The “T” is No Longer Silent

How appropriate that Defense Secretary Ash Carter should announce that “transgendered” are now welcome in the U.S. military as Americans head into our Independence Day weekend. “The Defense Department and the military need to avail ourselves of all talent possible to remain…the finest fighting force the world has ever known.” If only Gen. Washington had availed himself of a few recruits from Greenwich Village taverns in Feb., 1776, he might not have lost New York, suffered through Valley Forge and spent the next five years fighting a brutal war with the Brits.

At least we can be comforted that Mr. Secretary is confident any “practical issues” can be resolved and that his tranny working group has been free to proceed “with the presumption that transgender persons can serve openly without adverse impact on military effectiveness and readiness.” Likewise, the RAND Corporation, commissioned by the DoD to rubber-stamp Mr. Carter’s foregone conclusion, authoritatively reported in May that “allowing transgender personnel to serve openly and receive gender transition-related treatment” during military service is “unlikely to harm unit cohesion.”

Gotta love that “unlikely.” It’s really just a smidgen of a fraction of a chance. Nothing to worry about. It’s not like we’re talking life and death here.

Yes, the fix was in from the beginning. A quick perusal of RAND’s Assessing the Implications of Allowing Transgender Personnel to Serve Openly reveals that Obama, Carter, et al. were just looking for some pseudo-intellectual air cover for their dirty guerrilla war on the military. There’s not even an attempt at impartiality. The report begins not by addressing the needs of the military nor its ability to fight Obama’s ever new and always continuous wars, but instead with this question: What are the Health Care Needs of the Transgender Population? As if that weren’t enough, here are a few more doozies:

Transgender is an umbrella term referring to individuals who identify with a gender different from the sex they were assigned at birth. Leaving aside the wanton noun and pronoun abuse, the Ivy-Leaguers at Rand are really so educated they think sex is assigned at birth? Primary sex characteristics are nothing more than labels affixed to our postpartum hospital diapers?

It’s Not a Mental Disorder!
Under the recently established criteria in the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), transgender status alone does not constitute a medical condition. Whew, I thought they were mental! Oh, wait. There’s more…only transgender individuals who experience significant related distress are considered to have a medical condition called gender dysphoria (GD). Some combination of psychosocial, pharmacologic or surgical care may be medically necessary for these individuals. So, I’m confused. Are those folks mental?

Physical Standards, Part I
Physical fitness standards should specify physical requirements (rather than physical conditions). I’m not educated enough to know what that means.

Physical Standards, Part II
We recommend that DoD expand and enhance its guidance and directives to clarify retention standards for review during and after medical transition. For example, evidence from Canada and Australia (ed. note, my go-to nations for military advice) suggests that transgender personnel may need to be held medically exempt from physical fitness testing and requirements. However, after completing medical transition, the service member could be required to meet the standards of the acquired gender. Or maybe no standards at all?

Readiness, Part I
When assessing the readiness impact of a policy change, we found that less than 0.0015 percent of the total available labor-years would be affected, based on estimated gender transition–related health care utilization rates. Because nothing conveys the ability to locate, close with and kill your enemy like “affected labor-years based on estimated gender transition-related blah, blah, blah.”

Readiness, Part II
The degree of austerity will differ across deployment environments…recent advancements can minimize the invasiveness of treatments and allow for telemedicine or other forms of remote medical care. Given this, DoD may wish to adjust some of its processes and deployment restrictions in the context of medical and technological advancements. Yeah, Nighstalker, this is Bonecrusher. In addition to the medevac, we’re going to need the head-shrinker to get on the mike and talk to Frank – er, Francine – again.

The surgical skills for some gender transition surgeries also overlap with skills required for the repair of genital injuries sustained in combat, which have increased dramatically among troops deployed to Afghanistan. Well, at least there’s one positive outcome of Obama’s wars. Providing high-quality surgery to treat combat wounds that require penile reconstruction requires extensive knowledge and practice in reconstructive techniques.” Which will come in oh-so-handy when surgeons help F2Ms undergo their adadictome procedures.

It’s not a Mental Disorder! – Revisited
Patients denied appropriate health care may turn to other solutions, such as injecting construction-grade silicone into their bodies to alter their shape. There are also potential costs related to mental health care services for individuals who do not receive such care. Multiple observational studies have suggested significant and sometimes dramatic reductions in suicidality, suicide attempts, and suicides among transgender patients after receiving transition-related treatment. So, we should go ahead and welcome recruits that are likely suicidal and then provide them treatment so they won’t be suicidal. Leaving the tranny lunacy aside, why would the military ever consider someone who is likely suicidal?

Readiness, Part III
The most extensive research on the potential effects of openly serving transgender personnel on readiness and cohesion has been conducted in Canada. This research involved an extensive review of internal defense reports and memos, an analysis of existing literature, and interviews with military commanders. It found no evidence of any effect on operational effectiveness or readiness. In fact, the researchers heard from commanders that the increased diversity improved readiness by giving units the tools to address a wider variety of situations and challenges. They also found no evidence of any effect on unit or overall cohesion. Yes! Trannies improve readiness. You read it right here. The state-of-the-art in modern warfare. When you’re preparing to battle with Obama’s enemies you should follow the lead of the Canucks and channel your inner other sex. I think the Jihadi are surrendering already!

Oh, I could go on. But then I’d have to start seeing one of those military shrinks. If you have the stomach for more, read the report for yourself.

But the fun really hasn’t begun. In an essay almost three years ago to the day, Whither the Transgendered?, I predicted the Ts in LGBT would eventually revolt at being left out of the military Pride-fest and stomp their stilettos ’til they got their way. Well, now that the trans have come of age, it’s time for a new prediction. The celebration over the inclusion of the transgendered has conveniently left out the “genderfluid.” Swear, I’m not making this up. For many years now the LGBTQ%#@$*&!!! movement has been increasing its list of “genders”—remember Facebook’s 58?—and now it insists there are folks whose identity just doesn’t fit any label. From the experts over at

Genderfluid individuals have different gender identities at different times [or] could be multiple genders at once, and then switch to none at all, or move between single gender identities. For some genderfluid people, these changes happen as often as several times a day, and for others, monthly, or less often. Some genderfluid people regularly move between only a few specific genders, perhaps as few as two, whereas other genderfluid people never know what they’ll feel like next.

And in case that’s too restrictive…

Some people with fluid genders call themselves by a word such as genderqueer, bigender, multigender, polygender, or other words. This can be because the people haven’t seen the word “genderfluid,” or it can be because they don’t think it describes them well. It’s important to understand that each person has the right to decide what to call their gender identity, and that they’re the only one who can do that.”

You think we might have a problem now with physical standards, uniforms, bathrooms and medical care—not to mention, genuine unit cohesion and military readiness. You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

USMC: From the Halls of Montezuma to the Mores of the PC

I was in the car earlier today shouting back at a local newsreader delivering yet more bad news from my radio, when a military recruiting spot interrupted my deranged soliloquy. The ad was rather uninspiring—learn life skills, be a part of a team, blah, blah, blah—so naturally I assumed it was just another ho-hum plea for warm bodies by Army, Inc. But I about blew a jarhead gasket when I heard the pitchman wrap with “We’re the Marines and we’re looking for a few more to join us.”

A few more to join us? Sounds like an invitation to a party. Which is actually timely given today’s breaking news that the Corps will allow “Marines” to sashay in their Dress Blues in San Diego’s deviant gay pride parade this weekend.

Today there are many—too many—brave Marine warriors in harm’s way. I have no doubt that the young men we’ve sent to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan are as brave and tough as their forefathers at Khe Sanh, the Frozen Chosin, Inchon, Iwo Jima, Tarawa, Belleau Wood, the halls of Montezuma and the shores of Tripoli. But they are so because they answered the recruiting call of an uncompromising Corps committed to making better men of them—a Corps that epitomizes manliness and the warrior ethos. There is a very distinct reason why the Corps has always attracted the best raw recruits and turned them into the best warriors. And it isn’t because of a commitment to fad, social experimentation or political correctness. The Corps has historically promised nothing more than grueling training and the opportunity to be the “first to fight” in the bloodiest wars—which, in turn, produce an esprit de corps without equal among fighting men.

It has long been claimed—mostly by Marines—that Army Gen. John J. “Black Jack” Pershing, who led the American Expeditionary Forces in World War I—famously inquired, “Why in hell can’t the Army do it if the Marines can? They are the same kind of men. Why can’t they be like Marines?” The answer is that the Marines have never looked “for a few more to join us.” They’ve always just needed “a few good men.”

Whither the Transgendered?

While the rest of homosexuality has been formally commemorating the Department of Defense Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Pride Month, those pesky party boys over at Metroweekly just had to slip a turd in the Pentagon’s rainbow punch. The DC area website for finding the nearest bash where “men in underwear drink free,” quite accurately reports that DoD’s annual LGBT celebration doesn’t actually include the Ts.

The DoD memorandum announcing this year’s celebration of sodomy and sapphism states, “We recognize gay, lesbian and bisexual service members…for their dedicated service to our country.” The trannies were intentionally left out because as national security reporter Paul Shinkman points out in his June 21 headline in U.S. News & World Report, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell Still Applies to Transgender Service Members.”

Talk about an inconvenient truth. Where’s Al Gore when you need him?

And Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel conspicuously ignored the Ts in his formal LGBT Pride Month remarks. “Gay and lesbian soldiers…can serve openly,” stated the SecDef. “This makes our military and our nation stronger, much stronger.” You’d think thatobama proud Chuck would have some empathy for the trans crowd given that he’s recently completed his own metamorphosis from courageous Republican maverick to Uncle Sham’s lapdog.

So where to next? It’s telling that DoD has so quickly adopted the radical homosexual agitprop if not its complete agenda. The Pentagon may not be quite ready to integrate the apparently complex group that is “transgender,” but I’m sure the top brass and civilian leaders in whom we’ve entrusted our young combat warriors are working hard on their plan to enlist the agender, bigender, third gender, pangender, ambigender, non-gendered, gender-fluid, intergender, genderqueer, androgyne, transsexual, pansexual, polysexual, asexual, cross-dressing, drag queen, drag king, transvestite, two-spirit…

Memphis Belle to Get a Nose Job

The thought police over at DoD are at it again…

WASHINGTON, DC, June 20, 2013/Dayton Herald-Post/ She survived 25 bombing missions in Europe in World War II, shot down eight Nazi aircraft, earned the stateside mission of touring the U.S. with her flight crew promoting war bonds and inspired the making of two major motion pictures. The Boeing B-17F Flying Fortress nicknamed Memphis Belle is perhaps the most recognizable historical militaryMemphis Belle Nose Art aircraft in the world. Her fame is due not only to her combat accomplishments, but also to her iconic “nose art” depicting a curvaceous Belle in a tight-fitting swimsuit and heels.

For some, the vintage art arouses a range of emotions from pride in the flyboys who waged war over the skies of Europe and the Pacific to general nostalgia for a bygone era known for its big bands and the “greatest generation.” But for others, the “cheesecake” on the side of an American military aircraft, even one that is no longer in service, is a painful reminder of a patriarchal and misogynistic tradition that still exists in today’s armed services. In a turn of events that surprised veteran Pentagon reporters, the Department of Defense has apparently sided with those that hold the latter opinion.

So, like jeeps, c-rations and the prohibition on women in combat, the zaftig Belle and her swimsuit, will soon be a distant memory. Reaffirming DoD’s commitment to addressing sexual harassment and assault in the military, Deputy Undersecretary of Defense Richard Stilton announced today that the famous, but offending, artwork will be removed from the nose of the aircraft. “While the Department of Defense honors the proud heritage of Memphis Belle and her brave crew,” said Stilton, “we feel that the art on the foreword fuselage is demeaning to the 200,000 plus women serving honorably in the U.S. Armed Forces and contravenes current DoD policy regarding sexual harassment.”

The most famous of the United States Air Force bombers in Europe, Memphis Belle was named for pilot Robert Morgan’s girlfriend, Margaret Polk of Memphis, Tennessee and the image is based on a pinup drawing from Esquire magazine’s April 1941 issue. After the war, the aircraft was saved from reclamation by the city of Memphis for a mere $350, and was then parked outside the Tennessee National Guard armory well into the 1980s. Slowly deteriorating from the weather, souvenir hunters, scavengers and vandals, Belle was eventually donated back to the Air Force. The aircraft is currently undergoing extensive restoration at the National Museum of the United States Air Force at Wright-Patterson AFB in Dayton, Ohio.

B-17_Memphis_BelleAs part of the restoration process, the swimsuit pinup images will be carefully removed by technicians using the slowest and safest chemical solvents, including Methyl-Pyrrolidone, which dissolve paint from the top layer down. The technicians will not touch the other painted images, including the 25 bombs (one for each mission), eight swastikas (one for each German aircraft shot down by the plane’s crew) and the crew names stenciled below station windows.

Memphis Belle is only one of many existing WWII aircraft depicting voluptuous women in various states of undress, but most are privately owned and beyond the reach of the DoD. In addition to Memphis Belle the National Museum of the United States Air Force holds Shoo Shoo Shoo Baby, also a Boeing B-17G Flying Fortress. This aircraft’s artwork includes the backside of a topless woman in half a swimsuit, which is scheduled for removal after work on Belle is completed.

OK, enough. Yes, I made up this story. But tell the truth, you believed it for awhile, didn’t you?

G.I. Jane Reconsidered

Don’t walk to the latrines alone.

This advice to women soldiers from Margaret Carlson, Bloomberg and syndicated columnist and women-in-combat booster, in her latest treatise on military effectiveness.

'I'm_in_This_War_Too'_WAC_-_NARA_-_514606And Ms. Carlson is not flying solo. The web-o-sphere is all atwitter over the sexual assault “epidemic” in the military.

So, let’s stipulate that all the recent numbers regarding sexual assault in the U.S. military are accurate—even the outrageous 26,000 guesstimate by the Department of Defense itself—and that all the accusations are legit. And let’s agree, of course, that not one of these incidents should have ever occurred and that all perps are brought to justice. Now, stipulations stipulated and agreements agreed, let’s revisit the notion of women in combat in light of the epidemic.

You can’t go to an action-movie these days without watching a 98-pound lass giving several muscle-heads a proper drubbing, but back in the real world women are still not warriors. Women—including women soldiers—are vulnerable.

The press, the Congress, the military and the women soldiers themselves admit as much. In fact, they insist that women soldiers are vulnerable—not to the enemy, but to their own male comrades. Further, they say that women soldiers are “victims.” And so confirms the DoD, which uses the word “victim” 3,553 time in its 729-page 2012 Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military.

Now, in my brief stint in the Marine Corps infantry, including combat, I can count on exactly no fingers how many times one of my comrades or I referred to a Marine as a victim. I can only imagine the reaction should any Marine ever claim to be a victim—of anything. The very concept is (or was) anathema. If you read E.B. Sledge’s With the OldWith_the_Old_Breed_(Eugene_B._Sledge_book_-_cover_art) Breed, a grunt’s very honest and gruesome account of Marine warfare on Okinawa and Pelelieu in WWII, you will find the word “victim” only once and it refers to an enemy soldier on the receiving end of a Marine’s bayonet. And let’s not ignore the Army. Scouring Bataan Death March: A Survivor’s Account by Medal of Honor recipient Lt. Col. William Dyess you will find “victim” 16 times in 196 pages and the term largely applies to those who died or “fell victim” to dysentery or diphtheria or in horrific accounts such as, “The victim had been bayoneted. His abdomen was open. The bowels had been wrenched loose and were hanging like great grayish purple ropes…” and “During the afternoon the three victims stood naked and shivering in the downpour. The rain cleansed their wounds and bodies at times, but the Japs (sic) opened new wounds with the whip as often as they thought they could do so without killing.”

So, if women soldiers are so vulnerable that they can’t physically fend off men in their own barracks, who presumably are less likely to fight them to the death than, say, Afgani tribesmen or Al Qaeda-in-Iraqis, isn’t it reasonable to reassess the rush to rush women into combat? If women are unsafe walking to their own latrines well behind friendly lines, doesn’t that suggest they will be far less safe a few klicks forward? Why the eagerness to send women into worse harm’s way?

The American public has been continuously assured that as man jobs are opened to women military readiness will never suffer. But this has proven to be the nonsense that men who’d fought in war predicted it would be. Former Virginia Senator and Vietnam combat Marine Jim Webb was dead-on back in 1979 when he wrote Women Can’t Fight for Washingtonian. “Men fight better,” asserted the Navy Cross recipient. “We can try to intellectualize that reality away, and layer it with debates on role conditioning versus natural traits, but it manifests itself in so many ways that it becomes foolish to deny it.” Gen. Robert H. Barrow, 27th Commandant of the Marine Corps and  also a recipient of the Navy Cross—for heroism at the Frozen Chosin—was incredulous as he testified in 1991 before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on Women in Combat: “It’s uncivilized and women can’t do it!”

And worse, not only is readiness suffering, but the warrior culture itself is under attack—by its own brass and the DoD. The aforementioned Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military lists such horrors as:

  • Male victim alleged that he and female subject were at a farewell party when subject slapped victim on the buttocks.
  • Multiple male victims alleged that female subject grabbed buttocks of multiple males.
  •  Male victim alleged that male subject touched his buttocks.
  • Male victim alleged that male subject touched his inner thigh and made suggestive comments then grabbed his buttocks.

And reports Robert O. Work, Undersecretary of the Navy, “Many individuals are now more comfortable reporting long prior sexual assaults, and we see gradual progress in the proportion of male victims now coming forward.”

Oh, joy. The men upon whom we rely to “locate, close with, and destroy the enemy with fire and maneuver, and to repel the enemy assault by fire and close combat” are now much readier for the grist mill of war because we’ve created an atmosphere in which they feel comfortable admitting to the world that they are victims of buttocks-touching.

After a decade plus of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there are some indications that the American public might be up for a national discussion about our country’s use of force in the world—perhaps even a closer look at what truly constitutes national security. This is good and overdue. But the U.S. is unlikely to disengage anytime soon. And, alternatively, if men like John McCain and Lindsey Graham have their way, we’ll be at perpetual war in places where American women aren’t typically held in high regard. So, if we really care about women, we’d re-prohibit them from serving not only in combat, but anywhere near combat.

Closing on a note of sanity, here’s a longer excerpt from Gen. Barrow’s riveting testimony:

Those who advocate change have some strange arguments. One of which is the defacto women in combat situation…that women have been shot at, that they’ve heard gunfire…well, exposure to danger is not combat…combat is a lot more than that, it’s a lot more than getting shot at or even getting killed by being shot at.  Combat is finding and closing with and killing…the enemy. It’s killing, that’s what it is…It’s uncivilized and women can’t do it…and I may be old-fashioned, but I think the very nature of women disqualifies them from doing it. Women give life, sustain life, nurture life.  They don’t take it.

Hear, hear, General! A society that sends its mothers and daughters to war is serious about neither society nor war.

That Wacky WAC

Kicking off National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month, acting Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness Jessica L. Wright said that she wacposterstarjoined the Women’s Army Corps in 1975 back when having a drink at the post club was the norm. “But in our military now…we don’t condone drinking…We don’t have those social things like we used to, because it’s just not who we are.”

I went into a public ‘ouse to get a pint o’ beer,
The publican ‘e up an’ sez, “We serve no red-coats here.”
The girls be’ind the bar they laughed an’ giggled fit to die,
I outs into the street again an’ to myself sez I:
O it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ “Tommy, go away,”
But it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins,” when the band begins to play
The band begins to play, my boys, the band begins to play,
O it’s “Thank you, Mister Atkins,” when the band begins to play.*

So, lemme get this straight, Jessie—er, I mean your Honorableness. We condone the deployment of young Americans to countries that pose no threat to the U.S. in order to kill “enemy combatants” in said countries. And we condone young Americans getting killed and maimed in said countries because their slaughter somehow ensures our freedom. And, while we’re at it, we condone massive “collateral damage”—that is, the killing of civilians (last conservative count is around 150,000 in the wars in Iraq and Carrie_Nation_1910Afghanistan), not to mention the maiming, orphaning, etc. But, we absolutely do not condone drinking among our warriors? Or “social things” like Enlisted, NCO and Officer Clubs? Who is this DoD Carrie Nation and for whom does she claim “we?” Certainly not the troops she once supervised. Is this what diversity and affirmative action have wrought? A military so politically correct that young men can’t be encouraged to unwind with a beer in their own clubs because hops turn boys into rapists?

We aren’t no thin red ‘eroes, nor we aren’t no blackguards too,
But single men in barricks, most remarkable like you;
An’ if sometimes our conduck isn’t all your fancy paints,
Why, single men in barricks don’t grow into plaster saints;
While it’s Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ Tommy, fall be’ind,
But it’s “Please to walk in front, sir,” when there’s trouble in the wind
There’s trouble in the wind, my boys, there’s trouble in the wind,
O it’s “Please to walk in front, sir,” when there’s trouble in the wind.

Many moons ago when yours truly was making his way through the nearly year-long crucible that is Marine Corps training for infantry officers, the O’ Club was a welcome refuge within hobbling distance of the barracks after a tough week in the field—and, yes, within stumbling distance on the way home. While at the club, my fellow lieutenants and I not only relaxed, but bonded over the successes, failures and comedies of the week past. If we were lucky, a senior officer would join and regale us with personal combat stories, which would always prove to be as valuable as any lessons learned in the classroom. Later in my brief career the O’Club and its enlisted and NCO counterparts would provide even more critical relief in the various crap-holes around the world to which my Marines and I were deployed. Sometimes the clubs were nothing more than GP tents in the middle of the desert or the jungle.

Post clubs, however, are not the only vessel in which soldiers, testosterone and alcohol are mixed into a fine warrior grog. The Marine Corps, for instance, has a proud tradition of Mess Nights, Dinings-In and Marine Corps Birthday Balls. Speaking of the USMC birthday, let’s not forget that the Corps itself was founded in a watering hole. On November 10, 1775, the Continental Congress commissioned Capt. Samuel Nicholas to1775-Tun-Tavern raise two Battalions of Marines. So, what did the good skipper do? He set up his recruiting office in Tun Tavern, a brew house in Philadelphia. Where else?!!

Regardless of the venue, soldiers have been blowing off steam, reveling, carousing, contemplating, congratulating and commiserating over booze for millennia. Rather than a deviancy to be quashed, this type of social behavior is integral to military cohesion and is still very much a part of “who we are.” But, Ms. Wright says no drinking for young warriors enjoying some down time before they’re asked again to kill or be killed. Instead, we provide them new “social things” like sexual assault prevention and response training, LGBT sensitivity awareness, Gay Pride celebrations and various other programs provided by today’s don’t ask, do tell military. All of which are no doubt critical to the WAC-in-chief’s mission, which her bio claims is “overseeing the overall state of military readiness.” Ready for what? The next drag queen sock hop?

So, I guess in today’s military we expect that the intense camaraderie necessary for combat can be forged among young warriors over coffee in a fluorescent–lit conference room at 9PM on a Friday night following a lecture on sexual harassment after a grueling week of physical challenges, mental endurance and sleep-deprivation? But to me that sounds like it would pretty much drive a young man to exactly the type of behavior Ms. Wright is trying to prevent.

Meanwhile, in the real world, two more women Marines have flunked infantry officer training. But I’m sure the undersecretary is working on a plan to address the USMC’s archaic, patriarchal, intolerant physical standards for combat training.

*Tommy, Rudyard Kipling, c. 1890

Rainbow Warriors

F orget about any moral arguments (as hard as that may be for all of us) and help me answer some very important practical questions. These might seem silly, but I assure you they deserve very serious answers. If the U.S. Armed Forces are to be open and accommodating to all “protected” classes, how do we deal with the following?

#1 Daily Life  Men and women currently don’t live in the same rooms or squad bays nor are they expected to shower together nor be naked in front of one another. So, how do we deal with each of the LGBT? Separate facilities for each letter? What about the aspiring “transgendered” who have made their decision, but haven’t had hormones and/or surgery? Different rules prior to and after “reassignment?” What about the man who says he’s a woman, but who never has surgery? What about a man who has “transgendered” (with or without hormones and surgery) who still prefers women, so considers himself a lesbian? What about the bisexuals? Does each bisexual get a private room because it would be harassment to domicile him or her with a comrade of either sex? And, please, let’s not forget the asexual, pansexual, polysexual, genderqueer, androgyne, bigender, trigender, third gender, two-spirit and on. I swear, I’m not making this stuff up!

#2 Physical Standards  What should be the physical standard for each letter in the LGBT? Yes, I know, you’ll probably respond, everyone should have to meet the same “minimum” standards. But that has NEVER happened with the increasing role of women in the military. Every time roles have been expanded for women, the physical standards have been lowered (or kept low) for them. This inevitably will happen for at least some letters of the LGBT. So, to which standards should each be held? A man who considers himself a “woman,” but has not had surgery would, say, still need to perform 42 push-ups in order to pass that portion of the Army PFT? How about a man who has had surgery to make himself a “woman?” 19 push-ups like real women are currently required to perform to pass? What about a woman who considers herself a “man?” Men’s standards? Women’s standards? Some other standards?

#3. Sexual Harassment  OK, this is going to get even more complicated! While we’re scrambling to miracle our way to the pot of golden tolerance at the end of the rainbow, how are we going to deal with the here and now? That is, where is everyone going to sleep, shower, poop and pee? And how will we define “harassment” in this pantheon of enlightened sexuality? And who is qualified to define what will no doubt be myriad rules and regulations? And what happens “out in the field,” in combat and in other circumstances where the niceties of modern living aren’t available? In a tactical or expeditionary situation, a man-soldier who needs to go number one, will, frankly, just unencumber himself in front of God and country. Will this now be considered sexual harassment? Will it be OK if he turns his back to any of the protected and potentially offended? And for which of the LGBT?

It was so much simpler when libertines didn’t like war.

Sec’y Panetta – Part II: Go Get ‘Em, Girls

It’s now old news that outgoing Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has removed the combat exclusion for women. What is not old news, however, is how one bureaucrat (albeit the top bureaucrat) has the authority to make this decision. Even President Obama has applauded the move in a manner to suggest the Secretary acted without direction from the White House. And has the U.S. Congress once again abdicated? But I’ll leave it to those more scholarly than I to determine the decision’s constitutionality. Instead, let’s explore some of the practical implications of this giant leap for womankind.

Caution: this post is rated R for language (not mine)

Portrait“The department’s goal in rescinding the rule is to ensure that the mission is met with the best qualified and most capable people, regardless of gender.” So says the departing defense secretary in announcing the end of the combat ban for women. Yep, it’s all about the “mission.” The mission certainly couldn’t be “met” by depriving mothers and daughters of their God-given rights to not just “shoot the bastards, [but] rip out their living g*ddamned guts and use them to grease the treads of our tanks.”* Mr. Panetta quickly followed with the reassurance that “I’m not talking about reducing the qualifications for the job — if they can meet the qualifications for the job, then they should have the right to serve.”

Riiiiiight. Because we’ve never lowered standards to accommodate the increasing role of women in the military. But, of course, these statements are utter nonsense and the secretary—a nearly 50-year career politician—knows it. And his dependable lapdog Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, enthusiastically admitted as much during the very press conference in which Panetta made those promises:

If we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary why is it that high? Does it really have to be that high?

So, in reality, the standards that have long been in place to ensure the U.S. is served by “the most capable,” – the qualifications the Secretary is “not talking about reducing” – will come under review if (read: when) the powers that be come to the most reasonable conclusion that they are, after all, too “high.”

But enough about standards. We all know they will be lowered, that diversity quotas will be mandated, etc.

Let’s turn our attention to the natural evolution of this quest for fairness. In 1981, the Supreme Court held in Rostker v. Goldberg that requiring only men to register for the Selective Service System does not violate the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment:

The existence of the combat restrictions clearly indicates the basis for Congress’ decision to exempt women from registration. The purpose of registration was to prepare for a draft of combat troops. Since women are excluded from combat, Congress concluded that they would not be needed in the event of a draft, and therefore decided not to register them.

Now Red, White, and Blue (091106-A-O0905-07)that the combat exclusion has been lifted, it only follows that women must be compelled, like men, to register with Selective Service. It’s only fair, right? Which means, that when our wise leaders decide some day in the future that our youth must be forced to die so “we can be free,” 18 year-old women will be drafted and herded to the front line abattoir along with their dads, brothers, husbands and boyfriends. And by this time, it won’t matter that your little 105 lb. angel can’t fight, doesn’t want to fight. No, she will be expected to advance constantly—“we’re not interested in holding anything except the enemy’s balls. We’re going to hold him by hisGeorgeSPatton balls and we’re going to kick him in the ass; twist his balls and kick the living sh*t out of him all the time. Our plan of operation is to advance and keep on advancing. We’re going to go through the enemy like sh*t through a tinhorn.”* And your little angel better keep up.

A civilization that sends its mothers and daughters into combat is serious about neither civilization nor combat.

*George S. Patton speech to troops of the Third Army in 1944, prior to the Normandy Landings