Tuesday, August 8, 2017

Women In The Military Are Infectious To Good Order And Discipline



An X-Rated Conversation About LGBTQ & XX In The Military

By Ilana Mercer


Predictably, the Joint Chiefs of Staff have already pooh-poohed President Trump’s July 26th LGBTQ directives, banning the politicized transgender production from the theater of war.

Why “predictably” (preachy, too)? Whether Republicans like it or not, the military is government; it works like government; is financed like government, and is marred by the same inherent malignancies of government. Like all government-run divisions and departments, the US military is manacled by multiculturalism, feminism and all manner of outré sexual politics, affirmative action, and political correctness that can kill.

And has killed.

Islam Über Alles

The most notorious example of killer PC in the military was Major Nidal Malik Hasan. After he murdered 13, “Commander Colonel Steven Braverman, a colleague of Hasan at the Darnall army medical center on Fort Hood, vouched that Hasan had performed well in his job and had shown no obvious signs of trouble.”

He lied! For it mattered not to the military brass that this mass murderer in-the-making was a lousy and sadistic psychiatrist, that the topic of his “medical” lectures was Jihad, not his VA patients, and that “Soldier of Allah” was embossed on his calling card. The US military made a conscious decision to keep Major Hasan in style.

Hasan’s recorded professional and personal failings notwithstanding, his higher-ups thought he was worth the risk—that he deserved his secret security clearance, his rank, and a six-figure income. With military imprimatur had Hasan breezed about Fort Hood in his Lawrence of Arabia robes.

Likewise did the late Lieutenant General Robert W. Cone, commander of III Corps at Fort Hood, brag about the “no-guns” policies on that base. These left Hasan’s victims helpless: “As a matter of practice, we don’t carry weapons here, this is our home.” A funeral home for some!

LGBTQ as Social Engineering

LGBTQ is a political program why? Central to the concept of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning” in the military is the idea of a group whose members have chosen to identify not as Private X or Private Y, but as a party to a political fraternity that promises and delivers an aggressive, noisy, sexual identity politics.

Evangelizing for the cause is implicit in the introduction of this political production into the military. Ditto payment for drastic elective medical procedures and the attendant hormonal maintenance. In other words, LGBTQ in the military isn’t about enhancing a fighting force, it’s about introducing another state-driven reformation program. Egalitarian access here aims, inadvertently (as always), to grow an arm of government and, at the same time, “re-educate” the country.

Moreover, LGBTQ in the military is but another “Draconian social policy [enforced] without showing any interest in—and in many cases actively suppressing—good-faith information about how those policies are playing out at ground level,” in the prescient words of Stephanie Gutmann, author of “The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America’s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?

From Gender Neutrality to Gender Fluidity

Girls: It was about their presence in the military that Gutmann was warning, circa 2000, not “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning.” As trailblazing as Ms. Gutmann’s shoe-leather investigation was, back then, into the way women had transformed the military, its morale and readiness—never could this author have imagined that from gender neutrality, the military would move into the even Braver New World of gender fluidity.

Gutmann saddled “Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton, Secretaries of Defense Richard Cheney, Les Aspin, and William Cohen, the Congresses who wrote and passed the bills they signed, and the Pentagon leadership who just grinned nervously and sat on their hands while all of this was going on.”

What were the fatal conceits of these leaders and their legislation?

“One of the projects mesmerizing the brass throughout the nineties was the integration of women. … The nineties were a decade in which the brass handed over their soldiers to social planners in love with an unworkable (and in many senses undesirable) vision of a politically correct utopia, one in which men and women toil side by side, equally good at the same tasks, interchangeable, and, of course, utterly undistracted by sexual interest.”

“Women have been in the forces since … well … forever,” observed Gutmann. “But something new happened in the nineties in respect to the way the military handled ‘women’s issues.’ The goals “changed from making good use of the relatively small numbers of women the military had been attracting over the years, to achieving what President Clinton and Secretary of the Army Togo West had called ‘a force that looks like America.’”

The rest is history. The “New Army,” as it was openly termed, was created, “the warrior culture” obliterated, replaced with a weepy sensitivity. What appalled Ms. Gutmann was, again, the utter disinterest expressed by “the big boys (and a few big girls)” “in the hearts and minds of soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen in various ways during the last half of the nineties.”

This craven indifference is still apparent today, and is evinced in leadership’s reaction to President Trump’s transgender-policy impetus. When Sen. Orrin Hatch, joined by GOP leaders, enjoined the president against his transgender ban—did he/they show any interest in “good-faith information” about how transsexualism “plays out at ground level,” to echo Gutmann’s charge against political and military leadership, circa 2000?

Do these arch social-planners give a hoot about how flesh-and-blood men interact with a mate who suddenly grows breasts and bats eyelashes at a buddy? And how do these layered dynamics affect life-and-death situations?

Still, LGBTQ in the military is inconsequential by now. It’s a minor matter in a spent force, shot through with punitive sexual politics, hobbled and demoralized by the needs of women, as interpreted by military and political leadership.

A Few Good Women

To the surprise of liberals, a few good women have protested. Former Army Spec. Catherine Aspy, for instance. Her account, “published in Reader’s Digest, February, 1999,” was relayed by columnist Fred Reed. Aspy, who had “graduated from Harvard in 1992 and enlisted in the Army in 1995,” said this:

“I was stunned. The Army was a vast day-care center, full of unmarried teen-age mothers using it as a welfare home. I took training seriously and really tried to keep up with the men. I found I couldn’t. It wasn’t even close. I had no idea the difference in physical ability was so huge. There were always crowds of women sitting out exercises or on crutches from training injuries. They [the Army] were so scared of sexual harassment that women weren’t allowed to go anywhere without another woman along. They called them ‘Battle Buddies.’ It was crazy. I was twenty-six years old but I couldn’t go to the bathroom by myself.”

Neutered Since the 1990s

Biological reprogramming and brainwashing, curtesy of Rome on the Potomac, were already plain to see in a Pentagon-endorsed VH1 series entitled “Military Diaries,” which this writer covered in 2002. Touted as a “powerful firsthand look at our heroes, their stories and the music that gets them through,” this “militarytainment” could but strengthen the resolve of the enemy.

Welcoming the viewer were the thrusting pelvis and pendulous breasts of a recruit by the name of Charlie—swaying to the music—followed by Laurie, Danielle, Paul, and Jimmie, among others. These poster-girlie recruits wanted viewers to know that their “real duty is to provide humanitarian aid to the Afghans” (it’s in the revised Oath of Enlistment, apparently). They shared their dreams of being “self-help authors.” And they imparted the joys of manning posts like “Diversity Awareness Officers” and “Drug and Alcohol Counselors.” Suffice it to say that the “human face” of our coed men and women of the armed forces exudes mush, not mettle. “Military Diaries” was a motivational video for America’s ascetic, Islamic enemy.

Instead of being ashamed of this let-it-all-hang-out credo, the men at the top authorized it, proud to parade emotional whimsy like they would a Purple Heart.

Not to venture into X-rated conversation, but XX in the military has been a boon to … urology. The “politically driven reformation,” since the 1990s, has seen racy descriptions in medical journals about incontinence and urinary tract infections (UTIs) plaguing our military lasses in deployment settings. In addition to their inferior physical strength and superior propensity for neuroses and sexual showiness; women’s urinary tracts suffer in “austere environments.” ISIS formations, needless to say, are free of UTIs, because they’re not freighted by women.

In any event, LGBTQ is a fig leaf, camouflaging that the army was neutered by “recruiting nineties style,” where nothing less than “proportional representation” of women became the recruiting goal. The official line then became “something like, ‘We want you [ladies] to join us; we want you to stay with us. Tell us what you don’t feel ‘comfortable’ with so we can change it.”

And they did.

Ultimately, the idea that everyone is eligible to serve in government institutions runs counter to the imperative to contain government growth and reach.

From The Unz Review  (August 1, 2017)

Also See: An Army In Shambles.

No comments:

Post a Comment