The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.
Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.
One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.
The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.
Let me point out something very simple. The purpose of the military is not to reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix of the country. The job of the military is to:
Fight and deter the enemies of the united states
Defend our allies and to deter those who would threaten them.
Protect American interest and citizens.
As long as we are able to do this, I don’t care if our military is composed of three-legged aliens who all answer to the name “Harold”. I’ll let others argue the specifics, the bottom line is promotion and leadership should be based on whatever helps the military achieve those goals I listed, that it!
The moment we do otherwise we lose the best military in the world, and believe me the rest of the world and our enemies are watching.
During today’s show in the 2nd hour we talked about Libya and the prospect of Gaddafi. Unlike last week when the question was: “Will Gaddafi still be there next week?” This weeks question was: “At the end of the month where are we, civil war still on, rebels win or Gaddafi wins?
The general consensus was that the war continues. I however maintain that unless the international community acts by the end of the month Gaddafi will have won the war. In a two-hour show with other topics to deal with its harder to explain in detail, but here are my reasons:
1. There are dictators and there are dictators:
A lot of people made the mistake seeing that because Egypt fell without excessive bloodshed Libya would as well. They made the mistake of confusing an American Ally with troops trained by Americans and supplied by Americans with a lone wolf who is opposed to America. Mubarek was in fact a dictator but because of American training and American influence there were lines that he and his troops would not cross. Gaddafi is a wholly independent dictator. The only influence we had was his fear of George Bush which removed his WMD’s from the picture years ago. Anyone who thought Gaddafi was unwilling to kill his own people hasn’t followed Gaddafi.
2. Money talks:
The international community has known for decades what Gaddafi is and what he does, why then the sudden desire to have him removed and the condemnation that have been ringing out? Well reason #1 is they believed he was on the way out and wanted to be sure to be on the winning side (they didn’t pay attention to item #1) but now that the winning side is not clear-cut you are hearing an awful lot of talk but very little action this is right out of Yes Minister
Part of the exchange ties down exactly what I think is going to happen:
Bernard: “What are we going to do to help them?”
Dick: “Nothing,”
Bernard: “But what if St. Georges appeals to us?”
Dick: “Then we give them every support, short of help.”
and this earlier part of the exchange explains why:
Sir Humphrey: “…facts complicate things, all that the press, the people and their elected leaders want to know is who are the goodies and who are the baddies”
Dick: “The problem is the interests of Britain nearly always involve doing deals with people the public think are the baddies…”
Sir Humphrey: “and not helping the goodies occasionally when it doesn’t help us.”
As it has become apparent that the rebels will not win an easy victory we can count on the international community to stall until they figure out who will win, then take that side.
4. The apology tour redux:
One of the side effects of the American apology tour is the determination that the US is going to stay out of the way. This more than anything else was the basis of the Nobel Peace Price for President Obama. President Bush’s push for democracy put an awful lot of people in a spot where they had to take positions on things they would rather not. The prize for President Obama was for not putting people in that awkward spot. Combine this with the president Obama’s political background (his allies are charter members of the blame America first school that considers any American military intervention as a sign of imperialism) and any kind of intervention becomes awkward. We will undoubtedly hear the “right” words from the president but it is unlikely that it will be more than that. The only possible exception is if he starts paying an excessive political price for inaction. The person here to watch is Sarah Palin. If she makes pronouncements concerning the rights and the protection of the Libyan people and they catch on, watch the White House react so the president doesn’t appear to be less of a leader than the former governor who is supposed to be not a serious political threat.
5. If you come for one of us, you come for all of us:
As the US has moved into the background, China and other nations have moved forward. China has already taken steps to make sure the Jasmine Revolution doesn’t take off of the ground. Hugo Chavez is backing Gaddafi and Iran is making noises about interference. All of these nations are dictatorships and either produce oil, control access to oil or have huge economic clout. It is in their interest for any kind of revolutionary spirit to be stopped. When it was Egypt they let it go, after all it was an American ally, but with revolts and the idea of democracy spreading the danger becomes to great to them, so presto, their oil and economic clout is used to stall or prevent intervention by the international community. (see #3).
6. Preparing for the worst:
This article from Der Spiegel online shows that Gaddafi has carefully planned ahead for just such an eventuality as this one:
Libya’s air force is made up of roughly 18,000 men and women, most of whom are staunch supporters of the regime. The elite military branch recruited from followers who were 100 percent loyal to the regime, and members of Gadhafi’s Gadhadfa tribe and its closely allied Magariha tribe were given preference during the selection process for recruits. They have shown a blind obedience to their commander in chief. Only a handful of pilots and officers have switched sides to join the opposition.
As for the rebels:
For now, it is also unclear just how many of the 45,000 ground troops have defected to the opposition. The fact that entire regiments have apparently deserted in eastern Libya appears to have been something that Gadhafi correctly anticipated. Gadhafi has never trusted his army, because it was primarily made up of conscripts, many of whom belonged to tribes opposed to his own. “Gadhafi has retained significant elements of the army and lost the elements he was always afraid he could lose, those affiliated with tribes he had targeted,” George Joffé, an expert on North Africa at Cambridge University, told the New York Times.
Bottom line, unless the west is able to resist the pressure or unless he is taken out personally I don’t see how Gaddafi loses this fight, declarations of republics not withstanding.
Update: In case it’s not clear, this is not what I want to happen, this is what I think will happen.
When Morning Joe went long with Rolling Stone great Military expose four days ago I said this:
WOW that’s absolutely positively…ordinary
Today at Hotair Bruce McQuain tells why Rolling Stone gathered no moss.
Hastings apparently took the word of LTC Michael Holmes as the premise and theme of his article. In fact he sets it up with a quote from Holmes:
“My job in psy-ops is to play with people’s heads, to get the enemy to behave the way we want them to behave,” says Lt. Colonel Michael Holmes, the leader of the IO unit, who received an official reprimand after bucking orders. “I’m prohibited from doing that to our own people. When you ask me to try to use these skills on senators and congressman, you’re crossing a line.”
Except LTC Holmes job wasn’t “in psy-ops” (Psychological Operations) nor is LTC Holmes trained in PsyOps. That is a very specific Military Occupational Specialty (MOS) that requires school training. The place in which PsyOps is taught is the John F. Kennedy Special Warfare Center and School at Ft. Bragg, NC. According to Special Operations Command, the Special Warfare School has never heard of LTC Michael Holmes.
His conclusion?
In short Hastings was gulled by Holmes. If anyone was a victim of “psy-ops” here, it was Michael Hastings. His lack of knowledge about the command plus an apparent desire to put another general officer notch in his journalistic belt left him open to a sob story from a disgruntled officer that may have sounded good to him, but appears to have little or no basis in fact. A story from an officer who had already been reprimanded for making a false official statement.
Go and read the whole thing. Joe Scarborough? Better luck next time, will be interested in how you will report on this stories crash and burn. As for Rolling Stone…I suggest you stick to Bieber manina.
Morning Joe was breathless today reporting that the well-known bastion of journalistic mud-racking on government issues Rolling Stone magazine is reporting that our troops were using “psi-ops” against US senators.
Joe breathlessly reported this as a turning point, Norah O’Donnell subbing for Mika talked about it breathlessly and then when the panel started talking about it, the one person who had actually read the article, found very little there there:
So I figured I’d take a look at rolling stone, to see what that pillar of serious news had to say.
The U.S. Army illegally ordered a team of soldiers specializing in “psychological operations” to manipulate visiting American senators into providing more troops and funding for the war
WOAH! sounds nasty! No wonder they hate soldiers at Columbia. Did they bug their hotels looking for dirt, plant hot blonds to snooze them and take pictures? Maybe they waterboarded or drugged them? What nefarious methods did Rolling Stone uncover that the Evil US army used against senators:
According to Holmes, who attended at least a dozen meetings with Caldwell to discuss the operation, the general wanted the IO unit to do the kind of seemingly innocuous work usually delegated to the two dozen members of his public affairs staff: compiling detailed profiles of the VIPs, including their voting records, their likes and dislikes, and their “hot-button issues.” In one email to Holmes, Caldwell’s staff also wanted to know how to shape the general’s presentations to the visiting dignitaries, and how best to “refine our messaging.” emphasis mine
…WOW that’s absolutely positively…ordinary, but I’m sure that it gets worse because in the very next paragraph it says:
According to Holmes, the general wanted the IO team to provide a “deeper analysis of pressure points we could use to leverage the delegation for more funds.” The general’s chief of staff also asked Holmes how Caldwell could secretly manipulate the U.S. lawmakers without their knowledge. “How do we get these guys to give us more people?” he demanded. “What do I have to plant inside their heads?”
Wow he wants to find pressure point, he want to plant stuff inside their heads, boy this sounds a lot like…..lobbying.
But it’s not like Holmes the source for this story had a grudge. After all any soldier could be the subject of an Ar 15-6 investigation. And I’m sure many Colonials and their female Majors under them get reprimands over an “inappropriate relationship”. After all Rolling Stone covers stuff like this all the time and married or no they understand that as Holmes wrote: “Gimmee a break a man has needs you know.”
So this is the breathless story that Morning Joe started the show with and Norah O’Donnell in their first hour. It flew like a lead balloon and made such an impact that they followed up with their 2nd hour to go long with the crank call to Gov Walker before trying once again to sell this story as the template for the anti-war left, this time without Jamie Rubin who had popped their bubble in the first hour as MSNBC runs with the story.
The real problem lately has been reports out of Afghanistan have been encouraging and the agenda of the left when it comes to Afghanistan is the opposite of Reagan’s “We win they lose”.
One of the people who I ran into CPAC was the young lady who last year worked for Joe Scarborough who had given me the high compliment of saying I was tough but fair on him. When she greeted me I mentioned that I was even harder on him lately, she approved and it was suggested that he was more concerned these days with being accepted by the cocktail set.
When I talk about Morning Joe these days I’m often teased that I follow it because so few people watch it. The more I see of it lately the more that critique seems justified.
Da Techguy's (no longer backup) Blog 