Dialoghi > Natura maschile e natura femminile

Soldatesse e donne in divisa (da carnevale)

(1/27) > >>


--- Citazione ---What Do Women Want? The Pentagon Doesn’t Care
August 22, 2016

What Do Female Olympians Know that the Pentagon Doesn’t?

For years, feminists have insisted that military women couldn’t wait to be treated like men in “tip of the spear” direct ground combat units.  Now that their social experiment is underway, Pentagon officials are having trouble finding women who want to participate.

The Army’s top enlisted man, Sgt. Maj. Dan Dailey, recently found it necessary to beg female non-commissioned officers to “step up” and transfer into combat arms units such as the infantry. [1] Shortages of female NCOs should not have been a surprise.  Smart women won’t put their careers and health at disproportionate risk just to prove bogus theories about “gender equality.”

There is a difference between the experience of being “in harms’ way,” where women have served with courage, and physically-demanding direct ground combat units that attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action.  In that environment, combat packs weighing 100 pounds are not equal when women’s physical strength and endurance are not equal.

In an official survey, 92.5% of Army women said they wanted nothing to do with the infantry. [2] Last year three women made it through Ranger school after multiple attempts, but more aspirants haven’t shown up since.  Another female Marine officer recently became the 30th candidate who failed on the tough Infantry Officer Course, and no more have signed up to try. [3]

Meanwhile, six of seven female enlisted Marine recruits failed to qualify with sufficient strength, stamina, and running speed for direct ground combat assignments.  Their 86% failure rate on revised “gender-neutral” basic training tests, compared to 3% of men who failed, did not meet expectations that hundreds of women soon would qualify for the combat arms. [4]

Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus nevertheless announced that one-in-four Marine recruits should be women – a 25% gender quota that he simultaneously denies.   Maj. Gen. Paul Kennedy, head of Marine Corps Recruiting Command, told Associated Press that he plans to induct 10% women by focusing on physically-strong high school girls who participate in sports such as wrestling. [5]

The aggressive effort will involve specialized advertising, targeted direct mail, and personal visits with coaches ˗ tactics that have been tried before.  In 2008 the Marines launched a similar campaign aimed at athletic women, advertising in popular magazines such as Shape and Fitness.  A thousand “qualified leads” returned response cards, but only two of those turned into enlistments – one of them already interested because of her Navy brother. [6]

Recruiting is a tough job.  Youth surveys in the Spring of 2015 showed that 14% of young men might consider joining the Marine Corps, compared to only 4% of women. [7]

Recruiters have to contact twice as many female prospects in order to find one recruit, and costs for each one are even higher because they are more likely to drop out before “shipping” to basic training.  Boot camp attrition rates consistently have been twice as high as men’s, and new “gender-neutral” physical fitness standards will widen the gap even more. [8]

Feminists Don't Speak for Women

Last year, civilian Pentagon consultants insisted that new “career opportunities” would attract and retain more women in the military. [9] Credible data, however, discredited those claims.

In 2012, the Center for Naval Analysis (CNA) conducted a major survey asking thousands of Marines how prospective rule changes making women eligible for the combat arms would affect their own decision to join or stay in the Corps. [10]  Five percent of female Marine respondents said they would not have joined the Corps under such rules.

When asked about orders to serve in the combat arms on an involuntary basis, negative responses jumped to 23%, almost one in four.  Twenty-two percent of male Marines expressed the same opinion. [11]

Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter should have paid attention to these survey results, and to the best professional advice of then-Marine Commandant General Joseph Dunford.  In the Fall of 2015 General Dunford requested exceptions to mandates ordering women into the infantry and other combat arms, and supported his position with highly-credible research findings. [12]

In scientifically-monitored combat field tests, all-male units outperformed gender-mixed ones 69% of the time, and women experienced two- to six-times more injuries.  Brig. Gen. George W. Smith, Jr., who directed the Marines’ three-year, multi-phased research projects, warned that ignoring these realities would degrade “survivability and lethality” – paramount factors needed to win in deliberate offensive action against the enemy. [13]

Secretary Carter ignored these concerns, announcing in December 2015 that minimally-qualified women would become eligible for direct ground combat assignments.  Carter also stated clearly that women would have to accept such assignments on the same involuntary basis as men. [14]

Military recruiters seem to know they have a problem.  CMR has learned that annual youth surveys of “propensity to serve” in the military have not even asked high school girls about involuntary “opportunities” to be ordered into the infantry.

The situation does not excuse comments that mislead young women about what they would face once they sign up.  Recruiting Commander Kennedy told AP reporter Lolita Baldor that he is working to “debunk misconceptions” about military sexual harassment and the difficulty of having a family life.  Maj. Gen. Kennedy also wants to “allay fears that women would be forced into combat jobs they don’t want.” [15]

This sales pitch stretches ethical bounds to the breaking point.  Problems with sexual harassment and worse continue to escalate, family life in an expeditionary force is more difficult for women (especially mothers) than for men, and involuntary assignments to the combat arms are not a “misconception.”

As the Secretary of Defense confirmed, following orders is not a matter of choice.  This is how the Army will fill shortages of female NCOs to supervise enlisted women in previously all-male combat arms units.

Lessons from the Olympics

On a recent network morning show, one recruiting officer enthusiastically praised women’s abilities to perform physical fitness tests as well as the men.  “Look at the Olympics,” he said.  What do teenage female athletes know that this recruiting officer doesn’t?

At the Rio Summer Games our female Olympians dazzled the world with their speed, skill, and grace.  But if new rules required that women run, swim, or wrestle against men, many would be injured and few would win medals.  Only male gymnasts perform on the pommel horse and suspend themselves in “T” shapes between rings, thanks to testosterone-powered muscles that even the strongest women don’t have. [16]

Aspiring Olympians have more common sense than military officials who ignore such realities at great risk to lives and military missions.  Before young women are forced into the infantry, perhaps the Olympics should abolish gender-specific competitions and watch what happens.

Civilian consultants like RAND Corporation insist that over time, “gender-neutral standards,” and “leadership” will erode and eventually erase all concerns and resistance.  But during the Marines’ Ground Combat Element Integration Task Force (GCEITF) research, the opposite proved to be true.

Over nine months of field tests, perceptions of combat effectiveness among male and female participants steeply declined from very high to low.[17]  This CNA survey and the one mentioned above were among many research reports – more than half ˗˗ which were omitted from the list of research documents posted on a Defense Department website. [18] Truth remains true, even if the administration choses to hide or ignore it.

Young women considering military life have a right to know that they would be up against if they sign up to serve their country under politically-correct policies implementing gender equality myths.  If Olympic officials do not force accomplished female athletes to compete against men, grown men in the Pentagon should not be sending trusting young women to go fight ISIS.

[1] Michelle Tan, Military Times, SMA: Army Needs More Female Soldiers to Step Up for Combat Jobs, Aug. 15, 2016.

[2] Lolita C. Baldor, AP and USA Today, Few Women Want Combat Jobs, Survey Says, Feb. 24, 2014.

[3] Lolita C. Baldor, AP/Marine Corps Times: Female Marine Can’t Complete Infantry Officer Course – No More Women Now Enrolled, Aug. 12, 2016.

[4] Lolita C. Baldor, AP/Military.com, New Marine Corps Fitness Standards for Combat Weed Out Men, Women Alike, Jun 21, 2016.

[5] Lolita C. Baldor, AP/CNS News, FN #1, supra, Marines Turn to Girls High School Sports Teach for Recruits, Aug. 13, 2016.

[6] Douglas Quenqua, New York Times, Sending in the Marines (to Recruit Women), Apr. 21, 2008.

[7] Data provided by Joint Advertising Marketing & Research Studies (JAMRS), 2013 and 2015.

[8] Briefing for the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), USMC Response to Request for Information (RFI A4), Dec. 4, 2014, and Footnote #3, supra.

[9] RAND Corporation, Implications of Integrating Women into the Marine Corps Infantry, Dec. 2015, p. xiv.  This document includes many examples of overly-optimistic estimates, contingent on self-interested recommendations for the hiring of a small army of “gender advisors,” training programs addressing “unconscious bias,” and admittedly-expensive “gender integration oversight boards” to encourage and monitor “hyper-masculine” cultural change over a period of decades. (pp. xx – xxii and 22)  These self-interested arrangements put RAND and other civilian consultants in line for lucrative contracts to write future reports praising their own “success,” but always asking for more contracts when predicted problems ensue.

[10] Center for Naval Analysis, Assessing the Implications of Possible Changes to Women in Service Restrictions – A Quick-Look Analysis of   Summary Results, DRM-2012-U-002586-Final, Nov. 2012.  This CNA document, obtained by CMR with a Freedom of Information (FOIA), was not included on the Defense Department list of USMC Research results.  It is available at: https://cmrlink.org/data/CNAMarine-CorpsWICsurvey-results.pdf

[11] Ibid., pp. 34-37.

[12] Dan Lamothe, Washington Post, In Historic Decision, Secretary of Defense Opens All Jobs in Combat Units to Women, Dec. 3, 2015.  The text of Gen. Dunford’s request for exceptions that he was entitled to file with the Secretary of Defense and the synthesized data backing it up should be a matter of public record.  To date, those documents have not been disclosed.

[13] Brig. Gen. George Smith, Jr., Director, Marine Corps Force Innovation Office, Memorandum for the Commandant, p. 7.  More information is available in a Statement for the Record, Hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Feb. 2, 2016, Submitted by Elaine Donnelly, President, Center for Military Readiness.

[14] Department of Defense News Transcript, Dec. 3, 2015.

[15] Baldor, AP, footnote #2, supra.

[16] Ivy Morris, Livestrong.com, Sports & Fitness, What is the Difference Between Men’s Gymnastics and Women’s Gymnastics? Nov. 7, 2015.

[17] Center for Naval Analysis, Assessment of Change in Marines’ Perspectives during the Ground Combat Element Integrated Task Force, Volume 1, Data Analysis, Aug. 2013, pp. 19-20.

[18] U.S. Department of Defense, Women in Service Studies, posted at http://www.defense.gov/News/Publications/WISR-Studies.  In the course of filing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, CMR learned that more than half of recent research reports produced between 2012 and 2015 – documents that the public has a right to see -- were not posted on the Defense Department’s list.
--- Termina citazione ---


--- Citazione ---Congress Should Challenge Myths About Women, Combat, and the Draft
June 26, 2016

Myths about gender equality in the military are starting to crumble under the pressure of actual experience.  Witness the recent Associated Press report that 6 of 7 female Marine recruits failed to qualify in training for direct ground combat assignments.

The women deserve credit for trying, but it matters that 86 percent of them, compared to 3 percent of the men, could not meet gender-neutral tests of upper body strength, stamina, and running speed.  Mostly-civilian “experts” had predicted that 200 women per year would qualify for ground combat assignments.  The emperor's new clothes, it seems, are getting a bit gauzy.

A few women can meet minimal combat arms standards, but the fact remains that most women cannot meet them while most men can.  In a future national emergency making it necessary to reinstate Selective Service, it would not make sense to order all women to register as if they were the physical equals of men.

Common sense nevertheless was missing during a closed-door meeting of the Senate Armed Services Committee on May 19.  Chairman John McCain (R-AZ) approved surprise legislation that would force young civilian women to register for a possible future draft.  Then the full Senate rubber-stamped the McCain mandate for co-ed conscription as part of the 2017 National Defense Authorization Act, without a separate vote.

Since the House did not approve similar legislation, conference committee members reconciling both versions of the defense bill should drop Chairman McCain’s “draft America’s daughters” legislation.  If lame-duck President Barack Obama gets the opportunity, he will sign the McCain mandate into law, doing harm to every young woman of draft age in America.

Flawed gender-equality theories and misinformation have blurred harsh realities.  It is not true, for example, that Selective Service would only induct young women for traditional positions supporting combat troops.

The last time Congress debated this issue, a Senate report clearly stated that the only legitimate purpose of Selective Service registration is to speed the process of finding and training “combat replacements” for troops who are fighting and dying on the battlefield.  No one is drafted to play clarinet in the Marine band.

Contrary to vague claims about “equality” or “fairness,” the brutal, physically-exhausting nature of direct ground combat against ruthless adversaries is not “equal” or “fair” to anyone.  It is not even civilized.

Both the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, and researchers conducting extensive tests for the U.S. Marine Corps from 2012 to 2015, produced definitive findings that can be summarized in one sentence: “In the infantry and other direct ground combat units that attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action, women do not have an equal opportunity to survive, or help fellow soldiers to survive.”

Instead of reality-based debate about national security, we hear petulance from “egalitarian sexists” and “hostile proponents” who resent feminists and blame military women for “gender diversity” quotas.  “You asked for equality,” they taunt, even though an official survey found that less than 8 percent of Army women wanted to serve in the combat arms.  Civilian women’s views haven’t been sought at all.

Patriotic women have always served and sacrificed in our nation’s wars.  They will volunteer to do so again.  As for claims that women need close combat experience to be promoted ˗ Defense Department figures repeatedly have shown that for decades, women have been promoted at rates equal to or faster than men.

Responsible members of Congress have yet to conduct open hearings with independent experts who would explain why the Obama Administration should have respected the Marine Corps’ request to keep infantry and other fighting forces all-male.

Oversight requires an objective review of field research exercises in which all-male teams displayed greater speed and lethality in 69 percent of scientifically-monitored tests.  Injury rates among women were two to six times greater than men’s, and even higher injury rates in load-bearing infantry units would seriously detract from mission readiness.

Everyone hopes it will never be necessary to reinstate the draft, but Selective Service registration of young men remains a relatively low-cost insurance policy to defend America if multiple threats overwhelm our shrinking All-Volunteer Force.

If the McCain mandate for co-ed conscription becomes law and a catastrophic national emergency makes it necessary to reactivate Selective Service, officials would have to call up both women and men, ages 18-26, in roughly equal numbers.

The administrative burden of culling thousands of women, just to find the theoretical one-in-seven who might be qualified, would actually hinder the speed and lethality needed to respond to an existential military threat.  As stated in a previous Senate report, “[A]n induction system that provided half men and half women to the training commands in the event of mobilization would be administratively unworkable and militarily disastrous.”

In 1981 the Supreme Court deferred to Congress’ judgment and upheld the constitutionality of women’s exemption from Selective Service obligations.  Women were not eligible to serve in direct ground combat, noted the Court, but Congress had the constitutional authority to decide.  They still do.

Congress should recognize the absurdity of registering or drafting thousands of young women – 86 percent of whom are not qualified to be “combat replacements” in time of war.  If Congress made a rational choice to exempt women from infantry assignments as well as Selective Service, the Supreme Court very likely would uphold the right of Congress to decide.

First, however, Congress should do no harm.  Conferees should remove the “draft America’s daughters” language from the defense bill, and the next Commander-in-Chief should order military leaders to conduct an open, objective, and honest review of the impact of recent social experiments on military readiness.  The next administration could restore sound priorities, but responsible members of Congress need to step up and help.

* * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993, is an independent, non-partisan educational organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues.  More information is available on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org.  To support CMR with a tax-deductible contribution, click here.  You can also support CMR by visiting, liking, and sharing the CMR Facebook page.
--- Termina citazione ---


--- Citazione ---2016 Republican National Platform Rejects Social Experimentation and Political Correctness in the Military
July 27, 2016

Since President Barack Obama took office in 2009, his administration has delivered on campaign promises to impose radical social agendas on our military.  The Center for Military Readiness is pleased to report that the 2016 Republican National Convention has resolved to objectively review and repair the damage.

CMR is non-partisan, but for months leading up to the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, we worked in various ways to identify a potential Commander-in-Chief who shares our concerns.  The 2016 presidential election will be critically important to the future of our military.

The process began in January we asked questions of Republican candidates with the 2016 Quadrennial CMR Presidential Candidate Survey.  The dual purpose was to provide background and prepare the various candidates for public questions about CMR issues, and to inform voters of their responses to our survey questions.

Following a long series of primaries in which Donald J. Trump emerged as the nominee, we established contact with the Trump campaign to provide information prior to the writing of the 58-page 2016 Republican National Platform.

The resulting 14-page platform section titled “America Resurgent” includes nine planks of interest to CMR, plus many more statements on national defense that should encourage voters who are interested in national security.  This set of solid statements regarding military/social issues provide a clear roadmap for reassessing and eventually reversing much of the damage done to our military since 2009.

Some people believe that a written platform has little meaning, but they are mistaken.  The dynamic process of writing the document brings together in a small, intense environment scores of grassroots activists, experts on many topics, lawmakers, and campaign officials who may become part of a new administration that will have power to implement good ideas.

The first step is to recognize that problems exist and to restore sound priorities.  The platform calls for an end to social experimentation and an honest assessment of problems that need to be corrected.  Because unwise policies that the Obama administration imposed administratively can be undone in the same way, nine platform planks presented and analyzed below challenge the results of political correctness taken to extremes.

The platform approved in Cleveland provides a road map, but voters must choose wisely and demand that its principles be honored.
1.     Military Readiness, not Political Correctness

“We reject the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation and will not accept or continue attempts to undermine military priorities and mission readiness. We believe that our nation is most secure when the president and the administration prioritize readiness, recruitment, and retention rather than using the military to advance a social or political agenda.  Military readiness should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.” (p. 44, emphasis added throughout)

Background:  The Obama Administration has repeatedly used executive power to impose feminist agendas and LGBT law and regulations implementing the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender agenda for the military, regardless of the harmful consequences.  This statement puts Republicans squarely on the side of military personnel who have been subjected to political correctness taken to extremes, and signals a change in direction that would assign priority to military readiness, not social agendas.
2.      Objective Review and Correction of Military/Social Problems

“We call for an objective review of the impact on readiness of the current Administration’s ideology-based personnel policies, and will correct problems with appropriate administrative, legal, or legislative action.” (p. 44)

Background:  On issues ranging from involuntary service for women in the combat arms to transgenders in the military, the need for honest evaluations and action to repair the damage done to our military since 2009 has become increasingly obvious.  Instead of continuing Barack Obama’s social agenda without question, a Republican administration will objectively review the consequences of all social policies and restore sound priorities that put military readiness first.
3.      Women in Direct Ground Combat

“We reiterate our support for both the advancement of women in the military and their exemption from direct ground combat units and infantry battalions.” (p. 43)

Background:  Unchanging physical requirements in “tip of the spear” direct ground combat units; e.g., Army and Marine infantry, artillery, armor, Special Operations Forces and Navy SEALs, are extraordinary.  The missions of fighting teams that seek out and attack the enemy with deliberate offensive action go beyond the experience of being “in harms’ way” in war zones, where women have served with honor and courage.  In September 2015 the U.S. Marine Corps submitted a formal request for exceptions to the administration’s plans to eliminate women’s exemptions from the combat arms.  Scientific research supported that request.  In field tests, gender-mixed units underperformed 69 percent of the time.  Physical differences that cannot be “mitigated” would have a serious negative effect on what the Marines called “survivability and lethality.”

On December 3, 2015, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter disregarded the Marines’ best professional advice.  Secretary Carter announced plans to impose controversial policies known to impede combat effectiveness and speed while significantly increasing female injuries.  In an official Army survey, 92.5 percent of women said they did not want to serve in direct ground combat units, but Secretary Carter confirmed that such assignments would not be voluntary.

Following an open and objective review of the Marine Corps’ 2015 research and developments since then, the next President should take appropriate action to restore combat effectiveness as the highest priority in all direct ground combat communities.  In addition, Congress should take steps to codify sound policies regarding women in the military.
4.      Military Standards

“In particular, we warn against modification or lessening of standards in order to satisfy a nonmilitary agenda imposed by the White House.” (p. 44)

Background: In 2011 Obama Administration Pentagon leaders adopted as official policy recommendations of the Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC).  The 2011 MLDC report, which is still cited by Defense Department officials, promoted as paramount goals women in land combat and “gender diversity metrics,” another name for quotas.  The concept, which is not the same as non-discrimination or recognition of individual merit, promotes pre-determined demographic goals that have the effect of lowering standards to levels that are “gender-neutral” but lower than before.  Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus repeatedly has called for one in four Navy personnel to be women, even as he keeps denying the existence of gender quotas.  In the interests of true equality, the next administration should end all pressures to achieve gender diversity quotas in the military.
5.     Support for the All-Volunteer Force, Not Compulsory National Service

 “Our country’s all-volunteer force has been a success. We oppose the reinstatement of the draft, except in dire circumstances like world war, whether directly or through compulsory national service.” (p. 43)

Background:  Volunteer service should be encouraged, but reinstatement of a military draft or mandatory national service, on a gender-neutral basis, would be unwarranted extensions of government power that would weaken the special culture of the all-volunteer force.
6.      Opposition to Registering Women for Selective Service

“[We] oppose unnecessary policy changes, including . . . Selective Service registration of women for a possible future draft.” (p. 43)

Background: In 1981 the Supreme Court upheld as constitutional young women’s exemption from Selective Service obligations, tying it to military women’s exemption from direct ground (infantry) combat.  The court cited a Senate report affirming that the only legitimate purpose of registration or a draft is to find and train “combat replacements,” not support troops.  The court also affirmed the right of Congress to exempt women for other rational, fact-based reasons.

Calling up thousands of potential female draftees, most of whom will not meet combat standards, would slow mobilization during a time of catastrophic national emergency, the worst possible time.  Congress should review capabilities of the Selective Service system, applying standards of military readiness, not “gender equality.”
7.      Religious Liberty

“We support the rights of conscience of military chaplains of all faiths to practice their faith free from political interference. We reject attempts by the Obama Administration to censure and silence them, particularly Christians and Christian chaplains. We support an increase in the size of the Chaplain Corps.  A Republican commander-in-chief will protect the religious freedom of all military members, especially chaplains, and will not tolerate attempts to ban Bibles or religious symbols from military facilities.  A Republican commander-in-chief will also encourage education regarding the religious liberties of military personnel under both the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the current National Defense Authorization Act.”

Background:  The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees rights of conscience and religious liberty for both chaplains and military personnel who are deployed far from home.  Servicemen and women have a constitutional right to receive counsel from chaplains who are free to discuss matters of morality during all activities, not limited to worship services.  Since 2011, there have been numerous attempts to censure and silence chaplains and people of faith, creating a "chilling effect" and fear of career penalties for exercising rights of religious liberty.  In some of these cases, military personnel have had to seek legal defense.

In 2012 and 2013, Congress enacted legislation to protect rights of conscience and religious liberty for military chaplains and people of faith.  The law bars adverse discrimination or denial of promotion, schooling, training, or assignment.  Chaplains continue to minister to persons of all faiths and backgrounds, as they always have, but they should not be required to endorse certain life choices that traditions of most major faiths consider to be wrong.
8.      Special Interest Demonstrations

“We affirm the cultural values that encourage selfless service and superiority in battle, and oppose anything which might divide or weaken team cohesion, including intra-military special interest demonstrations.”  (pp. 43-44)

Background:  Every year since 2009, the Obama White House has celebrated June as LGBT Pride Month.  This and similar events at the Pentagon and many military bases have been used to promote special interest demands of LGBT groups demanding access and benefits for transgenders in the military.  In response, the administration unilaterally extended protected civil rights status and medical benefits to transgendered personnel.  In the same way that our military does not allow labor unions, activist events promoting LGBT Law and other special interest causes are inherently divisive and harmful to unit cohesion.
9.      Military Justice

“We oppose legislative attempts to modify the system of military justice that would undermine its fairness and due process rights for all concerned, both the accuser and the accused.” (p. 44)

Background: Constantly-increasing rates of sexual assault and retaliation against persons reporting harassment have given rise to many constructive reforms to improve military justice.  Congress, however, has refused to pass misguided legislation to remove local commanders from decisions regarding prosecution of many crimes, including sexual assault.  Legislation based on a presumption of guilt, not innocence, or the premise that accusations alone justify "victim" or "survivor" status, would be demoralizing and unjust.

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), commanders are accountable for everything that happens in their area of responsibility.  This includes decisions to convene courts-martial or to impose career-ending non-judicial punishments.  Military Judge Advocate Generals (JAGs) advise commanders on legal matters, but they do not need (or want) responsibilities of command.  The best way to protect due process is to support and improve legal representation for both the accuser and the accused.
10.   Military Superiority

“Republicans continue to support American military superiority, which has been the cornerstone of a strategy that seeks to deter aggression or defeat those who threaten our vital national security interests.” (p. 42)

Background:  The 14-page section of the 2016 Republican Platform, titled “America Resurgent,” includes many sound ideas to restore the strength of America’s military, and to restore respect for America worldwide.  It begins by quoting Alexander Hamilton, who wrote in Federalist 23 that the first of the “principle” constitutional obligations of the federal government is to provide for the “common defense” of the United States.  It also notes that President George Washington wisely reminded us that “to be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.”

Our All-Volunteer Force is the only institution we have to defend America in a world that faces multiple threats and is far from peace.  The statement above has reaffirmed that long-standing, important principle.

What Does the Democratic Platform Say?

The 46-page 2016 Democratic Party Platform, approved by a Platform Committee on July 21, 2016, in Orlando, Florida, includes seven pages with three sections titled “Principled Leadership, “Support Our Troops and Keep Faith with Our Veterans” and “Confront Global Threats.”  The document criticizes Republican nominee Donald Trump for having “no strategy for dealing with key threats facing our country, including climate change and ISIS.”  (p. 40)

Some provisions are similar to Republican planks, but three sentences state positions on women in direct ground combat and LGBT law in the military that are opposite those of the Republicans.  The document does not comment on additional issues highlighted above, except for this statement, which assigns highest priority to inverted priorities on military/social issues:

“Our military is strongest when people of all races, religions, sexual orientations, and gender identifies are honored for their service to our country.” (p. 41)

In contrast, the Republican Platform states in four different places, “We are the party of peace through strength.” (p. 41)  For voters concerned about national defense, the choices are clear.

* * * * * * *

The Center for Military Readiness, founded in 1993, is an independent, non-partisan, 501(c)(3) public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues.  Nothing in this article should be construed as an endorsement of any candidate. More information on all issues discussed is available on the CMR website, www.cmrlink.org.
--- Termina citazione ---


notare la brutale potenza delle polizziottesse
Ah la Svezia, che terra di maschioni :D

 :doh: :doh: Realtà vs puttanate femministe hollywoodiane  :doh: :doh:


[0] Indice dei post

[#] Pagina successiva

Vai alla versione completa