimension.

    • #8
    • June 12, 2019, at 8:38 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  9. Jim McConnell Member

    Thank you for the post, @susanquinn. I guess, for once, I’m glad someone watches CNN.

    • #9
    • June 12, 2019, at 9:08 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  10. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    I also know that in spite of some of the medical community hopping on the bandwagon, little is known about transgenderism and its implication. Research is very limited, because it’s only recently been identified. As my husband says, the military is not a place to conduct social experiments.

    • #10
    • June 12, 2019, at 9:08 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  11. Richard Easton Member

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    Zafar (View Comment):
    In fact banning capable people for things like race or religion or gender or sexual orientation seems like sacrificing military efficiency to make a culture wars point

    I think you’re lumping some things together that shouldn’t be together, @zafar. I don’t know of any religion or race that is banned. Do you?

    Any more, no.

    The point is: it was stupid, from a military POV, to ban African Americans because they were African Americans, just like it was stupid to ban gays because they were gays.

    Banning trans people because they are trans similarly doesn’t address the issue of individual capability.

    People who think they are trans and want the surgery are incapacitated for a long time. The surgery is expensive and has poor results. Many women don’t want men supposedly transitioning into women to use their facilities and I think they have a point.

    • #11
    • June 12, 2019, at 9:24 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  12. Susan Quinn Contributor
    Susan Quinn Post author

    Jim McConnell (View Comment):

    Thank you for the post, @susanquinn. I guess, for once, I’m glad someone watches CNN.

    Not me! I found this quote online.

    • #12
    • June 12, 2019, at 9:47 AM PDT
    • 1 like
  13. PHenry Member

    They used to reject you for flat feet. Now, you have some kind of right granted by your creator to be in the military? 

    The left sees the military as just another government program to leverage to implement their leftist agenda. Winning wars is an afterthought. 

    • #13
    • June 12, 2019, at 10:41 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  14. Dick Stanley Coolidge

    The military also isn’t, @susanquinn, in the business of paying for sex-change operations for the transgendered which is what some of them want.

    • #14
    • June 12, 2019, at 10:55 AM PDT
    • 3 likes
  15. Annefy Member

    Even if you’ve “transitioned”, my understanding is that there’s an ongoing drug regime that must be kept to. Drugs that have a lot of side effects, by the way.

    I think the medical necessities should disqualify someone.

    As an aside, regarding sharing facilities, men and women in the military do at times share sleeping quarters, but not bathroom facilities.

    Which is my excuse to tell my favorite transsexual story. Back in the 60’s, TRW had an employee who went to Switzerland to transition to a woman. Back then you had to live the life of the sex you were transitioning to for at least a year before any medical steps were taken.

    So the mucky mucks at TRW had to gather to decide which bathroom the employee would use while he was dressing and behaving as a woman, but was physically 100% male.

    They decided on the Standard Oil gas station down the street.

    And so it was.

    • #15
    • June 12, 2019, at 11:48 AM PDT
    • 7 likes
  16. Skyler Coolidge

    Trey Gowdy put on a good show but in the end he never got anything done. 

    • #16
    • June 12, 2019, at 1:47 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  17. EJHill Podcaster

    Zafar: Banning trans people because they are trans similarly doesn’t address the issue of individual capability.

    I beg to differ. Just like an otherwise healthy diabetic would be rejected because fighting wars often means being deprived on ongoing, long term medical intervention, the military does not want to be concerned if individuals are getting their weekly testosterone or estrogen injections after the appropriate testing for those hormones in their system.

    ”Excuse me, guys. I have to leave the front lines. It’s time for my shot.”

    Yeah, that works. Not.

    • #17
    • June 12, 2019, at 2:04 PM PDT
    • 7 likes
  18. Vectorman Thatcher

    The Quote of the Day series is the easiest way to start a fun conversation on Ricochet. We have only 5 days left on the June Signup SheetWe even include tips for finding great quotes, so choose your favorite quote and sign up today!

    • #18
    • June 12, 2019, at 2:16 PM PDT
    • Like
  19. Stad Thatcher

    Susan Quinn: Nobody has a ‘right’ to serve in the Military. Nobody.

    I sure wish this would apply to women in combat . . .

    • #19
    • June 12, 2019, at 2:37 PM PDT
    • 6 likes
  20. Joe Boyle Member

    I spent a year in Korea drinking buddies with a Staff Sergeant who happened to be gay. We never discussed sex orientation and everything was ok. After Korea I went to Ft Polk. The SSG was there and everything was still OK. Then the SSG became involved with a male Private whose mother was a Navy Officer and his father was a Marine Officer. And that’s when the trouble started. The SSG’s career was over and I left for recruiting before things were worked out for the Private. About six years later I was in Germany having lunch and a 1St Lieutenant approached me and talked to me as if we had gone to different schools together. It was the former Private. I don’t know how that was worked out. But I do know, things work the best when one keeps it zipped and one’s preferences out of the work place.

    • #20
    • June 12, 2019, at 4:21 PM PDT
    • 3 likes
  21. Zafar Member

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Zafar: Banning trans people because they are trans similarly doesn’t address the issue of individual capability.

    I beg to differ. Just like an otherwise healthy diabetic would be rejected because fighting wars often means being deprived on ongoing, long term medical intervention, the military does not want to be concerned if individuals are getting their weekly testosterone or estrogen injections after the appropriate testing for those hormones in their system.

    ”Excuse me, guys. I have to leave the front lines. It’s time for my shot.”

    Yeah, that works. Not.

    That is a completely reasonable approach to vetting applicants for combat roles. And it’s functional in its approach (by which I mean specific about why a certain group of people may not be suited to a combat role).

    But there are a high number of non-combat roles in the military today (>60%?), which are also important parts of the war machine. The relevance of the rule for most of these isn’t obviously apparent. It makes no sense to apply it when assessing applicants for these.

    • #21
    • June 12, 2019, at 7:11 PM PDT
    • Like
  22. Zafar Member

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: The Military needs to Win Wars

    So the politicians can p**s it away.

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Banning trans people because they are trans similarly doesn’t address the issue of individual capability.

    Group cohesiveness and group effectiveness are what is important in the military rather than individual capability. If there is a very capable individual as measured by one dimension who destroys group effectiveness, then it isn’t worth it unless you can isolate that person to use that effectiveness in that one dimension.

    That’s arguably the case when any previously excluded or separated group is integrated into the Forces. Specifically I’m thinking of the impact of integrating African Americans in US battalions, or Jews into the Prussian Army. The point is, countries did it despite warnings of short term issues because they believed that the long term goals were worth it for their societies and armed Forces.

    • #22
    • June 12, 2019, at 7:16 PM PDT
    • Like
  23. Skyler Coolidge

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Hang On (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn: The Military needs to Win Wars

    So the politicians can p**s it away.

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Banning trans people because they are trans similarly doesn’t address the issue of individual capability.

    Group cohesiveness and group effectiveness are what is important in the military rather than individual capability. If there is a very capable individual as measured by one dimension who destroys group effectiveness, then it isn’t worth it unless you can isolate that person to use that effectiveness in that one dimension.

    That’s arguably the case when any previously excluded or separated group is integrated into the Forces. Specifically I’m thinking of the impact of integrating African Americans in US battalions, or Jews into the Prussian Army. The point is, countries did it despite warnings of short term issues because they believed that the long term goals were worth it for their societies and armed Forces.

    That’s insulting to compare blacks to perverts.

    • #23
    • June 12, 2019, at 7:18 PM PDT
    • 1 like
  24. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Banning fat people from the military because they are fat may help achieve this win wars mission. It’s hard to see how banning trans people because they are trans does that. In fact banning capable people for things like race or religion or gender or sexual orientation seems like sacrificing military efficiency to make a culture wars point. Which the US can probably afford to do at this point, but anyway, not part of the mission statement.

    The issue, which Gowdy could have clarified, is with deployability. People who assert they are “trans” require extensive medical support and, if “transitioning,” are non-deployable for extensive periods of time, while burdening the military medical system and budget. This is in no way comparable to religion or race or gender, although that is certainly the political ploy.

    • #24
    • June 12, 2019, at 9:10 PM PDT
    • 4 likes
  25. Clifford A. Brown Contributor

    Zafar (View Comment):

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Zafar: Banning trans people because they are trans similarly doesn’t address the issue of individual capability.

    I beg to differ. Just like an otherwise healthy diabetic would be rejected because fighting wars often means being deprived on ongoing, long term medical intervention, the military does not want to be concerned if individuals are getting their weekly testosterone or estrogen injections after the appropriate testing for those hormones in their system.

    ”Excuse me, guys. I have to leave the front lines. It’s time for my shot.”

    Yeah, that works. Not.

    That is a completely reasonable approach to vetting applicants for combat roles. And it’s functional in its approach (by which I mean specific about why a certain group of people may not be suited to a combat role).

    But there are a high number of non-combat roles in the military today (>60%?), which are also important parts of the war machine. The relevance of the rule for most of these isn’t obviously apparent. It makes no sense to apply it when assessing applicants for these.

    No such thing. It is not “combat” versus “non-combat.” It is deployable versus non-deployable. Period. An overwhelming number of those deployed are “non-combat” service-members, if “combat” is understood as infantry, armor, artillery, and armed aircraft crews. Indeed, warships have many “non-combat” personnel aboard.

    • #25
    • June 12, 2019, at 9:14 PM PDT
    • 5 likes
  26. E. Kent Golding Member

    Zafar (View Comment):

    Banning fat people from the military because they are fat may help achieve this win wars mission. It’s hard to see how banning trans people because they are trans does that. In fact banning capable people for things like race or religion or gender or sexual orientation seems like sacrificing military efficiency to make a culture wars point. Which the US can probably afford to do at this point, but anyway, not part of the mission statement.

    Trans people require way more medical care. They are not as physically capable , and requires accommodation on many things. They impede the mission and lower efficiency. Keeping them in the military impedes military military efficiency.

    • #26
    • June 13, 2019, at 2:08 AM PDT
    • 6 likes
  27. EJHill Podcaster

    Zafar: But there are a high number of non-combat roles in the military today (>60%?), which are also important parts of the war machine. The relevance of the rule for most of these isn’t obviously apparent. It makes no sense to apply it when assessing applicants for these.

    First off, please understand that in war situations there are times when there is no such thing as a non-combat role. Sometimes you go to war and sometimes the war comes to you. That’s why in the United States Marine Corps everyone is a rifleman first, including women. If you receive a lawful order to take up arms and fight the enemy in combat you don’t get to say, “No. I’m sorry. I’m trans and I didn’t sign up for this.” That’s the kind of “special” individual the military does not need.

     

    • #27
    • June 13, 2019, at 7:42 AM PDT
    • 5 likes
  28. Joe Boyle Member

    Whenever possible units deploy at full strength. Non-deployable soldiers are traded for deployable soldiers. The deploying unit gets a dud the other unit would like to see gone. And the non deploying unit gets a non deployable dud. And everybody is unhappy. Most unhappy is the deployable dud who quickly gets to work trying to destroy morale in the deploying unit. A leadership challenge. A challenge to embrace and love because every SJW knows diversity is our strength.

    • #28
    • June 13, 2019, at 10:09 AM PDT
    • 2 likes
  29. Stad Thatcher

    Clifford A. Brown (View Comment):
    The issue, which Gowdy could have clarified, is with deployability. People who assert they are “trans” require extensive medical support and, if “transitioning,” are non-deployable for extensive periods of time, while burdening the military medical system and budget. This is in no way comparable to religion or race or gender, although that is certainly the political ploy.

    Don’t forget the idea of joining the military for the sole purpose of having it pay for the transsexual operation. I’m willing to bet this is the sole reason for these people joining.

    The costs of maternity care are denied if the wife of a recruit, or the recruit herself, is pregnant. It should reply to sex-change operations as well. If this has changed, then I’m gonna re-up to get knee replacements . . .

    • #29
    • June 13, 2019, at 12:40 PM PDT
    • 2 likes
  30. Zafar Member

    EJHill (View Comment):

    Zafar: But there are a high number of non-combat roles in the military today (>60%?), which are also important parts of the war machine. The relevance of the rule for most of these isn’t obviously apparent. It makes no sense to apply it when assessing applicants for these.

    First off, please understand that in war situations there are times when there is no such thing as a non-combat role. Sometimes you go to war and sometimes the war comes to you. That’s why in the United States Marine Corps everyone is a rifleman first, including women. If you receive a lawful order to take up arms and fight the enemy in combat you don’t get to say, “No. I’m sorry. I’m trans and I didn’t sign up for this.” That’s the kind of “special” individual the military does not need.

    You’re assuming that trans people join the military in order to refuse to fight. Is that realistic?

    It might be good to look at the experience of other advanced countries that allow trans people to serve. How has that affected their military capacity?

    • #30
    • June 13, 2019, at 4:03 PM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2