Tale of Two Militaries
In an article in American Spectator, John R. Guardino pinpoints the problem facing today’s U.S. military – political creatures like Colin Powell, Wesley Clark and George Casey versus the men and women charged with fighting the battles and protecting our nation. And, the two do not work well together.
As the Ft. Hood killing and military “diversity” talk clearly shows, ours is a tale of two militaries.
One military is battle hardened and forward deployed; the other is soft, bureaucratic and backward. One military champions Theodore Roosevelt’s “manly virtues”; the other espouses leftwing feminist cant. One military takes the fight to the Jihadist enemy; the other cowers before the Jihadist lobby.
One military is faithful to America’s martial traditions; the other seeks to undermine those traditions. One military champions Washington and Lee, Jackson and Grant, McArthur and Patton; the other champions a softer and gentler leadership archetype.
One military champions excellence; the other champions “diversity.” One military champions fairness and equality; the other champions affirmative action, quotas and set-asides. One military is at war with the Islamists; the other is at war with the U.S. Constitution. One military is politically incorrect; the other kowtows to political correctness.
Dwight Eisenhower was a political creature. He would have succeeded in today’s army. Mem like Patton, MacArthur and Pershing would have likely quit in disgust.
There is good that can come out of everything, even a tragedy like the massacre at Ft. Hood. We can only hope that what the American public continues to learn from Ft. Hood will motivate them to question the governmental bureauracy, the media and the effect poilitical correctness continues to have in destroying the fabric of our nation.
Hat tip: American Spectator
CASEY: “Again, I think that’s something else we need to be very careful about, and I think the speculation could potentially heighten backlash against some of our Muslim soldiers. And what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. And it’s not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse army. We have a very diverse society.
“And that gives us all strength. So again, we need to be very careful with that.”
[1]
Just as John McCain came from a family of admirals, George W. Casey’s father was a major general in the Army. One has to wonder what role family connections played in his rise through the ranks.
[2]
Eisenhower was political…but still knew the enemy when he saw them.
Still, we need far fewer “Eisenhowers” and a lot more “Pattons” right now. Sadly, the ratio is reversed.
[3]
Obama is a marxist who hates America. General Casey chooses to serve him and carry out policies destructive to America and deadly to the American soldier.
What does that make Casey?
[4]
mullet, he’s AT BEST an accessory…though looking more like an accomplice all the time!
[5]
Curtis LeMay may have been the last non-politician to serve on the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
[6]
I am sick of the word diversity. It implies a lack of unification. I am sick of hyphenated Americans. You either are an American or you are not. I don’t care what race or gender you are- if you are an American you need to defend America and stop holding onto ways to selfishly bring your own self interest into an arena that requires unity.
[7]
If I was gonna be a “hyphenated American” I would choose:
Pissed-Off-American, or Outraged-American!
but like you, I am sick unto death of “diversity”. It is ROUTINELY used to excuse failure and punish success in our society.
The people hung up on “Diversity” are BIGOTS I mean that . They view everyone and everything through a RACIAL LENS and/or ETHNIC LENS and/or SOCIO-ECONOMIC LENS, etc… But ALWAYS through some lens.
I have a DREAM…make that a DEMAND that people:
“not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.“
[8]
JM -
We have gone from the melting pot (being Americans first but continuing to cherish traditions of our ancestors) to diversity (where ethenticiuty and religion – as long as it’s not Christian) comes first. Moral equivalency reigns supreme.
[9]
That lens is exactly right. Just like Boxer.
WTH He was right to call her a racist. The crazy thing was she was appalled by his comment! Was she ignorant of her racism? I actually don’t think so, I think she was shocked she was called out on it.
*I edited this because I am going to go dig up the video, for flair.
[10]
Here is my honest answer based on years of experience: Just about EVERYONE above the rank of O-6 (full COL in the Army) is a politician in uniform to some degree. Some are 100% like the guys you list, some only to the degree they need to be to get things done within the “system” (think Patereous). But all of them have to have some political skill to survive and keep moving up the GO ranks. This is just fact – its politicized to a large degree making it not so much a mertiocracy as the rest of the military is at lower ranks.
[11]
Wylie E. Coyote, agreed. But occaisionally a Chesty Puller slips through!
[12]
My dad served in the European Theatre during WW II. I can always remember him telling me how soldiers liked Bradley but would sooner serve under Patton whom they respected and knew was a leader. I guess having respect for someone is more important than liking them with no respect.
He also talked about how soldiers were held accountable under Patton but not always under Bradley. His story he told was soldiers behavior in cities with women and going into homes. Patton did not let his soldiers get away with loose moral items at all.