Help fight the
liberal media

click title for home page
Be a subscriber

The complete history of Barack Obama's second term -- click Views/Repies for top stories

  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 15      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   7   Next   »

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #76 

Top military brass say women should have to register for the draft

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #77 

Obama bucks history -- directs Pentagon to make guns safer, not more lethal

Rowan SCarborough (WashingtonTimes) is reporting that wartime U.S. presidents have taken keen personal interest in picking the most lethal gun for the military.

But in Barack Obama's first foray into small-arms procurement for the armed forces, his Jan. 4 executive order on gun control directs the Pentagon to find ways to make not so much more lethal firearms, but safer ones.

His direct order has brought a few snickers among retired combatants who argue that the commander in chief is issuing his directive at a time of more pressing small-arms priorities. The military, critics say, fields a flawed personal rifle and has spent more than a decade selecting a new off-the-shelf pistol, with no winner yet.

Retired Army Maj. Gen. Robert Scales, an artillery officer in Vietnam who is steeped in military history, says at least three former presidents immersed themselves in ballistics -- for reasons other than safety.

Abraham Lincoln, the Civil War commander in chief, tested emerging "repeater" rifles in the White House "back yard" and championed the Spencer model.

Theodore Roosevelt, the combat-hardened Rough Rider, ordered development of the Springfield rifle.

John F. Kennedy, considered a founding father of the Green Berets, pushed the Army to give up the M14 for the new AR-15, which became the venerable M16. Kennedy envisioned the automatic rifle as the perfect counterinsurgency weapon in South Vietnam.

With that White House history, Mr. Scales said, "I had to laugh" at Mr. Obama's priority -- smart guns.

"Presidential involvement in small arms has been strategic and game-changing in our history," said Mr. Scales, a former commandant of the U.S. Army War College. "Obama comes along and tells the Army that, in this administration, money is going into small arms to build -- not a deadly weapon, not an effective weapon, not a dominant weapon, not a lifesaving weapon, not a technological cutting-edge weapon -- but a weapon that prevents accidental discharge. Give me a break."

Obama, who has made reducing gun violence and increasing gun control a top priority, signed a Jan. 4 order that directs the Defense Department, as well as the Departments of Justice and Homeland Security, to "Increase research and development efforts."

A White House fact sheet states: "The Presidential Memorandum directs the departments to conduct or sponsor research into gun safety technology that would reduce the frequency of accidental discharge or unauthorized use of firearms, and improve the tracing of lost or stolen guns. Within 90 days, these agencies must prepare a report outlining a research-and-development strategy designed to expedite the real-world deployment of such technology for use in practice."

"Byzantine rules"

Mr. Scales is one the Army's sharpest critics of the primary soldier's rifle -- the M4 carbine, modeled after the AR-15. He believes it is prone to overheating and jamming, and that Germans have produced a better-designed carbine toted by many U.S. special operations troops.

The Washington Times published a two-part series on the M4 in which soldiers who had been thrust into heavy direct combat complained that the magazine jammed, among other flaws. Some admitted, on the record, to breaking the rules and buying off-the-shelf foreign replacement components.

The Army defends the M4 as popular among soldiers. Its critics say surveys should focus on soldiers who have actually fired the weapon in a series of battles. They also say polled soldiers have nothing with which to compare it because the M4 is the only main rifle issued.

Mr. Scales has found a powerful Capitol Hill ally, Sen. John McCain, in focusing on small arms. Their importance has grown in the war on terrorism, where close-in combat is a more common ground engagement in Iraq and Afghanistan, as opposed to fighting with tanks and attack jets.

Mr. McCain, Arizona Republican and chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, issued a blistering report this fall on another Army small-arms program -- the replacement for the M9 pistol.

"America's Most Wasted: Army's Costly Misfire" said the Army has sent to a perplexed industry pages of complex requirements for what is supposed to be a $500 off-the-shelf Modular Handgun System.

"The Army has managed to create entirely new acquisition problems for what should be a simple, straightforward purchase of a commercially available item," said Mr. McCain. "The Army's effort to buy a new handgun has already taken 10 years and produced nothing but more than 350 [pages of] requirements micromanaging extremely small unimportant details and Byzantine rules and processes the Army wants followed, many of which are unnecessary or anti-competitive."

Mr. Scales met recently with Mr. McCain on the topic of giving troops better rifles, machine guns and pistols.

"The only real hero in this discussion is McCain because McCain gets it," Mr. Scales said.

The senator already has taken steps to get the Army's attention.

The fiscal 2016 defense budget/policy bill orders the Army and Marine Corps to submit a comprehensive report to Congress on how they plan to modernize small arms during the next 15 years.

On carrying out Obama's executive order on smart guns, an Army spokesman said: "As the President's executive order directed DoD regarding research, DoD will have to decide on the lead agency for the program. Army will proceed if so directed."

The nonprofit Association of the United States Army reports in its weekly "tip sheet" to members: "As part of a gun-safety initiative launched by Barack Obama in early January, the Army-led program will look at new technology to reduce accidental discharge and unauthorized use of guns. A research plan is expected by early April."

The National Institutes of Health released a report on firearms deaths and injuries from 2002 to 2011 for military personnel not deployed in the wars. It found 4,657 total firearms injuries in the 1.4 million active force, or about 400 per year at a time when stateside units were undergoing increased combat training for Afghanistan and Iraq. Of those, 35 percent were fatal. Of those, half were suicides and homicides.

"In circumstances other than war, rates of both fatal and nonfatal firearm-related injuries are much lower among military members than civilian males aged 18-44," the report said.

Presidents in arms

As for White House gun aficionados, Abraham Lincoln personally test-fired the Spencer repeating rifle on at least three occasions and hosted the inventor for personal instruction.

"Lincoln was a hands-on commander in chief who, given his passion for gadgetry, was keenly interested in the artillery used by his Union troops during the Civil War," says an article in "Lincoln attended artillery and cannon tests and met at the White House with inventors demonstrating military prototypes. Although there was a standing order against firing weapons in the District of Columbia, Lincoln even test-fired muskets and repeating rifles on the grassy expanses around the White House, now known as the Ellipse and the National Mall."

Historians differ on his role. Some say his endorsement directly led the Army to purchase tens of thousands of Spencers, their automatic fire changing the war's course. Other articles say a stubborn Army ordnance command had finally begun ordering the gun before Obama's hands-on testing.

Theodore Roosevelt, too, was an avid shooter and hunter. He promoted the 1903 Springfield rifle for his troops. He met one day at the White House with gunmakers and ordered a change to the bayonet.

As a sportsman and a National Rifle Association member, John F. Kennedy enjoyed shooting rifles and shotguns.

As president, he played a direct role in forcing the Army to compete three rifles -- the in-house M14, the Armalite AR-15 and the AK-47. When the Army picked its M14, Robert S. McNamara, Kennedy's revolution-minded defense secretary, was suspicious.

Kennedy himself ordered an independent investigation on Nov. 6, 1962. The probe found that the Army was biased toward its rifle. The generals eventually acquiesced and began buying the AR-15, designated the M16, in 1964 after Kennedy's assassination.

The AR-15 fit Kennedy's national security strategy to prepare for unconventional wars in which small arms can tip the balance.

Then-Army Maj. Danford A. Kern chronicled the president's love for the M16 in his 2006 master's thesis at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

"President Kennedy, a life NRA member and gun buff, had been given two AR-15s from Colt," Mr. Kern wrote. "He had written Colt a letter telling them how much he enjoyed shooting the rifles. This is a clear example of the influence of civilian organizational culture from both the NRA and from civilian industry on potential military decision processes."

That Army-Kennedy standoff was not the last fight between generals and politicians over which gun to buy.

In 2013, then-Sen. Tom Coburn, hearing complaints from Oklahoma soldiers about the M4's performance in the war on terrorism, badgered the Army to conduct a carbine competition.

His efforts led the Army secretary to order a shoot-off. But with a new Army secretary in office, the top brass stopped the competition and proclaimed that no challenging gun outperformed the M4 by a wide enough margin to justify a change.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #78 

DoD will allow troops on duty to breastfeed

Susan Jones (CNSNews) is reporting that, as part of his commitment to build the military "force of the future," Defense Secretary Ash Carter on Thursday announced a series of "family-friendly" initiatives to attract and retain "the best America has to offer."

"We are not Google. We are not Walmart. We're war fighters. But that doesn't mean we should not be challenging ourselves just like the private sector," Carter told reporters at the Pentagon.

He said the goal of the new initiatives is to boost the support provided to families so more of them will enlist -- and stay.

"Among the stresses military families face, having and raising children is near the top," Carter said. He noted that military women of child-bearing age are retained at a rate 30 percent lower than that of men, and the reason many women leave the military is work and family conflict.

"To build the force of the future, tackling these problems is imperative, especially when the generation coming of age today places a higher priority on work/life balance."

(Unlike the force of the past, which fought and usually won wars in the space of a few years, the force of the future is engaged in protracted wars or missions on multiple continents. The Defense Department, with Thursday's announcement, aims to make military service competitive with careers in the private sector.)

The Defense Secretary outlined the following initiatives:

•  12 weeks of fully paid maternity leave across the joint force, up from 6 weeks in many cases, but below the 18 weeks now offered by the Navy. "Certainly, offering a more generous standard for maternity leave is imperative for attracting and retaining talent," Carter said. (He assured Navy women who are currently pregnant that they can take 18 weeks of leave.)

•  10-14 days of paid paternity leave for new fathers. "For those who want to become dads, or are about to, I want them to know this leave is available to them and I want them to make full use of it," Carter said.

•  New investments in subsidized child care: "We will increase child care access to 14 hours a day across the force...from before revellie to after taps," Carter said.

•  Making military workplaces more accommodating to women when they return from maternity leave: The focus here is to make it easier for new mothers to continue breast-feeding, if they choose to do that.

"To make the transition between maternity leave and returning to work for military mothers smoother, to enhance our mission effectiveness, and to comply with standards that apply to nearly every organization outside the military, I am requiring that a mother's room be made available at every facility with more than 50 women, which means the establishment of some 3,600 rooms across the country," Carter said.

•  Reasonable accommodations for those who face geographic challenges: "For a family who has a son or daughter who receives treatment at a particular hospital or who suffers from a particular disability, remaining longer in location where their specialized high-quality care can make a world of difference," Carter said. "Other families want to remain in one place longer to allow a son or daughter to finish high school in one place with friends, teachers and teams they're close to. Or perhaps to be close to grandparents or other family. These are all important.

"When the needs of the force permit a service member to stay at their current location, we will empower commanders to make reasonable accommodations, in exchange for an additional service obligation."

•  Reproductive technologies: "We can help our men and women preserve their ability to start a family, even if they suffer certain combat injuries. That's why we will cover the cost of freezing sperm or eggs through a pilot program for active duty service members --  a benefit that will help provide men and women, especially those deployed in combat, with greater peace of mind. This investment will also provide greater flexibility for our troops who want to start a family, but find it difficult because of where they find themselves in their careers."

Carter said he's also committed to "continuing to look at how we can provide advanced reproductive technologies like IVF to a wider population. Today, we provide reduced cost treatment at six locations across the country, and we will study how to broaden this coverage in the future."

Asked how he will pay for the initiatives, give budget constraints, Carter said he "looked very carefully at the costs, which are sometimes not monetary costs, but they're costs in terms of...lost man-hours, and we did calculate them.

"And that's one of the reasons why you're always trying to find the sweet spot in a personnel management decision between additional cost and quality retention. Because remember, it's a huge loss to us when we have someone who's been with us for a number of years and has reached a level of proficiency in contribution to the force and then decides to leave. So that's the reason why we are so intent upon making these investments.

He said all of the new costs will be incorporated in the service budgets, which are separate from the war budget.

"As we introduce today's...reforms, our calculation is quite simple. We want our people to be able to balance two of the most solemn commitments they could ever make: a commitment to serve their country and a commitment to start and support a family," Carter said.

"We want to make sure our troops have our support, and first and foremost, that our force remains effective and always ready. With what I've announced today, I believe our military will be better prepared for the future, and my successor's successors will continue to inherit the finest fighting force the world has ever known.

"We will become a more powerful magnet for the high-end talent we will need in the coming generation. We will make it easier to retain the top talent we have and to develop future leaders.

He also assured everyone, "there'll be more initiatives to come."

Translation: "We're not done screwing with the military. You ain't seen nothin' yet."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #79 

Team Obama to use 6 military bases to house illegal immigrants


Judicial Watch is reporting that a year after fierce opposition disrupted a contentious plan to use American military bases as shelters for illegal immigrants, the Obama administration is quietly working to make it happen and six facilities throughout the nation are currently being considered.

Under the plan the military installations would house droves of under-aged illegal immigrants, officially known as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC), who have entered the country from Central America in the last two years. Most have come from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras and they're being relocated to states across the nation to make room for more in the overwhelmed Mexican border region. Judicial Watch has covered the crisis extensively and in 2014 reported that a hangar at Ft. Bliss in El Paso, Texas was being covertly used as an illegal alien processing center for UACs. At the time the administration was under fire for using three military installations -- Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Ventura County Naval Base in southern California and Ft. Still Army Base in Oklahoma -- to process the barrage of illegal immigrant youths that had crossed into the U.S. through Mexico.

Now the administration has revived its controversial idea to house UACs in active military facilities. The Pentagon quietly notified lawmakers from the jurisdictions where the bases are located during the holidays when things are slow and many take vacation. One of them is Alabama Congresswoman Martha Roby, who like many of her colleagues is outraged. Roby has made the Department of Defense (DOD) notice, delivered via electronic mail, public. It's signed by Matthew Rhoades, a legislative affairs policy chief to the Secretary of Defense, and says that six DOD facilities were being assessed this month for use "as a temporary shelter for unaccompanied children." The installations on the short list are Maxwell Air Force Base in Congresswoman Roby's Alabama district, Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida, Grand Forks Air Force Base in North Dakota, Naval Support Activity in Pennsylvania, Hanscom Air Force Base in Massachusetts and Travis Air Force Base in California.

The Pentagon notice says that the Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is "expanding its capacity to provide shelter for the current influx of Unaccompanied Children at the U.S. Southern Border." An increase in shelter capacity is a prudent step to ensure ORR meets its "statutory responsibility" to provide the illegal immigrant youths with shelter, the document states. Besides the military bases, HHS is also activating two federal facilities in the next few months to house UACs. The first is an 800-bed facility that will open in Homestead, Florida in February and the other is a 1,000-bed facility in Lakewood, Colorado that will begin taking UACs in April.

Roby has vowed to fight the plan to bring detained illegal alien minors to Maxwell-Gunter Air Force Base as she did a year ago when the administration first considered it as a UAC shelter. "This is a terrible idea," the congresswoman writes in a Montgomery newspaper piece published this week. "Our active military installations have very important jobs to do," Roby writes. "At Maxwell-Gunter, that includes things like training, education and cyber activities, many times in classified settings that are very sensitive. There's no question in my mind that forcing our base to house and secure hundreds of illegal minors would negatively impact the mission. We cannot allow that to happen."

Go ahead! Tell me this won't affect readiness.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #80 

American hero says Obama's military is a "girly man outfit"


WND is reporting that one of America's greatest heroes is charging Barack Obama with deliberate sabotage of the nation's armed forces.

The serious accusation leveled against Obama comes from retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the Medal of Honor, who told WND bluntly, "Obama loathes the military."

"His goal is to reduce the military to impotence," Brady said in an interview. "That way, during his reign, which, thank God, is almost over, he could point to an emasculated military and say he didn't have the capability to [do] anything about it. If it came to a confrontation, I don't think he would fight."

Brady explained Obama "changed the ethos of the military" by lowering standards and moral values. He specifically identified the removal of the bans on open homosexuality and women in combat positions as destructive.

"It's gone from a masculine-oriented outfit to a girly man kind of an outfit," Brady said.

Brady, who was a legendary "Dust Off" air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, "Dead Men Flying," argued political correctness is endangering American security, creating a weaker, less versatile force.

The general argued women serving in combat is problematic simply because of the physical differences between the two sexes.

"I have commanded female students in peacetime in medical units," said Brady. "I am aware of the demands on males made on the battlefield, moving bodies on the battlefield, using litters, even in terms of carrying a toolbox, which is heavy."

Brady suggested most women are simply less capable of meeting such physical demands in a combat situation. He also said he heard from "several sources" the women who recently graduated Army Ranger School "had a lot of help."

As reported in September, high-ranking officials in the Army "planned in advance" the results of training programs designed to see if women could meet the physical standards.

Brady laid out a chilling hypothetical example for soldiers and their family members.

"The bottom line is this: If you've got a squad in the hills of Afghanistan and your squad is half female, half male and you're going up against a Muslim terrorist squad from ISIS that's all male, do you want your daughter in that squad? Your mother? Your wife? Going up against an all-male squad with your squad half females? I don't think so."

He said, "It violates every tenet of common sense to put women in foxholes. Not to mention everything it does to morale, camaraderie and bonding. It will certainly cause divisiveness."

Brady also condemned homosexuality in the American military on grounds of both health and morality. The former air rescue pilot explained each soldier is considered a "walking blood bank" in a medical emergency, but homosexual men for years have been banned from donating blood because of concerns about disease.

They still are banned under some circumstances.

Brady also charged the inclusion of homosexual soldiers creates a chilling effect, as soldiers who disagree with what they see as sexual immorality must "tip toe around for fear of saying the wrong thing" and facing punishment.

Finally, Brady spoke out against what he sees as an attempt by Barack Obama to silence officers perceived as hostile. He specifically called the attempt to demote Gen. David Petraeus even after his retirement as "disturbing."

"I think that is a signal to all generals who are leaving the military so they don't turn on him after they leave," Brady said. "He's telling them, watch out, I've got a weapon here that can be used even after you're retired. Now, the man has made a lot of mistakes, but what they're doing to Gen. Petraeus is remarkable really after what he's been through."

Brady questioned the combat experience and political bias of the current officer corps. He was especially critical of officers who put political correctness above the interests of their soldiers.

"We're wasting money on diversity offices," Brady said. "After the Fort Bragg massacre, we even had officers worrying about whether diversity would be the casualty."

However, Brady sees hope with the emergence of Donald Trump as the Republican front-runner.

"Donald Trump has destroyed political correctness among the political class, among the other candidates," Brady observed. "He has said certain things and has refused to apologize for them, and the American people love it! And the other candidates are finding out the American people love it.

"Before, you would say something which the media could twist into racism and bigotry and the media would crucify you, especially if you were a conservative. They tried that with him and it didn't work. So now some of the other politicians are saying, 'Hey, some of these things are true, Mexico is sending some criminals across the border, we have to do something about it. Some of those guys are rapists and druggies.' But before Trump, if you said anything bad about them, they would label you as a racist."

Despite his praise for Trump and his ability to "open the dialogue," Brady said he would not be endorsing any candidate until the Republican primaries are over, whereupon he will "go all out."

What advice does he have for the new commander in chief?

"The new guy needs to restore the ethos of the military," Brady said. "And get the military back to what it's meant for -- breaking things, and killing things."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #81 

Obama moves to destroy the Marine Corps  -- who are no longer to be called "men"


S Noble (IndependentSentinel) says every symbol, their flag, their emblem and their symbols represent their elite history connecting the past and present warriors for Americans who earned their place among the few.  The Marines are the symbolic soul of the military having first been formed in Philadelphia's Tun Tavern in 1775. They admit only those who demonstrate the highest standards of character.

Obama wants them filled up with unqualified women who can't pass the tests, openly transgender people, and the word "man" has been removed from the lexicon.

The Marines are not about promoting social causes.  They are a fighting force of men and qualified women whose mission it is to protect the citizens.

Our military and our police would not stand with an authoritarian government against the people, but an Armed Forces that is gender neutral and gutted of their mission would.

From the Marine Corps website:

"Since November 10, 1775 is our unyielding commitment to protecting the lives of our citizens and the interests of our nation. Our purpose, by congressional mandate, is to be this nation's rapid response force; we are thus called to be 'most ready when the nation is least ready.' From humanitarian relief efforts to combat operations; from air, land and sea to every clime and place, the Marine Corps is ready to answer our nation's call."

Obama is social engineering them into his idea of an Obama force, loyal to him and his statist followers, not to the people. We all know that is what he is doing and the damage he has already done to our Armed Forces would take years to undo even if we get a president who will do it. He is neutering them.

Rep. Duncan Hunter, a veteran Marine officer in Congress who served two combat tours in Iraq and a third in Afghanistan, described Navy Secretary Ray Mabus as "a bigger threat to the men and women of the Marine Corps than ISIS" for trying to integrate women into infantry and other combat arms positions.

Obama through Mabus is making job titles neutral.

It's madness.

On January 1, Marine Corps Commandant Gen. Robert Neller uses a memo remove the word "man."

"None of the secretary of the Navy's policies help us close with and destroy the enemy with fire and close combat," he said. "Mabus' social meddling puts every Marine in harm's way at greater risk."

Gender neutral job titles are PC insanity and they are meant to weaken the strongest of our forces.

"These are long lasting," Hunter told POLITICO. "These changes that they're making are not thought out, they're not researched, they've not been debated. The American public has no idea what's going on … It's going to get people killed."

"The reason the military is there is not to be a transgender, corporate organization," Hunter said, referring to the Pentagon's plans to allow transgender service members to serve openly. "The military is there to execute American policy overseas, protect our allies and kill our enemies. It's not a corporation. We're not all treated equal."

It's not about any bigotry against transgenders, it's about changing the mission.

nine-month Marine Corps infantry integration test determined mixed-gender teams were slower and did not shoot as well as all male teams. Women were also injured at twice the rate of male Marines.

Mabus rationalized the results with suppositions and completely discounted them. Mabus is no representative of the Corps, he's a stooge of the Obama administration. For example, Mabus said maybe we picked stronger women who picked up heavier loads and that's why they were hurt.

"According to the Marine Corps' own study on gender integration in ground combat units, Mabus' social meddling will get Marines killed," Hunter said.

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter said he disagreed with the Marine Corps and was plowing ahead.

General Dunford, now chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was notably absent from the news conference announcing this latest destructive move by the Obama administration. When one reporter asked if Dunford is "fully on board" with his decision, Carter replied: "Well, you'll have to speak to him about that, but he understands what my decision is and my decision is my decision, and we will implement it accordingly.

Call Democrats what they are -- socialists and communists. They not only want to disarm us and take our guns, they want to disarm our military and especially our Marines.

These changes to our Marines are just more of the cultural sea change instituted by Marxist in the White House and his legions of colleagues.

Will Team Obama rewrite the dictionary to remove "man" and "men" from "woman" and "women?"

There is an interesting essay on the destruction of language by the Political Left today here . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #82 

Obama is planning to house illegal immigrants on U. S. military bases


John Binder (ProgressivesToday) is reporting that once again, illegal immigrants are taking precedence over the safety of everyone else in the country, including our own military.

Western Free Press reports:

A year after fierce opposition disrupted a contentious plan to use American military bases as shelters for illegal immigrants, the Obama administration is quietly working to make it happen and six facilities throughout the nation are currently being considered.

Under the plan the military installations would house droves of under-aged illegal immigrants, officially known as Unaccompanied Alien Children (UAC), who have entered the country from Central America in the last two years. Most have come from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras and they’re being relocated to states across the nation to make room for more in the overwhelmed Mexican border region. Judicial Watch has covered the crisis extensively and in 2014 reported that a hangar at Ft. Bliss in El Paso, Texas was being covertly used as an illegal alien processing center for UACs. At the time the administration was under fire for using three military installations -- Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Ventura County Naval Base in southern California and Ft. Still Army Base in Oklahoma -- to process the barrage of illegal immigrant youths that had crossed into the U.S. through Mexico.

Now the administration has revived its controversial idea to house UACs in active military facilities. The Pentagon quietly notified lawmakers from the jurisdictions where the bases are located during the holidays when things are slow and many take vacation.

Next, Obama will move illegal immigrants into our public schools. Oh, wait…

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #83 

The U. S. Navy is combat ineffective


Ray Starman (US Defense Watch) has been inferring all along that the feminization of the military, the social engineering of the military, the cultural Marxism being injected into the military is going to pay dividends -- dividends for the enemy that is.

USDW has been consistently reiterating that the Obama White House’s policies were going to create a military that will be thoroughly destroyed on the field of battle.

Feminization, lowering standards, gender neutral operations, lactation and breastfeeding support memos, pregnancy simulators, transgenders in the ranks, openly gay military leaders, command hostility towards Christianity; it’s all creating a perfect storm of disaster heading directly in the path of the US military.

The outer bands of that perfect storm arrived last week in the Persian Gulf.

Last week, two US Navy high speed Riverine boats were apparently underway from Bahrain to Kuwait when they strayed into Iranian waters, while attempting to contact a vessel to refuel. The Pentagon first said that they had engine trouble. Yet, if that was the case, why didn’t the other boat tow the boat with mechanical problems to international waters and safety?

Then, the Pentagon said that they had navigational issues. How is this possible in 2016, with each boat having an array of GPS and radar equipment? Even if one boat’s systems completely shut down, couldn’t they rely on the other boat’s GPS or radar?

Somewhere during this time, the Americans strayed into Iranians waters near Farsi Island. Apparently, they were contacted by one Iranian patrol boat, then several others.

The officer in charge, Lieutenant David Nartker, surrendered his boats, men and one woman to the Iranians without firing a shot.

Was Nartker ordered to surrender by some Navy feather merchant echelons above God, or did he commit this act of cowardice on his own?

Have no doubt, Lieutenant Nartker’s first action, to surrender his boats and personnel without offering any resistance is a violation of the US Military’s Code of Conduct, Article II, which states,

"I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist."

Nartker doubled down on his outrageous conduct by answering questions from some Iranian Teheran Tom character, which was recorded on video for the world to see just what the US Navy is made of these days.


Narkter stated that, “It was a mistake. That was our fault. We apologize for our mistake.”

Then, Lieutenant Nartker really went all out for his future court martial by thanking the Iranians for their hospitality and saying that the conduct of the Iranians had been “fantastic.”


I’ll let that one sink in for a moment.

Nartker was speaking as if he and his personnel were spending 24 hours with Captain Stubing, Gopher, Isaac and Julie of the Love Boat crew in Puerto Vallarta.

Nartker’s appearance on the video and his subsequent conduct during the interview with Teheran Tom, were a blatant violation of Article V of the Code of Conduct, which states,

"When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause."

Of course the Iranians released the Americans 24 hours later. They had already insulted us again in front of the world and they knew they had billions riding on the sailors’ release.

The damage had been done to the US.


The conduct of Lieutenant Nartker and his men (and one woman) speaks volumes about the decaying state of the US Navy in 2016. And, I’m not talking about all the budgetary and readiness issues the Navy has. That is another disaster entirely.

The US Navy is basically combat ineffective. Last week’s incident proved that a US Naval Academy graduate like Nartker was literally paralyzed with fear and incompetence at the helm of the Riverine craft.

Nartker looks like a Navy officer. He sounds like a Navy officer. But, he certainly doesn’t act like a US Navy officer should. Or, is his conduct the new norm?

His actions have disgraced the long and brave tradition of the US Navy officers and men that have gone before him.

Imagine if we had a US Navy of Nartker’s at the Battle of the Midway or the Coral Sea or Leyte Gulf or a million and half other engagements. We’d be hoisting up the Japanese flag every morning before a breakfast of shrimp Tempura and Saki.

But, you can’t completely blame Nartker. He’s just a product of a Navy that is being systematically destroyed by Ray Mabus and Ash Carter and previous social engineers for the last two decades.

The feminists, the leftists, the social engineers all wanted a Navy that was gender neutral, politically correct and disdainful of the old ways of doing things. The Navy’s fighting capabilities weren’t even on the agenda.

They got the Navy they wanted.

The destroyers have done more damage than the Iranians or Russians or Chinese could ever do to the US Navy.

The US Navy is now combat ineffective.

Our enemies know it. They know they will be going against more Nartker’s. They know they will win the day because the US Navy of John Paul Jones, Bull Halsey, Raymond Spruance and Chester Nimitz is nothing more than an afterthought, a page to be blotted out by the Orwellian cultural Marxists in this brave new world we live in.

Play taps for the US Navy. It’s done. And, while you do, play taps for the other services as well.

We are in big, big trouble.


Related:  How sailors ended up in Iranian custody is still a mystery

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #84 

Air Force considers dropping "man" from "airman"


Jonah Bennett (DailyCaller) is reporting that The Air Force said it will conduct a review to determine whether the use of "airman" is appropriate given the military's push towards full gender equality.

An Air Force spokeswoman told Air Force Times the service is "dedicated to a culture of inclusiveness which enables all airmen to make their greatest contributions to mission success.

"While a review of job titles is not currently underway, we continually review all aspects of our programs and a review of job titles will be included as we proceed with the full integration of women into all Air Force occupational specialties."

This confirms that a review of job titles, like the one initiated by Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, is soon coming. Mabus' review resulted in an order to the Marine Corps to purge the word "man" from job titles, with the exception that compound words can remain the same. In other words, "infantryman" is acceptable, but "reconnaissance man" is not. That order came as part of the broader initiative to open all combat roles to women.

There are six male-only jobs in the Air Force, but that number will soon drop to zero April 1.

What names may change? All four enlisted ranks contain the word "airman." If the Air Force follows suit with the Marine Corps, then "man" may be lopped off. ParaRescue men and weathermen may also undergo a switch.

When Defense Secretary Ash Carter made the announcement in December to refuse the Marine Corps exemption request to keep some jobs male-only, he also added that plans to integrate women into all combat roles must be in motion by April 1, 2016, much to the disappointment of several members of Congress. GOP Rep. Duncan Hunter, a member of the House Committee on Armed Services, said in December that "No. 1, this is being done for political reasons. What is it going to do to our ability to be lethal at the small-unit level? It degrades that ability."

I fully expect Barack Obama to issue an executive order removing the word "man" from "woman."

Henceforth, according to Obama, all women shall be referred to as "wo."

That's pronounced as "whoa."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #85 

Military brass gives Obama stone-faced SOTU stare-down for saying this . . .

Carmine Sabia (BizRacReview) is reporting that during Barack Obama's State of the Union address last night, Obama bragged that America's military is still in great shape under his watch.

After proudly stating that we have the strongest military in the world, he waited for the predictable crowd response.

But cameras zoomed in to top U.S. military brass, who had a much different reaction.

Traditionally, the Joint Chiefs don't engage in constant applause at SOTU addresses, but they do applaud when the mood strikes. Contrary to past claims, they are allowed to applaud. This was noted and proven by the Thomas More Law Center in a clip of a 2010 speech.

Need more proof?

When the message turned to the men and women of the military who serve, the group stood and joined the applause, but before that . . .

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #86 

Rep. Duncan Hunter says the Secretary of the Navy is a "greater threat to the Marines than ISIS"


Ray Starmann (USDefenseWatch) is reporting that Rep. Duncan Hunter has had enough of Navy Secretary Ray Mabus’ strong support for opening all Marine combat posts to women, declaring him "a greater threat to the Marine Corps than ISIS."

The Republican congressman and Marine veteran from California, who served in Iraq and Afghanistan, is furious with Mabus for pushing through an end to the ban on women serving in all combat positions over the Marine Corps' objections. Particularly, he's taking exception to a memo Mabus sent to the Marines Corps this week, instructing it integrate Marine boot camp, which has been separate for men and women, and change job titles so they’re gender neutral.

Related:  The US Army's most recent lactation and breastfeeding policies

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #87 

Marine Corps debate roils


Lolita C. Baldor (AP) is reporting that a top Marine general predicted Friday that the Defense Department's vows to maintain the same standards for women and men in combat jobs won't last, saying the military will eventually be pressured to lower the qualifications so more women can serve in jobs like the Marine infantry.

The public comments by Gen. John Kelly, head of U.S. Southern Command, underscored how strongly the Marines opposed Defense Secretary Ash Carter's plans to fully integrate women into all combat jobs, including the Marine Corps and special operations forces like Navy SEALs and Army Green Berets. A new, high-level disagreement is erupting over whether the Marine Corps must also fully integrate its 12-week recruit training program at Parris Island in South Carolina. Kelly told reporters at the Pentagon"

"They're saying we are not going to change any standards. There will be great pressure, whether it's 12 months from now, four years from now, because the question will be asked whether we've let women into these other roles, why aren't they staying in those other roles? Why aren't they advancing as infantry people?"

Kelly, who has been a Marine for 45 years and served three tours in Iraq, said the sole basis for change in the military should be whether the change will make units more lethal.  Kelly said:

"If the answer to that is no, clearly don't do it. If the answer to that is, it shouldn't hurt, I would suggest that we shouldn't do it, because it might hurt."

Carter in December ordered all combat jobs open to women, but also vowed that no standards would be lowered to make way for women.

The Marine Corps initially sought to keep certain infantry and combat jobs closed to women, citing studies showing combined-gender units are not as effective as male-only units, but they were rebuffed.

Carter's December ruling said the military services should integrate women into combat jobs "using their existing recruiting, accession, training and assignment procedures."

But on January 1, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus told the Marines he wanted a plan by January 15 for how the Marines would fully integrate their recruit training, and he said he wanted the integration to begin no later than April 1.

A spokesman for Marine Commandant Gen. Robert Neller, Lt. Col. Eric Dent, said Mabus' memo is being reviewed, but officials familiar with the events said an irate Neller wants a one-on-one meeting with Carter to discuss the matter. They said Marine leaders don't want women and men training together and want to determine the implications of the change before doing anything. The officials spoke on anonymity because they were unauthorized to speak publicly about Neller's plans.

Under the current system, women who enlist in the Marine Corps go to Parris Island for their initial three months of recruit training and are assigned to one battalion. Men training there are assigned to three other battalions.

The Marine Corps says this gives women time to do early training and study with female drill instructors who can serve as role models, help them build confidence and develop the physical and other skills needed to progress. Marine leaders argue that the separation also minimizes distractions and harassment issues, while also better preparing the women to compete as they move into the next two levels of integrated training with men.

The other three services, however, do not separate women from men in basic training, although it is not unusual to have all-male platoons or battalions in training because there often aren't enough women to populate all the units. Men and women have separate living quarters.

After the recruit training, the men and women go through Marine combat training together. They then move on to their formal training for their specific jobs, which also is integrated.

In a second memo, which was obtained by The Associated Press, Mabus also warned Marine Corps leaders not to use any concerns about integrating women into combat jobs as ways to delay the process.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #88 

U.S. Navy dangerously outgunned by Russia and China


Dave Majumdar is reporting that the U.S. Navy's strategy desperately requires a new ship-launched anti-ship missile as enemy surface warships greatly "out stick" American warships. But as a stopgap solution, the Navy could modify the trusty Tomahawk cruise missile for anti-ship work.

Since the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the U.S. Navy has essentially taken sea control for granted. Absent a challenge from a peer-level blue water threat, the service neglected anti-ship capabilities and focused on land attack. Indeed, as former Navy official Byran McGrath, managing director of The FerryBridge Group naval consultancy and deputy director of the Center for American Seapower at Hudson Institute testified before Congress this week, the service has not added a single ship that can fire anti-ship missiles since 1999.

"No ship in our inventory can disable another ship with its organic weapons at ranges greater than approximately 70 miles (the range of the Harpoon missile), and no ship has been added to the inventory since 1999 that can fire the Harpoon missile," McGrath said. "In order to raise the level of conventional deterrence represented in our forward deployed surface vessels, the Navy must move quickly to close this gap. The pursuit of an elegant solution for the future should not preclude the immediate fielding of useful weapons available on the world market."

Meanwhile, Russian, Chinese and Indian warships are fielding long-range supersonic anti-ship missiles like the Brahmos and 3M-54T (SS-N-27A Sizzler) that are difficult to intercept and pose an increasing danger to the U.S. fleet. McGrath suggested that one immediate solution to the problem is to convert the U.S. Navy's existing arsenal of Tomahawk land attack cruise missiles (TLAM) into dual capable weapons with the addition of an anti-surface mode. The Tomahawk cruise missile would have a range of about 1000 nautical miles in an anti-ship role. "This single act will bring the most return on investment the fastest, and will guarantee that both the Flight III DDG (Arleigh Burke-class) and the DDG 1000 (Zumwalt-class) are also capable of firing this extended range surface to surface missile," McGrath said.

However, there are concerns that while the Tomahawk would be effective against many threats, there are enemy vessels out there that are equipped with formidable air defenses where the missile would fall short. "Some analysts believe that against the most capable air defense units in potential adversary fleets, the subsonic TLAM will lack necessary capability," McGrath said. "It must be remembered however, that not all adversary platforms are that capable, and the most capable units can be targeted and neutralized by other portions of the fleet architecture."

Modifying the Tomahawk is only a short-term solution; the Navy needs a new missile to deal with future threats. "The Navy must move quickly to specify the requirements for a 21st century ASuW weapon or weapons -- but without allowing this process to delay the TLAM modification," McGrath said. "Commonality between air and surface missiles should be a goal but not a requirement that delays fielding. This missile must be capable against the world's most advanced defense systems, and should be targetable against fixed and moving targets, at sea and ashore."

While the Navy needs a next-generation missile, it will take time to develop such a weapon. The service does not have time to wait into the late 2020s to field an anti-ship missile. "Congress should direct the Navy to fast track this [Tomahawk missile modification with desired deployment in the early 2020's," McGrath said. "However, thinking that the TLAM modification solves the ASuW problem in the long term is incorrect. A new missile with advanced characteristics is required."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #89 

The U. S. Air Force is running out of bombs to fight ISIS


Fox News is reporting that the U.S. military says its 15-month bombing campaign on the Islamic State is depleting its munitions supply and that additional money and other support is "critical" for "the long fight."

"We're expending munitions faster than we can replenish them," Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said Friday. "We need the funding in place to ensure we're prepared for the long fight. This is a critical need."

The Air Force has reportedly fired more than 20,000 bombs and missiles in Syria in the fight to dismantle the self-proclaimed Islamic State.

Air Force officials say they have enough munitions right now but project a shortage and want more long-term planning and funding to meet future needs.

"B-1s have dropped bombs in record numbers," Welsh also said. "We are able to manage inventories to sustain operations against ISIL at this time. We do need funding in place and the ability to forecast for production to be ready for the long fight… We continue to work on a longer term funding strategy which is absolutely required."

Russia and France have over just the past few weeks began bombing ISIS targets in Syria. And Great Britain earlier this week decided to join the U.S.-led bombing coalition, following a recent series of ISIS terror attacks outside of the Middle East. Russia is not part of the coalition.

The Air Force now has an estimated 142,000 "smart bombs," or guided munitions, and 2,300 Hellfire missiles, used in drone strike to kill terrorists.

Related:  "Combat effectiveness" being degraded by Obama's military policies

If the Air Force has reportedly fired more than 20,000 bombs and missiles in Syria, why are there any ISIS fighters left?

What is the Air Force shooting at? We know the pilots are returning with their load 75% of the time. These numbers don't add up.

If we have 142,000 "smart bombs" available to kill 30,000 ISIS fighters, why is there a problem?

Oh! I remember . . . Obama . . .

Buy Raytheon stock -- the way they're launching missiles all over the Middle East and evidently not hitting anything -- it's going to go up.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 225
Reply with quote  #90 
Aside from being a political appointee hell bent on destroying our military, SecDef is an ID10T if he believes that allowing women to serve in elite units will make us stronger.  Having been subjected to military gender integration in the early 80s, I can state without a doubt that there are things that most women and some men can't do.  My basic training company had two male platoons and one female platoon.  The male platoons were constantly waiting on the female platoon during company activities.  I watched as the male soldiers worked around or picked up the slack for females who couldn't carry their weight, both figuratively and physically.  And to be clear, that's not to say there weren't female soldiers who were impressive and consummate professionals.  My best Squad Leader when I was a Platoon Sergeant just happened to be female, and I held her in high regard.  But some requirements are difficult under normal circumstances for a reason.  I worked with special operators throughout my career.  SpecOps units are populated by the cream of the crop, even among males.  They were, and are, impressive.  And those that can't cut it, get cut.  It's bad enough that we have posers within the male ranks, let alone the female ranks.  Now they are moving towards having to lower standards in order to show the world how PC we are.  I say lowering standards because 180 lb dead lift is just that, no matter who is doing the lifting.  What are they going to do, kick out everyone who weighs over 140 lbs?  I just hope that no lives are lost because a motivated soldier who just happened to be female was placed in a position where there was no way they could perform.  I can see no scenario where this is a good idea.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #91 

Pentagon chief orders military to open all combat jobs to women


Lolita Barbour is reporting that Defense Secretary Ash Carter has ordered the military to open all military jobs to women, including the most dangerous commando posts, removing the final barriers that kept women from serving in combat.

The historic decision Thursday is a formal recognition that thousands of women have fought -- and many were wounded or killed -- in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But it's uncertain how many will actually want to compete for some of the more grueling Army and Marine Corps infantry posts or for spots on the high-risk special operations teams.

Carter's move also is a direct rebuff to the Marine Corps, which asked for an exception to prevent women from serving in certain infantry and combat jobs.

"We are a joint force, and I have decided to make a decision which applies to the entire force," Carter told a news conference.

But he acknowledged some concerns. "Implementation won't happen overnight. And while at the end of the day this will make us a better and stronger force, there still will be problems to fix and challenges to overcome. We shouldn't diminish that."

Carter said the military can no longer afford to exclude half the population from high-risk military posts. He said that any man or woman who meets the standards should be able to serve, and he gave the armed services 30 days to submit plans to make the change.

Carter's order opens the final 10 percent of military positions to women -- a total of about 220,000 jobs. And it allows them to serve in the most demanding and difficult jobs, including as special operations forces, such as the Army Delta units and Navy SEALs.

Continue reading here . . .

A lot of good women -- and men -- are going to die as a result of this decision.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #92 

The "fastest, most fit, most physical, most lethal" soldier is "a man"


Bob Unruh is reporting that the chief of a military-focused think tank is calling on Congress to step into the fight over women in combat before "irreparable damage" is done to America's all-volunteer military.

The call for action came on Tuesday from Elaine Donnelly, the chief of the Center for Military Readiness, in conjunction with the release of the group's newest report on what the military has found out about women in combat.

That data, the organization confirmed, revealed the Marines have documented evidence that women are different from men.

In ways that matter to the Marines.

Donnelly's report included a statement from the Facebook page of a "highly decorated Marine combat veteran and non-commissioned officer who participated in the 2015 Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force."

"This was as stacked a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate if we possibly could. End result? … [The data showed women] are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations …"

The statement continued, "Make no mistake. In this realm, you want your fastest, most fit, most physical and most lethal person you can possibly put on the battlefield to overwhelm the enemy's ability to counter what you are throwing at them and in every test case, that person has turned out to be a man.

"There is nothing gender biased about this; it is what it is."

Donnelly's report came amidst the presidency-long strategy by the Obama administration to not only open the U.S. military to homosexuality and transgenderism, but advance the role of women in the military to the point they are routinely assigned to tip-of-the-spear attack groups that confront enemies -- and destroy them.

The organization's new report focuses on results from the U.S. Marine Corps regarding women in direct ground combat.

Donnelly called on Defense Secretary Ashton Carter to honor his own promise to review the evidence on the issue.

"Secretary Carter must assign greater weight to Marine Corps empirical evidence than he does to wishful thinking, unsupported speculations, and 'mitigation myths,'" she said.

The CMR said for nine months in 2015, the USMC Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force "conducted scientifically monitored field exercises that simulated wartime requirements for direct ground combat units. Unlike gender-integrated support units that serve 'in harm's way' in war zones, these are small fighting teams that seek out and attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action."

The findings included that all-male teams outperformed mixed-gender units 69 percent of the time, women had significantly higher rates of injuries and early fatigue, and more.

Worse, in many cases of dual-gendered teams, "Numerous cases of compensation were observed during physically demanding tasks, in which males shifted positions to take over certain aspects of tasks from females," the report said.

"Due to unchangeable physical disadvantages among women that clearly affect survivability and lethality in battle, officials should discontinue plans to order women into combat arms units such as the Marine and Army infantry, armor, artillery, and Special Operations Forces, including Rangers and Navy SEALs," Donnelly recommended.

A memorandum from Brig. Gen. George S. Smith Jr., the head of the Marine Corps Force Innovation Office, included some statements that are cause for concern:

"The assessment across all occupational specialties revealed that gender-integrated teams, squads, or crews demonstrated, with very few exceptions, degraded performance in the time to complete taks, move under load, and achieve timely effects on target as compared to all-male teams, squads, or crews."

He also concluded there will be risks "I do not believe can be fully mitigated …"

"The associated risk is directly linked to the physiological differences between males and females. Simply, size matters when executing a dismounted movement under load," the report said.

Statistically, more than 40 percent of the women had musculoskeletal injures during the assessment, compared to 19 percent for men.

"Those who choose to turn a blind eye to … immutable realities do so at the expense of our Corps' warfighting capability and, in turn, the security of our nation," Smith wrote.

The CMR analyzed both the information regarding the "survivability and lethality" of women in combat, as well as "flawed attempts to downplay the impact."

"Comprehensive Marine Corps research tests have produced highly credible, reality-based, scientific data that discredits theories about gender equality in the combat arms. Much of this information was not available when the Obama administration announced that women would be assigned to direct ground combat units," Donnelly said in a prepared report.

"The armed forces should not be forced to rely upon unsupported theories, convoluted calculations or 'best case scenarios' that disregard known high risks. It is necessary to analyze mitigation ideas that would make life in the combat arms more difficult and more dangerous, with no offsetting benefits in terms of military effectiveness."


U.S. Marines with 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment and the Afghan National Army provide cover as they move out of a dangerous area after taking enemy sniper fire during a security patrol in Sangin, Afghanistan, in November 2010. During its seven-month deployment, the 3/5 sustained the highest casualty rate of any Marine unit during the Afghan war, losing 25 men. (Photo: Cpl. David R. Hernandez/U.S. Marine Corps)

She explained Carter and other military chiefs "have the the solemn responsibility to take this information seriously, and to restore sound priorities in all policies affecting women in the military. Members of Congress also must shoulder their constitutional responsibility to conduct responsible oversight before irreparable damage is done to the all-volunteer force."

The CMR, founded in 1993, is an independent, nonpartisan, educational organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues.

Some of Donnelly's expertise comes from her service as a member of the congressionally established 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, which studied all aspects of the women in combat issue for a full year.

It was reported only a few months ago that the Obama administration was moving forward on plans to allow open transgenderism in the ranks.

That followed various executive orders that mandated open homosexuality in troops

Donnelly had reported initially on the situation involving women being assigned to combat troops a year ago.

At the time, she revealed that for every man who failed a simulated artillery lift-and-carry test, 28 women failed.

And for a test simulating moving over a seven-foot high wall, less than 1.2 percent of the men could not get over, compared to 21.32 percent of women.

The results were found in Marine Corps documentation and released through the CMR's report called "U.S. Marine Corps Research Findings: Where is the Case for Co-Ed Ground Combat?"

According to the CMR study's executive summary at the time, the Marines obtained information from 409 men and 379 women who volunteered to perform five "proxy" tests to simulate combat demands.

"These capabilities are essential for survival and mission success in direct ground combat," the study found.

In a pull-up test, women averaged 3.59 while men averaged 15.69 – more than four times as many.

A "clean and press" event involved single lifts of 70, 80, 95 and 115 pounds plus six repetitions of a 65 pound lift.

Eighty percent of the men passed the 115 pound test but only 8.7 percent of the women.

In the 120 mm tank-loading simulation, participants were asked to lift a simulated round weighing 55 pounds five times in 35 seconds or less. Men failed at a less than 1 percent rate while women failed at a rate of 18.68 percent.

The Marines said nearly one in five women "could not complete the tank loading drill in the allotted time."

"It would be very likely that failure rates would increase in a more confined space [such as a tank]."

The artillery lift and carry had volunteers pick up a 95 pound artillery round and carry it 50 meters in under two minutes. Again, less than 1 percent of the men failed but 28.2 percent of women.

The assessments by the U.S. military are ongoing, and CMR said it would report more information as it is accessed.

But for the most recent assessment, the military assessment found, "The female Marines integrated into the closed MOS units demonstrated they are capable of performing the physically demanding tasks, but not necessarily at the same level as their male counterparts in terms of performance, fatigue, workload and cohesion."

And the report found mixed-gender teams "showed degradations in the time to complete tasks, move under load, and achieve timely effects on target. … The more telling aspect of the comparisons is the cumulative impacts. The pace, timing and accuracy of any singular task is not necessarily important, but taken together, and in the context of actual combat operations, the cumulative differences can lead to substantial effects on the unit, and the unit's ability to accomplish the mission."

Smith's conclusion was, "To move forward in expanding opportunities for our female service members without considering the timeless, brutal, physical and absolutely unforgiving nature of close combat is a prescription for failure.

"Our future enemies will be the ultimate arbiter of such decisions -- when lives of our Marines are in the balance …" he wrote.

Donnelly noted some of the explanations and justifications, but said they weren't, in the end, valid.

For example, one conclusion was that "gender-mixed units performed better in some tasks." Of course, she wrote, "Such results often occurred because men did the heavy work. In 16 of 18 casualty evacuation tests, for example, men in gender-integrated groups performed single-man fireman's carries. Other men moved more quickly to lift heavy artillery rounds. These 'male compensations' masked female deficiencies that could cost lives in battle."

Donnelly said it's too important to guess.

"Members of Congress, who have the constitutional responsibility to make policy for the military, should obtain and analyze all data in the course of hearings with independent experts. A careful, objective review of this issue is long overdue."

She continued, "National security ultimately depends on the morale, discipline, deployment readiness and combat effectiveness of well-prepared troops that fight the enemy on the ground. Sound policies should support these troops, instead of imposing burdens that make their lives more difficult and more dangerous."

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #93 

The Joint Chiefs and the War with ISIS


Getting the news that 50,000 active soldiers can't deploy is bad enough, but Ray Starmann says across the world, the War with ISIS is exploding; in Paris, Brussels, in the Middle East and at the US/Mexican border. ISIS continues to attack, attack, attack, following George Patton's motto of "l'audace, l'audace, toujours l'audace (audacity, audacity, always audacity).

While the world seems to be continually shocked by one ISIS atrocity after another, in the White House, one thing is crystal clear, Barack Obama has chosen to fight rising seas and disappearing glaciers before taking the fight to the marauding maniacal murderers of ISIS.

While Obama has been pelted for two weeks for having no strategy to fight ISIS, no one in the press has mentioned the architects of the war against ISIS, the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Oh, those guys…

Those guys…

Where have they been this whole time? The majority of the air campaign against ISIS was being conducted while former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, General Martin Dempsey was at the helm of the US Military Titanic. Dempsey certainly knew that flying 10 missions a day against ISIS, 75% of which were turned around, would have no effect on the caliphate.

A pack of Cub Scouts could figure that one out, no matter how many times Admiral Kirby was wheeled out with his organ grinder and carnival shell game. Where was the Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, General Mark Welsh this whole time? Certainly he knew that the air war against ISIS was no war at all.

Where were the Joint Chiefs when Obama pulled out of Iraq, opening up a Pandora's Box into hell? Where were the Joint Chiefs when ISIS made strategic gain after strategic gain in Iraq and Syria and seized more cities and more land?

Where were the Joint Chiefs when doctored intelligence from CENTCOM was flowing into the White House faster than a Rocky Mountain river?

And, where are the Joint Chiefs now as Obama willingly dodges any kind of strategy or war against the most evil threat to peace since the Nazis?

After hitting an iceberg and abandoning ship, Dempsey is currently floating down the Potomac in a raft, escaping the carnage and holding a Samsonite full of retirement benefits and the key to his new office at some Beltway defense contractor. Thank you for your service, general.

General Joe Dunford, Dempsey's replacement and the last great hope for sanity and strategy to prevail is as quiet as a church mouse. Where has Dunford been the whole time the ISIS surge has been taking place?

The truth of the matter is neither Dunford nor Dempsey or any of the Joint Chiefs have the guts to speak up for themselves or for the nation they defend. The old Prussian Army motto, "befehl ist befehl," "an order is an order" seems to be the Joint Chiefs' rallying cry.

Of course the Nazis on trial for crimes against humanity at Nuremberg used the same excuse, "befehl ist befehl." Have we stepped down to their level now? Is every foolish order from the commander-in-chief to be obeyed without question? Is every idiot policy to be carried out without question?


Has anyone heard or read of anyone from the Joint Chiefs speaking up about Obama's ISIS strategy?

The sad truth is that no one has the courage to call out Obama or the White House on their cowardly approach to fighting ISIS. The Joint Chiefs have seen what has happened to anyone in the military who voices opposition to either the current strategy to wage war or any of the Gloria Steinem social policies being shoved down the military's throat.

Anyone speaking out against the Cultural Revolution engulfing the military is sent packing.

Take the case of Major-General Michael Keltz, a decorated aviator, who was canned for telling a junior officer at a hearing that he was "drunker than 10,000 Indians." Keltz's sole crime was making that comment. Do you think someone is actually going to argue with Obama about serious policy? They would be out of the military before they even walked out of the Oval.

Apparently, we have become some kind of corrupt banana republic where if anyone questions El Presidente or appears to have an ounce of warrior spirit, their career is taken out to a cobble-stoned courtyard, tied to a stake and shot.

The list of generals fired or forced to resign under Obama is unprecedented in US history. The word is out on the street, play ball or say goodbye.

For God's sake even the German generals argued with Hitler to the very last day in the bunker. Yet, no one has the intestinal fortitude to argue with Obama.

I can hear the arguments already coming my way. How do you know no one voices their opposition to Obama's strategy? If they did they would be fired and Wolf Blitzer would have told you on CNN. Then, there's the old lifer argument; what can they say? The military is subordinate to civilian authority. Just keep your head down and clock out.

Subordinate to civilian authority it certainly is, but that doesn't excuse the highest ranking military personnel in the country to abandon their oaths for the fear of losing another promotion or a really cool parking space at the commissary for their wives.

No one says anything. The Joint Chiefs have become nothing more than dime store dummies in uniforms.

If one general speaks his mind, he's nothing more than a target in the open. But, what if several of them called a press conference and said something? During the press conference they could say they disagree with Obama's policies and they could resign.

Instead they all wait until they're officially out of the service. The next day they're wearing a new PX bought suit and espousing their great military knowledge to the world on Fox or CNN. Suddenly, they're all the biggest critics of everything the White House is doing or not doing.

Now that they can't be useful, they're all General Johnny on the Spot to solve the world's problems.

In past history, the country has always had the luck of having men and women of extraordinary character rise from the shadows and take the helm during times of trouble.

We need generals who won't sacrifice the truth for their retirement benefits.

What we need now are moral heroes, not moral cowards.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #94 

Army has 50,000 active soldiers who can't deploy

Matthew Cox is reporting that The U.S. Army's top enlisted soldier said the number-one readiness problem facing the service is that the active component -- the most deployable force -- has 50,000 soldiers who can't deploy.

That figure represents the largest number of non-deployable soldiers in all three components of the service. The National Guard has 28,000 non-deployable soldiers and the Reserve component has 25,000, according to Sgt. Maj. of the Army Daniel Dailey's office.

Having 50,000 non-deployable, active soldiers is comparable to three of the Army's 10 active combat divisions, Dailey told a group of sergeants recently at Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, according to an Army press release.

"That's huge. That's three out of the 10 divisions," he said. "If you will not or cannot fight and win, then there's no place for you in the Army. We have to become unemotional about this. We have a job to do."

Dailey's comments come at a time when Barack Obama is under enormous pressure to commit some type of ground force to the Middle East to fight extremists from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria, or ISIS.

Just days after ISIS attacked multiple civilian targets in Paris, Republican Sen. John McCain and GOP presidential candidate Sen. Lindsey Graham made a renewed push for committing thousands of U.S. ground forces to lead a ground war against ISIS forces occupying large portions of Iraq and Syria.

The active Army is on a path to reduce its size from 490,000 to 450,000 by fiscal 2018.

In total, the Army's active, Guard and Reserve force 102,499 soldiers from all ranks that were non-deployable for medical, legal, or other administrative reasons as of mid-August, according to Master Sgt. Michelle Johnson, spokeswoman for Dailey, adding that that number is about 10 percent of the total force, Johnson said.

This group of non-deployable soldiers does not include soldiers who are transients between duty stations, trainees or students who make up approximately another 10 percent of the force, Johnson said.

Total Army non-deployable numbers have been steadily declining over the past five years. In September 2013, approximately 14 percent of the then-total Army was non-deployable, Johnson said.

As a possible solution, Dailey is proposing to Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley that in the future, there should be a box to check on the soldier's evaluation form, indicating if that soldier is deployable, according to the Army release. Soldiers with long-term medical profiles would be critically evaluated against their ability to recover and be deployable if called, under his proposal.

Dailey said he wants to incentivize deployments by increasing deployment pay and offering more promotion opportunities.

Of the 50,000 non-deployable soldiers in the active component, about 44,000 are enlisted, 4,000 are commissioned officers and 1,000 are warrant officers. 

Medical reasons make up the largest category for non-deployable status, Johnson said. The breakdown for Guard and Reserve components was not available, but on the active side, roughly 37,000 of the 50,000 non-deployable soldiers are unavailable for medical reasons.

Medical reasons are broken into three categories. About 27 percent of the 37,000 are in Category 1, which accounts for short-term medical profiles under 30 days.

About 50 percent of the 37,000 fall under Category 2, which accounts for injuries that require more than 30 days of recovery -- such as a soldier that was playing basketball and tore his ACL and needs surgery, Johnson said.

"The recovery time is three months. He is not going to be discharged from the Army but requires time to recover and do physical therapy," Johnson said.

And about 23 percent of the 37,000 fall under Category 3, which applies to significant injuries such as a soldier wounded by an improvised explosive device or injured in a car accident, Johnson said.

"Even if it's determined that due to medical, administrative or legal reasons, a soldier can no longer continue their service in uniform, these soldiers will be treated with dignity, respect and professionalism because we see them as soldiers for life," Johnson said.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #95 

Top American generals stand united in bold, public stance against Barack Obama


The Political Insider blog says it is not a well kept secret that in the military -- the opinion of our Campaigner-in-Chief Barack Obama is overwhelmingly negative.

If the media weren’t biased, there would be more reports on why so many of the men and women who risk their lives to defend America are displeased with how Obama spreads the military too thin, cuts their pay, and doesn’t let them defeat terrorism.

But now, it’s not just enlisted soldiers. Instead, we’re hearing from patriotic military leaders -- active and retired -- who are endangering their legacies, careers, and pensions to take a bold stand against Obama!

Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely has long been an outspoken critic of Barack Obama and has called for peaceful revolution through marches and protests to demand the resignation of the president and his inner circle.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Charles Jones joined Vallely on a "citizen’s council" to challenge Obama administration policies directly.

And if that weren’t enough, both retired Army Maj. Gen. and Medal of Honor recipient Patrick Henry Brady and, more troubling to the administration, active-duty Marine Gen. John Kelly, Commander of U.S. Southern Command, have argued about the tremendous threat posed to national security by the nation's porous southern border.

via Wounded American Warrior

Obama’s 6 years of disrespect for our military has gone too far. As a career community organizer, his far left-ideology makes him believe our military is a source of oppression and imperialism, and it is those views which animate every action Obama takes.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #96 

Obama's bad relationship with the military is hurting the fight against ISIS


Liz Peek says it is high time we heard from our military commanders. Our men and women in uniform are being humiliated, but the Pentagon brass sits mute. The administration's inability to "degrade and destroy ISIS," or even to "contain" the terror plague, as Barack Obama so inappropriately claimed just last Friday, is an embarrassment.

While inept guidance from Obama and his shrinking circle of confidants has caused headline-worthy failures in Syria, pushback from military commanders has been silenced by a distrustful White House that's jealous of control and willing to penalize those who stray from the Oval Office narrative. Obama told graduates of the Coast Guard Academy that denying climate change is a "dereliction of duty." Isn't blindly following the flawed and politically skewed directives of the White House also a dereliction of duty?

The failure of our effort to arm compliant rebels in Syria -- $50 million spent to produce six soldiers -- has made our military a laughing stock, but is the tip of the iceberg. Continued half-measures in arming our allies or providing critical air support has hobbled our attack on a deadly foe. Recently, the White House announced it would send in dozens (but fewer than 50) advisors, as a renewed show of resolve -- but vowed they would not engage in combat. Fifty soldiers! We're not trying to button down Disneyland; there are an estimated 50,000 to 200,000 ISIS fighters in Syria, and they control about and they control about half the country.

The New York Times recently detailed efforts to disrupt Highway 47, ISIS's critical supply route between Syria and Iraq's Mosul. The U.S. has apparently been loath to bomb that essential artery for fear of civilian casualties. There have been 250,000 people killed in Syria. The U.S. is worried about truck drivers who may be willing to work for ISIS. Yesterday the U.S. launched airstrikes on hundreds of trucks conveying oil to market, destroying 116. But we made certain no civilians were hurt by dropping leaflets an hour before the strikes, alerting ISIS to the imminent bombings. Was ever a campaign so absurdly restrained?

Earlier this year, that caution ignited controversy, when an Air Force official told legislators that in the bombing effort in Syria and Iraq, "There's a target of zero civilian casualties…." He explained further that even if there was only one civilian at risk, his pilots would withdraw, no matter how important the target. The upshot of that policy is that 75 percent of our combat missions return to base without dropping a single weapon.  

Our military is being interfered with and directed by Obama and a national security team that one retired general has described as "pathetically weak." It includes Susan Rice, former human rights activist focused on Africa, and Valerie Jarrett, lawyer and former real estate developer. The Obama White House is remarkably devoid of ex-soldiers; that's not an accident. Obama's contentious relationship with the military is well known.

Confronting Obama is risky. Senior military commanders who have gone public with their disagreements can find themselves facing early retirement. Sir Hew Strachan, a senior defense strategist in the U.K., cites the ouster of General Stanley McCrystal as a case in point, saying "The concern about the military speaking out shows a lack of democratic and political maturity. We're not facing the danger of a military coup." Senator John McCain has accused the White House of pushing out both Marine General James Mattis from U.S. Central Command and Army Lt. General Michael Flynn from the DIA for having contradicted Obama's policies.

Joint Chiefs Chairman Martin Dempsey also broke with Obama numerous times, citing Russia as a major threat, for instance, and saying we might need boots on the ground to defeat ISIS. Dempsey retired in September. 

Former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates has accused the Obama White House of "micromanaging" military operations -- actually calling field commanders with strategies and tactics, always with an unseemly political calculus. In discussing the war in Afghanistan, Gates recounts Biden and Obama issuing an "order," which was "unnecessary and insulting, proof dispositive of the depth of the Obama White House's distrust of the nation's military leadership." Leon Panetta, another former Secretary of Defense, has lodged similar complaints. No wonder Obama is on his fourth Secretary of Defense.  

It is entirely fitting that after the Paris attacks the White House chose Ben Rhodes, deputy national security adviser for strategic communication to explain away Obama's assertion that ISIS had been "contained." Rhodes has no background in intelligence or the military; he is a former speechwriter whose key credential is a graduate degree in creative writing.  

Creative writing, or at least creative interpretation, lies at the heart of a brewing scandal in which some 50 intelligence agents at Centcom, the Pentagon's agency covering Central Asia and the Middle East, have charged military brass with altering reports to make it appear that the U.S. is winning the ongoing campaign against ISIS. Those leveling the charges have reportedly been encouraged to resign, and some have indeed left. The Daily Beast, which broke the story, quotes one whistleblower as describing the Centcom environment as "Stalinist." But what does this story say about our military leadership?

Obama's approval rating among men and women in uniform hit an all-time low of 15 percent last year. More broadly, morale in the military has been sinking. These trends are worrisome at a time when we will doubtless be asking more of our armed forces. The fight against ISIS will most likely ramp up in the aftermath of the Paris attacks. Americans may start to demand success. If it is not forthcoming, Pentagon leaders must be willing to take on the failed strategies of the White House and supply the leadership so obviously lacking in their Commander in Chief. 

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Posts: 100
Reply with quote  #97 
I went back to this post to answer a question regarding our military readiness.  I am angry.  We are facing WW III and Obama has so decimated our military strength, that the world can only rely on Russia, China and NATO to fight ISIS.  He used up our stockpiles of weapons, beheaded our team of seasoned military leaders, and gutted the major portion of our military might, reducing us to 1940s strength.  It was intentional.  Our population is so illiterate and doesn't realize the pitiful shape we are in.  Our allies cannot rely on us--we have a pseudo king who represents an unknown entity seeking world power by nefarious means.  We are in for a very difficult ride and the average American is still in la-la land.  Congress is a participant in our destruction thru their cave to political correctness and gutless service to the people who elected them.  Throw the Supremes in there with them.  We are on the verge of being a de-clawed eagle and the Socialist Democrats along with their Republican sympathizers are to blame.

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #98 

Can the US Army win the next war?


Morris Schaffer is reporting that word is starting to seep out, like water slowly exiting a crack in a dam that the US Army's armored warfare capabilities, capacity and readiness are in big trouble.

Coming out of nearly a dozen years of infantry combat in the Middle East against insurgent forces, the Army is still heavily focused on infantry tactics operations, peacekeeping and special warfare.

The knowledge and skills needed to fight traditional US Army battles, with armor and mechanized infantry backed up by superior air support, in what used to be called Air Land Battle seem about as ancient as the Dead Sea Scrolls.

But, now, the Pentagon is starting to worry that the next fight might be against Russian forces in the Baltic or a conflict with the Iranians, backed up by an umbrella of high tech, Russian-made air defense systems and surface to surface missiles.

Where would the US Army stand in a slug fest against the Russian Army or the Iranians? To have an accurate answer, several tenets have to be examined: current tactical competence, capabilities, capacity, readiness and doctrine.


Retired US Army armor officer, Colonel Gian Gentile, recently wrote an eye opening article in Armor Magazine, titled "Death of the Armor Corps," which discusses the current tactical competence of officers and troopers from Armor branch. The article is shocking to say the least and quite frightening.

According to Gentile, "I have also heard reports from the field that the operational army has Armor (19K) Non Commissioned Officers as high as the rank of Staff Sergeant who have never qualified on a M1 Tank.  When was the last time that a heavy Brigade Combat Team has done a combined arms, live fire exercise integrating all arms at Brigade level?  Do the Armor, Artillery, and Infantry Branches even have the collective knowledge to know how to do one anymore?  My own experience as a cavalry squadron commander returning from a combat deployment in Baghdad a few years ago mirrors these kinds of stories where I had lieutenants who had never qualified on a Bradley and a squadron that didn't know collectively anymore how to run a Bradley gunnery range."

Compare this lack of knowledge to the US Army of the late 1980's, where, if needed, two privates from a cavalry squadron staff section could successfully run a gunnery range until it was handed off to NCO's and officers.

Gentile was asked if a current US Army Armored Brigade Combat Team or BCT could conduct a movement to contact against an enemy armored force. "Could we do it?  It would be hard to do such an operation without the intellectual framework of an Armored Force that the American Army used to have, but of late has gone away.  It will be hard, very hard to get it back.  Competent field armies, skilled in all-arms warfare, are not made overnight."


According to the Heritage Group's 2016 Assessment of US Military Strength:

"BCTs are the basic "building blocks" for employment of Army combat forces. They are normally employed within a larger framework of U.S. land operations but are sufficiently equipped and organized so that they can conduct independent operations as circumstances demand.11 A BCT averages 4,500 soldiers in strength depending on its variant: Stryker, Armored, or Infantry. A Stryker BCT is a mechanized infantry force organized around the Stryker ground combat vehicle (GCV). Armored BCTs are the Army's principal armored unit and employ the Abrams main battle tank and the M2 Bradley fighting vehicle. An Infantry BCT is a highly maneuverable motorized unit."

"While end strength is a valuable metric in understanding Army capacity, counting BCTs is a more telling measure of actual hard-power capacity. In concert with the end strength reduction to 490,000 soldiers, the Active Army underwent brigade restructuring that decreased the number of BCTs from 38 to 32 by the end of FY 2015.15 As a part of this reorganization, the Army is also adding a third maneuver battalion to its infantry and armored BCTs by the end of FY 2015.16"

"The reduction in end strength in the past year has had a disproportionate effect on BCTs. To illustrate, the Active Army has been downsized from 45 BCTs (552,100 soldiers) in FY 2013 to 32 BCTs (490,000 soldiers) in FY 2015. Thus, a 12 percent reduction in troop numbers resulted in a 29 percent reduction in BCTs. The Army Chief of Staff told the Senate Armed Services Committee in March 2015 that the Army can meet the missions outlined in the 2012 DSG with this current force size, but he also warned that the continuation of sequestration would prevent the Army from executing the DSG.20"

"Overall, the Army's equipment inventory is relatively healthy. While some equipment has been worn down by usage in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army has undertaken a "reset" initiative that is discussed below in the readiness section. The bulk of Army vehicles are young because of recent remanufacture programs for the Abrams and Bradley that have extended the service life of both vehicles. For example, the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank has recently been completely upgraded and is now only 5.5 years old.21 The Army also maintains an inventory of battlefield-tested and reliable rotorcraft, including its UH-60 Black Hawks, AH-64 Apaches, and CH-47 Chinooks."


While the Army's Armor Branch is suffering from basic skill set problems among its soldiers and the larger problems addressed by the Heritage Group's study, an academic battle is raging in the Pentagon concerning the continued use of the BCT vs. the so-called RSG (Reconnaissance Strike Group).

Leading the charge for the implementation of the RSG, is retired US Army Colonel Douglas Macgregor, who participated in the Battle of 73 Easting, while serving as the operations officer for Cougar Squadron, in the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment.

Several years ago, Macgregor, published a book called Breaking The Phalanx, recommending that his service "restructure itself into modularly organized, highly mobile, self-contained combined arms teams."

Macgregor circulated a PowerPoint presentation showing that in a head-to-head confrontation pitting the equivalent of a U.S. armored division against a likely Russian adversary, the U.S. division would be annihilated. The 21-slide presentation features four battle scenarios, all of them against a Russian adversary in the Baltics -- what one currently serving war planner on the Joint Chiefs staff calls "the most likely warfighting scenario we will face outside of the Middle East."

In two of the scenarios, where the U.S. deploys its current basic formation, called brigade combat teams (BCTs), the U.S. is defeated. In two other scenarios, where Macgregor deploys what he calls Reconnaissance Strike Groups, the U.S. wins. And that's the crux of Macgregor's argument: Today the U.S. Army is comprised of BCTs rather than Reconnaissance Strike Groups, or RSGs, which is Macgregor's innovation. Macgregor's RSG shears away what he describes as "the top-heavy Army command structure" that would come with any deployment in favor of units that generate more combat power. "Every time we deploy a division we deploy a division headquarters of 1,000 soldiers and officers," Macgregor explains. "What a waste; those guys will be dead within 72 hours." Macgregor's RSG, what he calls "an alternative force design," does away with this Army command echelon, reporting to a joint force commander–who might or might not be an Army officer. An RSG, Macgregor says, does not need the long supply tail that is required of Brigade Combat Teams -- it can be sustained with what it carries from ten days to two weeks without having to be resupplied.

Macgregor's views line him up against Lt. General H.R. McMaster, an officer widely thought of as one of the Army's best thinkers. McMaster fought under Macgregor at "73 Easting," where he commanded Eagle Troop in Macgregor's Cougar Squadron. McMaster, however, had more success in the Army than Macgregor, is a celebrated author (of Dereliction of Duty, a classic in military history), and is credited with seeding the Anbar Awakening during the Iraq War. Even so, McMaster was twice passed over for higher command until David Petraeus, who headed his promotion board, insisted his success be recognized. McMaster is now a lieutenant general and commands the high-profile Army Capabilities Integration Center (called "ARCINC"), whose mandate is to "design the Army of the future."

For McMaster, the question isn't simply whether the U.S. (and the Army) can fight and win (he believes it can); it's whether having won it's possible to manage the victory; in Colin Powell's phrase, to "own the china" once it's been broken. Macgregor says his RSGs are self- contained and can fight and win without resupply for seven days to two weeks. McMaster scoffs at this, saying it might take a lot longer and the Army is not simply asked to deploy, fight and win, but to then manage the post-conflict environment and "prepare for every contingency." And that, in turn, takes a lot more troops. Macgregor's response? If you focus on fighting and winning instead of nation building you won't need 630,000 troops.

This is precisely the problem that has dogged the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq, where insufficient forces were required to endure multiple deployments. More simply, the U.S. military proved it could defeat Saddam's vastly superior numbers with just 148,000 U.S. troops -- but running the country after Saddam's defeat strained American resources, led to multiple unit deployments and resulted in the adoption of a last-gasp surge.

An Army that cannot be sustained dampens recruiting, erodes readiness, undermines officer retention and increases desertions. Put another way, McMaster implies, an Army of 420,000 (a number that slashing the Army budget will yield), can fight and win a war–but, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, it's not enough to maintain the peace.

"People think of the Army as simply a combat force, but if Afghanistan and Iraq have shown anything it's that after you have conquered the space you still have to manage it," McMaster argues. "I want to make it clear here: we will operate within the budget. The Army has always made do with what the Congress believes is appropriate–and we'll do that now. But the American people must understand that we are being asked to shape political outcomes, and that requires resources. It's not just a matter of building combat capable units, you have to supplement those units and train those units to provide governance.

Macgregor responds by pointing out that ultimate victory is not a matter of size. "The problem with the U.S. Army is much bigger than numbers," he says. "It's not organized, equipped, or trained for a high end, conventional, integrated joint battle with a numerically and at least in some ways qualitatively superior enemy on the enemy's chosen turf. In the simulation, it's Russia. But it could just as easily be China. Even if you increased the Army to 600,000 in its current form … it would still fail. That's the problem and, by the way, the Army knows it."

McMaster disagrees. "We've built an Army that knows how to fight and win," he says, "and it's proven that. Can we get better? Sure, we can get better. And we're working to get better every day. But our military has been successful in protecting this country, in deterring aggression. But for deterrence to be effective you need a brute force option. That's what the Army is -- our brute force option. It's a pretty good one."

Still, at the end of the day, whether the US Army decides to go back to the old division organizational structure, keep the current BCT's or implement the RSG's, the problems remain the same. Much of the focus in the Army needs to return to its bread and butter, fire and maneuver with tanks and Bradleys, backed up by heavy artillery and tactical air support. The Army needs to train its armored force for the kind of combat it will face in the next decade, not relive the battles of Iraq and Afghanistan. Finally, the Army needs more soldiers and organic units. It all takes money. Without enough funding, the problems facing the Army will not only continue, but worsen.

In its current state, if the US Army is called upon to fight the Russians or the Iranians or Chinese, the results could be disastrous.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #99 

Tell that to the Marines!


Ray Starmann is reporting that Secretary of the Navy, Ray Mabus doesn't want to hear the truth. He doesn't want to know the facts.

Mabus is deliberately ignoring the Marines' 900 page study, which describes in detail how women are poorly suited for combat.

Conducted over nine months, the Marine Corps' study involved about 400 Marines, including approximately 100 women. Men and women were assigned to infantry and other ground combat roles as part of the research. They began the experiment in North Carolina and then moved to California, undertaking intensive training in the desert and mountains.

Marine officials concluded that women were injured more often than men, fired their weapons with less accuracy and experienced greater difficulty when tasked with evacuating simulated casualties.

Mabus' political intransience has garnered the attention of Senator John McCain and Congressman Duncan Hunter, a former Marine and combat vet of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Sen. John McCain, told the Washington Examiner that if Mabus was dissatisfied with the Marine Corps' study then he should have halted it months ago. "Why would you have a study if you're going to disregard the results of it?"


Mabus' opinion of the Marine Corps' findings drew sharp criticism from Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., who called the secretary "a political hack who cares more about doing the White House's bidding than the combat effectiveness of the Marine Corps."

Hunter has also called for Mabus' resignation. In reference to Mabus, Hunter wrote to Secretary of Defense, Ash Carter, "He has openly disrespected the Marine Corps as an institution, and he insulted the competency of Marines by disregarding their professional judgment, their combat experience and their quality of leadership. Such a significant loss of respect is detrimental to the ability of the Navy Secretary to effectively lead the men and women of the Marine Corps and ensure the service maintains the highest level of combat effectiveness."

The military is on the cusp of disastrous change, with a mandate to open all combat roles to women by January.  Mabus has made his intentions clear, saying he won't allow either the Navy or the Marine Corps to keep any specialties closed to women.

With all of this information at his fingertips, Mabus has refused to ask for any exemptions to stop women from serving in the combat arms of the Marine Corps. He has also stated the study was flawed and he refuses to even consider the fact that women were 0 for 26 at the Marine Infantry Officers' Course this year.

Is Mabus a functioning Secretary of the Navy or is he just a White House operative parked at a desk in front of Navy and Marine Corps crests?

Mabus might know the truth, but he will never admit it, unless he wants to lose his 5 bedroom, Chevy Chase home, his six figure salary, his Pentagon 401K plan and his key to the executive john.

In the last two months, Mabus has been spouting off one line of nonsense after another. According to Mabus, combat in 2015 is about creative thinking, diversity of thought and technology. To Mabus, ground combat is something akin to visiting your neighborhood, Apple Store, where you can use a paintbrush program to be creative and discuss the new I Pad with several hipsters at the genius bar. For Mabus, these are the tenets of combat effectiveness. This is what wins wars. These are the linchpins of victory. Forget about riflemen closing with and destroying the enemy.

Mabus wouldn't know about combat effectiveness if it ran over him with a M1 tank.

If Mabus knew anything, he would know that combat leaders should limit their creativity and imagination and leave that to the intell guys. Combat leaders must be linear thinkers who know how to receive a mission and execute it. The Marines haven't been kicking butt for 200 years by being creative. It's the United States Marine Corps, Mabus, not Dreamworks Studios.

Mabus' idea of diversity of thought is just more double speak horse dung and hay. The Marines are not going to take a Zogby poll to measure everyone's diversity of thought before embarking on a combat operation. Well, what do you think Amber? Should we take that hill? How about you, Laura, would you like to man the machine gun? Hey, Bob? Should we fight this war? Good God.

The Marines at Iwo Jima didn't win by their fabulous creativity and choreography. They won by combat power, which is maximized by having the toughest, roughest SOB's in uniform that the Corps can find. It's not maximized by recruiting from a Cocoa Beach Pilates class. It's not maximized by four female Marine officers who figure out how to climb over an eight foot wall, something Mabus bragged about in his absurd OP-ED and something four 5th grade girls can manage.

Tell that to the Marines, Mabus. Tell them how creativity and diversity and an I Phone can win wars. And, shout it out loud, all the way to Arlington Cemetery, where 10,000 new graves are being prepared for the dead Marines you and your idiot policies are going to put there.

Tell that to the Marines who fought at Fallujah, Mabus. Tell them how creativity and diversity and some cool Droid apps can win wars.

Tell that to the Marines who fought at Ramadi and Nasiriyah.

Tell that to the Marines who destroyed the Iraqi Army at Khafji.

Tell that to the Marines who battled street by street in Hue and who were under constant siege at Khe Sanh.

Tell that to the Marines at the Frozen Chosin.

Tell that to the Marines at Iwo Jima and Guadalcanal and Tarawa and in Belleau Woods.

Tell them how war is so fundamentally different now that you don't need the toughest and the boldest. You don't need Dan Daly, Ira Hayes, Chesty Puller, France Silva, Lou Diamond and Merritt Edson.

Ray Mabus is nothing more than a political hack, a minion, a lackey, a drone, doing the Obama administration's bidding. Last May, he stated that he wanted the Marines to be comprised of at least 25% percent women! Mabus was given the job for one reason and one reason only, to help destroy the Corps.

He is a shipwreck and a disgrace to the Navy and to the Marine Corps, but, he's the perfect man for the job for the Obama administration.

Ray Mabus will never be in combat with the Marines he reigns over. He will never have to suffer the deadly consequences of his and others' impotent decisions. Look the Marines in the eye, Mabus and tell them that the decisions you are making and the policies you support are good for the Marines Corps and the country's national security. If you were in combat Mabus, who would you want next to you, a man who is six feet tall and 190 pounds or the high school prom queen who stands 5 feet nothing and weighs 90 pounds wringing wet. Who do you want to hit the beach with, Mabus? Who do you want to battle street by street with, Mabus? Who do you want on an ambush with you, Mabus? Who do you want carrying a heavy machine gun, Mabus?

Tell that to the Marines!

And, shout it all the way to Arlington National Cemetery.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does

Super Moderators
Posts: 23,050
Reply with quote  #100 

The Kool-Aid kings and queens of the Pentagon


Ray Starmann says it seems nearly every day that the Pentagon is talking to the American people in double, triple and quadruple speak. The truth is a fugitive, on the run from numerous admirals, generals and cabinet members who distort reality and who are sucking down enough Kool Aid to fill Chesapeake Bay.

According to the Pentagon, the air war against ISIS is successful, combat in Iraq is non-combat, women can make it through Navy SEAL training and 50 Special Forces soldiers can retake Syria.

Who's running the Pentagon now, Charlie Sheen?

Without further ado, the Pentagon Kool Aid dramatis personae:

Secretary of Defense Ash Carter -- Ash and Trash Carter has a lot of degrees in physics and a ton of experience loitering around various bureaucratic water coolers. Sadly, the man has no military experience, which makes him the perfect choice to carry the Obama administration's social experiment torch. Carter has already been behind a few idiotic statements such as the Delta Force "non-combat, combat" and his decision or his willingness to go along with Obama's decision to send just 50 SF guys into Syria.

Maybe the guy who knows how to tune the Enterprise's warp speed conductor should be down at NASA instead? Just a thought…

Carter's a nice guy and that's another problem. There's no one at the Pentagon or in the Beltway with the toughness to stand up to the marauding White House Visigoths. When asked last week, about the Marines' study that showed that women can't hack it in the infantry and his impending decision in January to authorize women in the combat arms, this was Ash and Trash Carter's response in a nutshell.

"I have received the study and it is being evaluated currently and the decision process is ongoing and therefore no results have been obtained or decided and therefore I can't answer that question because it's in the system and moving forward and I will evaluate the information concurrently as the situation unfolds and the details are presented to me."

Whiskey, Tango, Foxtrot?

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus -- In the Oxford English Dictionary under "idiot" it says, see Ray Mabus. Mabus is another of Obama's willing destroyers of the macho, male culture in the military. You know the culture that wins wars and protects us all. In a recent Washington Post OP-ED, Mabus wrote that war has mellowed so much since 1992 that women should be allowed to serve in the combat arms. I guess he forgot about Fallujah, Tal Afar, Sadr City, Tora Bora, Ramadi and a thousand other battles that the Marines and the Army won the old-fashioned way, by riflemen taking and holding ground and killing bad guys.

In the same OP-ED, Mabus said that diversity of thought, technology and creative thinking can win wars now. Mabus went on to write about four female Marine officers who figured out how to scale an eight foot wall and because of this, women should be allowed to serve in the infantry. Mabus refuses to look at the Marines' recent study that concluded women will be ill-suited in combat. I cannot remember a Secretary of the Navy that was as disliked by the Marines as Mabus is.

Former Secretary of the Army John McHugh -- "I'm an ordinary guy, burning down the house…" McHugh's tenure of destruction at the Pentagon ended this week. He spent his last month in office, stalling Congressman Steve Russell and his request for the Ranger School records of the female graduates. When the stalling stopped, the shredding started. McHugh escaped out of a latrine back window just as Russell was kicking in the front door with an impending congressional investigation of the Army's conduct and special treatment of women at Ranger School.

Secretary of the Army Eric Fanning -- "We are family, I got all my soldiers with me." Who else, but the man who chaired the Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund would Obama choose as the next Secretary of the Army. Fanning is another lackey like Mabus, who is in place to ensure that the Army is destroyed by the Great Social Experiment. While most Americans view homosexuality with indifference, the concept of open homosexuality in the military is most certainly detrimental to unit cohesion, morale and fighting spirit. Under Fanning, the Army's motto has gone from "This We'll Defend" to "Not that there's anything wrong with it!" How did Obama's decision process work on this one? Paul Lynde; funny, but gone; Charles Nelson Reilly, ditto; Truman Capote, checked out. Let's see, who's left, Nathan Lane; no sir, booked on Broadway. Okay, how about Fanny? No sir, that's Fanning. Call her. No sir, Fanning's a him. What's the difference? There's no such thing as genders anyway. Yes sir, dialing now.

And, then there's Debbie…

Secretary of the Air Force Deborah Lee James has been Secretary of the Air Force for almost two years and during that time, she has been responsible for bringing in the over-priced, under-performing F-35 and running out the old reliable, A-10. She's also leading the charge on ending the ban on trans-genders in the Air Force. Why do I have a mental picture of Caitlyn Jenner flying a B-17 in an evening gown? But, hey, we don't want to offend anyone. Not that there's anything wrong with it!

Like Ash and Trash Carter, "She's a natural for the job, at least by Obama administration standards. She spent 20 years of her 30-year career as a House Armed Services Committee staffer and a Clinton administration Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. Her last ten years were spent at SAIC (a large Beltway consulting firm). She's not a warrior by any standard, but she reportedly met one once."

Rear Admiral John Kirby -- "It's a beautiful day at the Pentagon, a beautiful day for smoke and mirrors…would you be mine, ISIS, could you be mine?" Rear Admiral Kirby, aka Mister Rogers, is now at the State Department or Foggy Bottom, which is perfect for him, since he was running the Pentagon fog machine for a couple years before he took the trolley over to State. During his tenure as Pentagon spokesman, Kirby told the world on a daily basis how well the air campaign against ISIS was going. Now, El Kirbo is tap dancing his way through daily State Department briefings, which includes painting a portrait of Hillary Clinton as Mother Theresa instead of Ma Barker.

General (Ret.) Martin Dempsey -- "You're here, there's nothing I fear and I know that my retirement benefits will go on…" Dempsey, the former Captain of the US Army Titanic is gone, but never forgotten is the list of damage done to the Army during his tenure, The man Senator John McCain called, "The echo chamber of the Obama administration," said not a peep as the US Army was used as the Obama administration's personal, pet social experiment. Dempsey's legacy also consists of his famous non sequitur, "If women can't meet military standards, the Pentagon will ask does it really have to be that high?"

Dempsey is currently floating away on a wooden pallet as the US Army Titanic plunges into the cold depths of the Potomac.

General Mark Milley -- "Silver wings on his chest, but drinking Kool Aid, with the rest…" The new Army Chief of Staff has lots of grunt and SF experience, but he's already drinking and bathing in Kool Aid. He was down at Benning congratulating female grads Griest and Haver on a job well earned at Ranger School and smiling for the cameras and the press. Stay tuned for more from Willie Milley. I particularly enjoyed his hogwash commentary about the current state of the Army now. I guess they all have to say stuff like this.

"We have the most skilled, ethical, and combat hardened Army in our nation's history. I am honored to lead this remarkable team."

Mussolini was probably telling his own army they were the most skilled, ethical and combat hardened army in Italy's history as the British ran them out of North Africa.

It's certainly the most technologically advanced Army. Skilled; yes, in light infantry for another war against the Taliban or Al Qaeda in Iraq, but what happens when we have to go against the Russians or an Iranian armored corps? Whoops. According to Colonel Gian Gentile, the US can't even field a heavy BCT now. Cavalry squadrons can't run a range and soldiers with armor MOS' barely know how to load a main gun round. Ethical; certainly, the troops are pretty ethical, but the Army's senior leaders aren't. How can they be? They're lying to themselves and the nation on a daily basis. Combat hardened; yes, but many have left and who remains as the leadership of the Army now? The rubber men of Arlington, who bend and bow to every insane whim floating through the air, that's who.

General Joe Dunford is the last hope for the country and the US military. Thank God a Marine is the Chairman of the JCS. Maybe Dunford can save the military. Maybe Dunford will make the Marines's final stand against females being shoved into the combat arms. Maybe Dunford will stop it all. Maybe, maybe, maybe…

At least having a Marine in charge gives you hope. The Navy, the Air Force and finally, the Army have cut off their testicles and placed them in mason jars at the bottom of a 10,000 foot mine shaft.

The perfumed princes and princesses at the Pentagon have forgotten that the military exists for one sole reason, TO WAGE WAR on sea, on land and in the air. It is not, nor has it ever been a repository for every crackpot cultural Marxist scheme cooked up in the twisted confines of a Berkeley coffee house.

Saying nothing and playing along may seem like the best decision for your career and your retirement benefits, but unless you are insane, which I know you're not, you must know that the decisions you are making and the horse dung and hay you're espousing are hurting the military and your country every day. The policies you help implement are not progressive, but rather suicidal for the nation and its defense.

History will judge you one day ladies and gentlemen and the judgment won't be a favorable one. You will one day be viewed as the people who betrayed America's national security for the greater glory of yourselves.

Until that day comes, Kool Aid is available on tap at the Pentagon.

A man that lies about who he is will never have a problem lying about what he does
Previous Topic | Next Topic

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.

Help fight the

The United States Library of Congress
has selected for inclusion
in its historic collection of Internet materials

Be a subscriber

© Copyright  Beckwith  2011 - 2017
All rights reserved