View Full Version : US Marines get first female infantry officer
A female US Marine has made history by becoming the first woman to complete the Corps' famously gruelling infantry officer training.
The lieutenant, who wants to keep her identity private, graduated in Quantico, Virginia, on Monday.
She will soon be assigned to lead a 40-strong platoon.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-41394646
It's good, good luck.
Skybird
09-26-17, 06:06 AM
No, its not good.
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/02/16/women-in-the-israeli-military/
In a whole book on this and othe rproblems ith the modenr military he points ats tatistics showing that women in the US military serving in no longer just desktop jobs are six times as often injured due to physical overload, as their male collegaues. He also showed that many women find it easy to dissapears from duty in times of war because they suddenly become prgnant when a call to arms is around the corner for their units.
He formulates it a bit rude in the linked article, but statistics are with him.
It already has been reported that the physical demands for female soldiers have been lowered in several western militaries.
No, Vendor, just because it is in line with political correctness this does not mean at all that it is good to have women in combat units. I used to think in past years it is nothing wrong, but I have u-turned on this issue. Too many solid arguments and statistics forced me to change my mind.
I recommend to read chapter III "The feminization of the armed forces" in van Creveld: "Pussycats. Why the Rest keeps beating the West, and what can be done about it".
LINK (https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pussycats-Rest-Keeps-Beating-About-ebook/dp/B01GQRGA2M/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1506437336&sr=8-3&keywords=pussycats)(for reader'S feedback)
What worries the reviewer is that Creveld’s analysis matches and may reinforce that of the current Russian leadership that has deliberately taken steps to reverse any similar, liberal development in the Russian society and armed forces and the view that NATO’s forces are Potemkin Villages populated by undertrained Pussycats without claws creates a fundamentally unstable situation in Europe.
^OK! Thanks for the info Sky.:up:
Makes me wonder about female soldiers of the Red Army in WWII and female soldiers who served with the vietcong. At least in the Red Army some where quite decorated and served well in the infantary, tanks and airplanes. Also doesn't have north korea a rather great amount of female soldiers too?
Platapus
09-26-17, 03:39 PM
Why don't we give her a chance and she how she performs.
The corps has survived incompetent male officers over the years and no one talks about the risks of men being in charge.
Skybird
09-26-17, 05:40 PM
Its not about the single individual, and never was.
For several decades now, Western armed forces—which keep preening themselves as the best-trained, best organized, best equipped best led, in history—have been turned into pussycats. Being pussycats, they went from one defeat to the next. True, in 1999 they did succeed in imposing their will on Serbia. But only because the opponent was a small, weak state (at the time, the Serb armed forces, exhausted by a prolonged civil war, were rated 35th in the world); and even then only because that state was practically defenseless in the air. The same applies to Libya in 2011. Over there, indigenous bands on the ground did most of the fighting and took all the casualties. In both cases, when it came to engaging in ground combat, man against man, the West, with the U.S at its head, simply did not have what it takes.
On other occasions things were worse still. Western armies tried to create order in Somalia and were kicked out by the “Skinnies,” as they called their lean but mean opponents. They tried to beat the Taliban in Afghanistan, and were kicked out. They tried to impose democracy (and get their hands on oil) in Iraq, and ended up leaving with their tails between their legs. The cost of these foolish adventures to the U.S alone is said to have been around 1 trillion—1,000,000,000,000—dollars. With one defeat following another, is it any wonder that, when those forces were called upon to put an end to the civil war in Syria, they and the societies they serve preferred to let the atrocities go on?
By far the most important single reason behind the repeated failures is the fact that, one and all, these were luxury wars. With nuclear weapons deterring large-scale attack, for seven decades now no Western country has waged anything like a serious, let alone existential, struggle against a more or less equal opponent. As the troops took on opponents much weaker than themselves—often in places they had never heard about, often for reasons nobody but a few politicians understood—they saw no reason why they should get themselves killed. Given the circumstances, indeed, doing so would have been the height of stupidity on their part. Yet from the time the Persians at Marathon in 490 B.C were defeated by the outnumbered Greeks right down to the present, troops whose primary concern is not to get themselves killed have never be able to fight, let alone win.
One would think that, aware of the problem, the politicians and societies that so light-heartedly sent the troops to fight under these circumstances would do everything in their power to compensate them in other ways. For example, by allowing them some license to enjoy life before a bomb went off, blowing them to pieces; making sure that those put in harm’s way would be given a free hand to do what they had to do; allowing them to take pride in their handiwork; celebrating them on their return; and giving them all kinds of privileges. Was it not Plato who suggested that those who excelled in war on behalf of the republic be given first right to kiss and be kissed? After all, in every field of human activity from football to accounting it has always been those who enjoy what they do who do it best. Conversely, in every field those who excel are those who enjoy what they are doing. Is there any reason why, in waging war and fighting, things should be any different?
Instead, far from honoring their troops or even showing them respect, Western societies have done the opposite. During training and in garrison, they are surrounded by a thousand regulations that prevent them from doing things every civilian can do as a matter of course. That includes, if they are American and not yet 21 years old, buying a can of beer and drinking its contents. On campaign they are bound by rules of engagement that often make their enemies laugh at them, prevent them from defending themselves, lead to unnecessary casualties, and result in punishment if they are violated. Anybody who openly says that he took pride in his deadly work—as, for example, the legendary, now retired, four-star U.S Marine Corps General Jim Mattis at one point did—will be counseled to shut up if he is lucky and disciplined if he is not.
American troops returning from a tour undergo obligatory testing for post-traumatic stress disorder or PTSD. PTSD, of course, is a real problem for some. However, as all history shows, it is simply not true that fighting, killing and watching others being killed is necessarily traumatic. Suppose the Roman Army had dealt with PTSD as we do now; would it have conquered the world? Nor, contrary to what one often hears, is it true that historical combat was less terrible than its modern equivalents. Perhaps to the contrary, given that the combatants could literally look into each other’s eyes, hear the screams, see the spurting blood, and touch the scattering brains.
As I wrote decades ago in Fighting Power, the real origin of PTSD is found in a personnel system which, for reasons of administrative efficiency, treats the troops like interchangeable cogs, isolates them, and prevents them from bonding. Adding offense to injury, the abovementioned tests, introduced with the possibility of liability in mind, are humiliating. Wasn’t it Frederick the Great who said that the one thing that can drive men into the muzzles of the cannon trained on them is pride? Nor do things end at this point. Far from celebrating the troops’ courage and sacrifice, society very often treats them as damaged goods. Indeed things have come to the point where it expects them to be damaged.
An important role in all this is played by military women and feminism generally. In every known human society (even, as far as we are able to judge, in some animal societies) since the world began, whatever treatment was considered suitable for males has been seen as too harsh for females. Conversely, to be treated like women was perceived as the most humiliating thing men could undergo. By insisting on gender equality the way they have—even putting in place “equal employment opportunity officers” charged with hounding any man who dares “offend” a woman—Western armed forces have dragged their men’s pride through the mire. The more so because, as the distribution of casualties shows, it is the men who do practically all the fighting. At the same time they have often confronted women with demands that were too much for them. The proof of this particular pudding is in the eating. Proportionally speaking, far more female than male soldiers are said to suffer from PTSD.
Had the system been deliberately designed to sap the fighting power of Western armies, it could hardly have been improved on. This might well make us ask: cui bono? Who profits? There are several answers. First come thousands of “mental health professionals” hired to treat the people in question. Like the female psychologist in Philipp Roth’s book, The Human Stain, who asks a Vietnam veteran whether he has ever killed anybody (firing a machine gun from a helicopter, he has killed hundreds, perhaps thousands), most would not recognize a bullet if they saw one. Next come the corporations that produce all sorts of psychopharma (the standard method for treating PTSD is to drug the patients). Third are the media. Always eager to throw the first stone, very often they have a field day selling those suffering from the symptoms to a slavering public. Between them, these three make billions out of the enterprise.
Last not least are feminist organizations which always insist on “equality” (in reality, privilege) even if it means going over the bodies of many “sisters” and wrecking their countries’ military. Two points remain to be made. First, as their repeated victories prove, the Taliban, their brothers in arms in other countries, and non-Western societies generally know better than to follow the West on is self-destructive path. Second, societies that lose their fighting power by treating their troops in this way are doomed. Sooner or later, somebody will come along, big sword in hand, and cut off their head.
Let those with ears to listen, listen.
H. v. C.
Before anybody thinks he must form an opinion on something he has not thought through any further, again, read this: chapter three, "Pussycats". I do not want to translate 50 pages of German text just for this thread.
Lets never forget what the army is there for: to wage war, to fight, to kill, if needed: to kill in combat man versus man. Females are at significant disadvantage here, and this has been shown by studies and statistical analysis on body strength and durability. The strongest 20% of women are only as strong the weakest 20% of males. The averga woman has only 80% of power in her upper body than an average male, and has only 55% of the power in the lower body than a male has. She has disadvantages in her capability of dealing with cold, with thin air at higher altitudes (mountains), climate extremes of other kinds, oxygene resorbtion. Other statistics show that female army members, may they be working in maintenance on heavy equipment, tanks or airplanes, or in combat troops, on average get injured six times as often, as males. Not becasue they are dumb, but because their body are how they are - different, not male. The army is no playground for ideological crusades on gender equality.
The only question that all this should be decided by, is this: does it weaken or strengthen the task the army is being maintained for? Is it an advantage or a disadvantage for the army, for the male troops, to have females amongst their rows.
There are two facts that cannot be denied. There is motherhood making females suddenly unavailable for service or combat or hard labour, and there is a substantial physical inferiority of females in physical strength and endurance, which effects both physical stress in combat, marching with heavy loads, the typical doing of infantry fighting a war against an equal enemy, and mainteance work on heavy stuff like tanks, aircraft. Women, according to Us Amry statistics and satudies, get six times as often injured, as males. Not becasue they are stuopdiu are do n ot try. But becasue their body simply is not made for physicla stress that a male body finds easier to adapt to. If yoju let a male and a female train, again yoiu see the male is at an adavatge,k for the male body repsonds to phsical training far molre repsonsively, than tghe femal ebody. The result of training for both people thus does not close the physical performance gap between male and female, but even widens it.
For heavens sake, leave feminism and gender nonsense out of the task of doing war. War needs warriors, not ideologists. The enemy is unforgiving, he does not care for your precious humanistic concerns and equality considerations. He just does not care, but does as brutal to you as he can.
Dont rely on begging him to stop. Make him. And that is not a question of sensibility for civil rights and gender equality, but a question of brute, raw power.
Its a stupid idea to compromise that power.
Why don't we give her a chance and she how she performs.
The corps has survived incompetent male officers over the years and no one talks about the risks of men being in charge.
But...but...mah military!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1SxZoFmOU
Excuse me but where exactly did the Taliban ever "kick out" the American military? Certainly not in Afghanistan seeing as how the US military won every major battle against them. Your source confuses the lack of national will to achieve victory with a lack of combat ability.
As for fighting "man to man" let me answer that foolishness with a quote by someone who knew how to take it to the enemy:
"The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his." - George S. Patton
Red October1984
09-27-17, 06:49 AM
To the best of my knowledge, the standards were not in any way lowered for her. She passed the course fair and square while many women did not.
I disagree, however, that this will necessarily impact readiness or combat effectiveness. Women have been serving in combat roles for years now in the US military. While I agree that the infantry culture is definitely more male-centered and there, unfortunately, will likely be more controversy due to political correctness and such, it's not like they haven't been fighting outside the wire as part of police, civil affairs, intelligence, etc.
Having observed some of USAF Security Forces training firsthand, I have seen 5'2'' women beat up on much bigger men in combatives training. Some of the SF trainees that come out of that pipeline are tougher than you give them credit for.
I say let them try. Like I said, to the best of my knowledge, the standards were not lowered in this situation. With that being said, the Marines are no slackers in physical fitness. If she passed the exact same standards as her male classmates who are we to say they are unfit for duty? I think it's an old-fashioned way of thinking. If we do things the way we've always done it, we'll end up with what we always had. I'm not saying that we should put a rifle in the hand of every woman, but I don't see why they shouldn't be able to try.
When it comes down to man-to-man fighting, (and i'm no expert here), but that seems to be pretty rare these days. I don't remember the last time American troops fixed bayonets in battle. I don't remember the last time it came down to infantry platoons constantly running out of ammunition and support and having to fight the enemy with rifle buttstocks and their knives. Yes, you could pick out little incidents here and there, but on a larger scale (again, not claiming to be a know-all), it doesn't seem to be happening.
If other issues pop up down the line, they can be addressed then. For now, let her try. The naysayers may be right. It might be too rough of a job for women. But if they are unfit for infantry service does that make them unfit for military police? Or Civil Affairs? Or other fields involving combat arms?
EDIT: Going off of what i've already said, I do see one issue and that's the psychological impact of female soldiers/marines/etc being injured in combat. I've spoken to some friends about this and one brought up that there was a study done (still working on verifying the source) that men react differently when there's a female hurt and screaming bloody murder vs when there's another man doing the same. It could have psychological impacts on our effectiveness.
Skybird
09-27-17, 11:29 AM
As I said before, it is not about this one single woman, or an individual. It is about the climate and culture change that the general feminization of the military mean, and the effect it has on somethign that traditonally and for solid biological reason always was consdered as a male domain. The inflation of PTS diagnosis is related to it, the growing poltical correctness policing and hunting down of male offender, the lowering of standards due to a generally pampered or spoiled or helicopter-parented super-surveilled youth; the growing anger amongst male soldiers that only gets expressed when the mike are switched off, the de factor priviliges that fmeales cna enjoy over their male colleagues while calling it feminist equality, which only is half of the truth, and finally the statistics that simply say what they say and therefore get hidden: that females suffer severla times more injuries during their serving in the military, no matter their specific function and post, than males. Male bodies can endure hard labor and physicla stress better than female bodies, the roles of both men and women are planned to be different by mother nature. No ideology and no lawyer will ever change this.And all the work that the ladies cannot do or lack behind with, needs to be comensated for and done addtonally to their own work by their male colleagues. Male colleagues that at the same time gets lectured and told that they should be more gentle, more feminine, more repsonsive, more "soft" in the widest meaning of the word.
Its not about the individual. Its about the culture change for the weaker side of things. The military is less and less attracitve for males that in principle would be attracted by it. And this in time when the neede personnel levels are harder and harder to maintain, especially with those extreme specialists there are. At the same time, especially in Germany, but in Europe in generla I think, soldiers must also bear to be ignored, to be mocked, to be accused as blood-thirsty primitives by a public that has forgotten all understanding for what it is that makes an army strong, and why an army is needed to secure peace and protect freedom. Feminization and infantilization on all levels, everywhere, men today cannot be demanded to be soft and feminine enough.
I have a nice German word for all this: "Verschnullerung". Translated, that maybe would mean "sootherization" (soother=Schnuller).
In the past wars of the past 28 years, we or America had the advanatge of technological superiority over the enemies we have chosen. These enemies were not on same eye level with us, regarding armament, tehcnolgiy, organization, training, and especially we had air superiority. We did not fight anywhere agaunst an equal enemy of comparable strength, we always waged war against an inferior. The weakest opponent has become the standard to which we compare ourselves. Have we lost our marbles? In Afghanistan, we are fighting, or better, we did the fighting do by others, agauinst flocks of shepoards and farmers with medieval wepaons and without much training, logistc, communication. We found ourselves unable to overocme them! The taliban are ruling, stronger than ever. In Iraq, the IS was the result of the big strategy, or lck of, run by the WH. And the IS is anythijg but beaten, I predict we will need to deal with it for much longer time to come, throughout the ME and North Africa. In Vietnam, every field battle was won - still the Americans in the end fled in panick anc chaos.
What have all these our inferior enemies in common? Their tehcncial inferiority. And the greater, their far greater willingness and endurance to bear suffering, sacrifice, and the worst physical misery one can imagine. Living like rats in the dirt, living of handful of rice throughout a week. No refrigerator-cooled coca-cola. No handheld game consoles. No PTS- prophylactic counseling. Just living in the sh!t of it. Voluntarily.
We did not even get clear with farmers and shepard fighting with weapons literally from the stoneage. Now imagine how we would have done against an enemy who is not only physically and psychologically as robust as they are,k but meets our levels of training, technology, weaponry? Since WWII, such a confrontation was avoided both by the Europeans and Washington as well.
I have no good ideas about that.
Rockin Robbins
09-27-17, 02:41 PM
Well, we have our first female Marine officer. Whoopee Do! I don't care a bit about having the first female Marine officer. I want to see the first GREAT female officer.
We got our first black President with Barack Obama. Woopee do. We needed our first SUCCESSFUL black president. An unsuccessful first can be the last for a long time if they don't succeed. (check out that gem of syntax and grammar!)
If they're not exceptionally good, being first can actually disadvantage whatever group they represent for a very long time. Detractors would say "female officer? Tried that. Bought the t-shirt. Didn't work." There is great responsibility in being first.
speed150mph
09-27-17, 03:40 PM
"Red_88 Makes me wonder about female soldiers of the Red Army in WWII and female soldiers who served with the vietcong. At least in the Red Army some where quite decorated and served well in the infantary, tanks and airplanes. Also doesn't have north korea a rather great amount of female soldiers too?"
In the world war 2 era Soviet Union and in Vietnam the Women were used to hard labour and keeping pace with the men. In Russia for example, Women back then were expected to participate in strenuous farming activities including operating the manual heavy equipment, shovelling grain, and loading Bales. This meant that they were very strong and fit and not afraid to work.
A lot of the women soldiers of World War II also were very motivated, they had lost loved ones, their country was burning, and they wanted blood.
In other words, they were a different kind of woman back then.
Skybird
09-27-17, 03:53 PM
"It is not about this one single woman, or an individual. It is about the climate and culture change that the general feminization of the military means."
@speed150mph
you have a point, but this point is also true towards men.
Platapus
09-27-17, 05:33 PM
I am pretty confident that the Marines have that getting motivated thing down. They are pretty good at that sort of stuff.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nL_RKh_yrhs
Again it all comes back to motivation. We fight wars with one hand tied behind our soldiers backs for all sorts of political reasons that have absolutely nothing to do with military capabilities.
I have no doubt that in a war where the survival of our nation and families were at stake we'd be as dedicated as anyone. Just like those female Red Army and Viet Cong soldiers as well as the Israelis and many other nations throughout history who found themselves facing destruction.
When the barbarians are knocking at the walls everyone is a combatant and that includes women and even children if necessary.
Skybird
09-28-17, 08:54 AM
An interview with van Creveld form earlier this year.
---
In case you have questions, "soft boiled eggs" is the German title of my book, Pussycats. Recently I gave an interview about it to the Junge Freiheit („Young Freedom“), a Berlin-based, fairly conservative, fairly right-wing, cultural German weekly whose editor and staff I have got to know well over the years. The person who did the interview is Moritz Schwarz, a friend of mine and the best interviewer I have ever met. The interview was done in writing. He put his questions in German, I answered in English. Later my answers were translated into German by the JF staff. Here I have done the opposite. Having translated Mortiz’s questions into English, I left my answers almost exactly as they were.
JF: Professor van Creveld, why is the West always being defeated?
MvC: There are several answers to this question. First, the way we Westeners educate our children, guarding them against any possible danger, preventing them from growing up, and actively infantilizing them. Second, the way we do the same with our troops; through most of the West, „millitarism,“ meaning a healthy pride in one‘s pofession of a soldier, has become taboo. Third, the way women are incorporated into the military, often turning training into a joke and creating a situation where male soldiers are more afraid of being falsely accused of „sexual harassment“ than of the enemy. Fourth, the way post traumatic stress disorder is not only tolerated but encouraged and even enforced. Fifth, the spread of the idea that war is the greatest of all evils and nothing is worth dying for.
JF: But aren’t the West’s armed forces the most powerful in the world? By right, they should have been invincible.
MvC: That is true. But the facts speak for themselves, don‘t they?
J.F: Several contrary examples offer themselves. Including the 1982 Falkland War, 1991 war with Iraq, 1991, and the Arab-Israeli Wars. How do these cases fit into your theory?
MvC: The Falkland campaign was a conventional one fought by two „Western“ powers among themselves. Israel did indeed use to be an exception—until the performance of its troops during the 2006 Second Lebanon War showed otherwise. As to the 1991 war, yes. But that war was a conventional one of a kind which is very, very unlikely to recur
JF: Could you elaborate on the Israeli case? Is there anything there the West might learn from it?
MvC: To repeat, there was a time when the Israeli Army was indeed a fighting force that used to command the admiration of the world. But that was long ago. Starting with the 1982 invasion of Lebanon, on no occasion did the Israelis defeat their enemies. Not in 2006, not in all their attacks on Gaza. Currently, all its „fighters“ know how to do is gun down a fifty-year old Palestinian woman, the mother of eleven, who came at them with a knife. Judging by the 2006 campaign, indeed, there is good reason to believe that, should Israel ever again come under attack by a real enemy, its troops will turn tail and run.
JF: How did the basic idea of Soft-Boiled Eggs occur to you?
MvC: As we just said, Western armies are the wealthiest, most powerful , best equipped, and best trained in history. So how come they almost always lose?
JF: Is it possible that, looking back over the last few decades, the West has simply been suffering from a spell of bad luck?
MvC: Let me quote the elder Moltke on this. „In the long run, luck usually helps the able.“
JF: We Westerners start being turned into soft eggs at an early age. Is that simply the outcome of a mistaken ideology, or is it the price we have to pay for living in a highly advanced civilization?
MvC: I am not certain I would describe our own civilization as „highly advanced.“ But yes, we seem to follow the example of many previous civilizations as analyzed by people such as the ancient Greek historian Polybius, the medieval Arab one Ibn Khaldun, and twentieth-century philosopehrs such as Oswald Spengler and Arnold Toynbee. The main factors are always the same. To wit, excessive material wealth that leads to less severe mores, both mental and physical; growing gaps between rich and poor (the former, says the Roman poet Lucan, will do anything to feed their clients and retain their allegiance; the latter will do anything to stay alive); the growing unwillingness to do military service and a preference for mercenaries, first native and then, as manpower dries up, foreign as well; and a government that is heavily influenced by women, hence oriented towards security, luxury and comfort. Others are political over-centralization, accompanied by excessive bureaucratization; a shift of emphasis from “hard” towards “soft” power; and “imperial overstretch.” The last of these terms refers to the way in which defense commitments tend to outgrow available resources. The outcome is budget deficits, inflation, and devaluation, and so on in a vicious cycle that leads nowhere but down.
Obviously there are differences between one country and another. By and large, though, this is the process that has brought down ancient Rome, Byzantium, early modern Spain and France, Britain, and Soviet Russia. As a friend of mine likes to say, all of them considered themselves exceptional. Until, often rather suddenly, they were not. Currently President Trump seems to feel that it is well under way to bringing down the US too. Or else why his frantic, at times almost desperate-looking, efforts to save it and make it “great“ again?
(Skybird: Compare to David Engels: Le Déclin. La crise de l'Union européenne et la chute de la République romaine.; which I have mentioned and described two or three month ago in some thread, which points at exactly the same kind of arguments and comparisons between the EU today and the Roman republic around and after August. )
JF: You point to the way the meanings of basic ideas such as „courage,“ „violence,“ and „victim“ has been transformed. Why do such linguistic changes matter?
MvC: Language allows us to look into the soul of the people who use it. That is why, in the book, I use Google Ngram to show that, in the West, ideas such as „rights“ have long overtaken „duty.“ War, however, has always been, and will always remain, a question of doing one’s duty above all.
JF: You say that, whereas soldiers used to be respected, nowadays they are more likely to be put down and humiliated. Isn’t that going too far?
MvC: Let me speak about Israel. When I tell today’s students that, years ago, the walls here were covered with grafitti reading, „all respect to Zahal,“ they refuse to believe me. As to the situation in Europe—you are in a better position to judge than I am. It is, however, a long time since I saw a German soldier, or even officer, wear uniform when off duty.
JF: You have written extensively about „the feminziation“ of the armed forces. What do you mean?
MvC: In the US, as by order of the former Chief of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, no kind of training is authorized unless women can do it too. In both the US and Britain, commanders have been ordered to balance readiness against „lactation time.“ I think these facts speak for itself.
JF: But isn‘t it true, as you yourself have written, that combat units have hardly any women?
MvC: No. Women’s influence is making itself felt throughout the forces. Particularly in the sense that they enjoy many, many privileges men do not, thus giving rise to resentment. Worst of all, anyone who dares open his mouth about these things will very quickly find himself jobless. Seen form this point of view, the entire Western military is built on a lie—and a house built on a lie will not stand.
JF: The West has gone far in deligitimizing war. Isn’t that a good thing?
MvC: Should Lincoln have allowed slavery to stand? Or France and Britain, Hitler to do as he pleased? Or Israel in 1967, its population to be massacred by the Arab armies? Aren‘t some things worse than war?
JF: The sociologist Gunnar Heinsohn - (another of my favourites, Skybird) - puts the blame for the West’s impotence on its demography. Societies with a surplus of young men are aggresive; those which have few young men are peaceful. Doesn’t that contradict what you have been saying?
MvC: Not at all. He and I hold similar views. Nor are they at all original. Look, once again, at Polybius. “Men,“ he wrote when referring to his own country, Greece, „turned to arrogance, avarice and indolence [and] did not wish to marry. And when they did marry, they did not wish to rear the children born to them except for one or two at the most.”
JF: Most Europeans believe that, in the US, people are still being educated in a patriotic spirit. You, however, say that is not the case. How do you explain this contradiction?
MvC: Everything is realtive, isn’t it? Besides, upper-class, well-educated, Americans do not send their sons, let alone their daughters into the military any more than their European opposite numbers do.
JF: Why should anyone care about the kind of degeneration you describe? After all, in all modern armed forces combat troops only form a small percentage of the whole. Given the size of the population, recruiting a few thousand fighters should be no problem.
MvC: In theory, you are right. In practice, so bad is the situation that many Western countries, the US specifically included, have been forced to turn to foreign mercenaries. I well remember an American military party I attended here in Israel a few years ago. Every single one of the enlisted men present was a Latino and had a Spanish name.
JF: Given the role of technology, why are you putting so much emphasis on morale? Don’t modern weapons render motivation irrelevant?
MvC: Isn‘t the long, long list of defeats the West has suffered since at least 1953 proof of the contrary?
JF: Perhaps we should turn to mercenaries who still have the „bite“ we need.
MvC: This is already happening. Starting in 2003, a high percentage of US Forces in the Middle East have been mercenaries recruited from all over the world. But whether they represent a solution is another matter. More likely, they will end up by becoming independent, as the late medieval Italian condottieri did.
JF: Suppose we allow the dangers you describe to persist and to spread. What will be the outcome?
MvC: First civil war, the early signs of which are already visible in Europe; then the collapse of the West.
---
I sign all points he makes.
Skybird
09-28-17, 09:00 AM
I forgot the source, now and already two days ago, sorry.
http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/tag/pussycats/
I'd just love to see someone who reckons that women shouldn't serve in the army go up to a female Marine in a bar and say that to their face. :yep:
Skybird
09-28-17, 05:27 PM
I'd just love to see someone who reckons that women shouldn't serve in the army go up to a female Marine in a bar and say that to their face. :yep:
For the repeated time: "It is not about this one single woman, or an individual. It is about the climate and culture change that the general feminization of the military means."
I know nothing about this women that the news is about, I did not mind to read about her, and I do not care. Its not about her individually. Maybe she is indeed an ace of an officer. Maybe she is just a shallow PR coup to promote feminism. I do not know, and I do not care, for she as one individual is not what it is about.
And why would one be rude and unpolite to somebody, for no reason, out of the blue, btw?
But then, i have been once, no twice verbally attacked and confronted because I held a door open for a younger lady who was so super-progressive that she thought men holding doors open for a lady is a form of sexual discrimination. I concluded in both cases that I did not deal with a lady, but just a spoiled brat with a vacuum between her temples.
And yes, if they would have asked me to my face whether I think they are ----------, I would have said "yes". Politeness is all nice and well, but why not confronting somebody else who is unpolite to me, when s/he asks for getting a proper reply?
Some people are strange.
For the repeated time: "It is not about this one single woman, or an individual. It is about the climate and culture change that the general feminization of the military means."Just because you repeat yourself, doesn't make it right.
PS. try to format your text so it is not black on dark. Thanks.
For the repeated time: "It is not about this one single woman, or an individual. It is about the climate and culture change that the general feminization of the military means."
:hmmm: So it's not about women being in the military, it's about women being in the military.
https://i.makeagif.com/media/4-27-2015/JXB0Ig.gif
"Forget it, Oberon...
...it's Skybird..."...
<O>
https://i.makeagif.com/media/4-27-2015/JXB0Ig.gif
"Forget it, Oberon...
...it's Skybird..."...
<O>
https://i.giphy.com/media/B3nATT4FPkb3G/giphy.gif
Cyborg322
09-29-17, 08:04 AM
And Soon Women living in Saudi Arabia may be able to drive a car Amazing !!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ii3lwIs-Go
Odd World when some Women from the Middle East are expected to Carry AK47's and kill people
PS. I just noticed another post on this subject sorry for splitting threads but they are inter-related
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.