Unfortunately, America has lost another fine warrior due to politics.

[Rams]

Unfortunately, America has lost another fine warrior due to politics.

The sad part is no one in Washington D. C. will bat an eye or loose any sleep over it.

I pray our Good Lord will watch over us and not allow hill or bernie to win in No
Date: April 10, 2016 at 1:18:08 AM EDT
New post on US Defense Watch

http://usdefensewatch.com/?author=1
What the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Must Tell the Nation
by Ray Starmann 


By Ray Starmann

http://usdefensewatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/130309152731-general-joseph-dunford-story-top.jpg

Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, in concern for the lives of current and future US military personnel and to honor those who have gone before, I must speak to the nation today.

I’ve called this press conference to announce that I am resigning as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and I am retiring after 39 years on active duty, which included combat service in Iraq leading the finest Marines in the world.

I am resigning as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and retiring from the Marine Corps for the following reasons:

For the last seven years during the Obama Administration:

I have watched and remained silent as hundreds of senior officers were forced to resign or were forcibly retired because of their disagreements with the current policies wrecking the military.

I have watched and remained silent as people who have never served a day in uniform laid siege to the glorious traditions of the US military.

I have watched and remained silent as male ROTC cadets paraded in red high heels, male soldiers conducted physical training wearing pregnancy simulators, combat units dealt with breastfeeding and lactation issues in the field and sensitivity training became the standard operating procedure of the US military.

I have watched and remained silent as trans-genders were authorized to serve in the ranks, and three females graduated from the US Army Ranger School, under what I believe are the most dubious of circumstances.

My predecessors in the JCS chose to look the other way, and like Pontius Pilate, wash their hands of these egregious affairs.

My predecessors in the JCS were more concerned about their careers than about the welfare of the nation and the troops they led every day.

Now the final nail in the coffin of the US military has been hammered in. On April 1, 2016, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter, with the full backing of the President of the United States, authorized the legal inclusion of women in the combat arms branches and special operations units of the United States Armed Forces.

In good conscience, I can no longer remain silent. The stakes are too high for this nation and for the women in the US military who, I believe will be greatly harmed by their inclusion in the combat arms and special operations.

I can no longer watch the US military be annihilated. While many have chosen to sit on the sidelines, I must step forth and report to the nation concerning the mortal danger the US military is in tonight because of its commander in chief, President Barack Obama and his cabinet and advisers.

The evidence against women in direct combat from the Center for Military Readiness and the Marine Corps’ 36 million dollar, 9 month study and the performance of women at the Marine Infantry Officers Basic Course is overwhelming. Yet, the President, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy and the Secretary of the Army refuse to acknowledge that the evidence even exists.

It does exist and it indicates that while women perform spectacularly in 80% of the jobs in the military, the combat arms and special operations should be closed to them; permanently.

Women are simply prone to more injuries than men, have less muscle mass, do not have the upper body strength, the same aerobic lung capacity and the aggressiveness to fulfill the military’s combat readiness requirements and missions.

The so-called experts often say that women have already served in combat. In the last two conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, females did engage the enemy and many performed heroically and beyond the call of duty. But, returning fire during a military police security operation is not the same as being in a combat arms unit that has the mission of finding, fixing and killing the enemy. That is like comparing Pop Warner Football with the NFL.

Reality says that women serving in the combat arms and special operations is not just a bad idea, but a horrific decision that puts this nation in mortal danger.

The President and the Secretary of Defense are not dealing with reality, but with a feminist based fantasy based on false premises of gender neutrality. They see the world the way they want it to be, not the way it is. These policies are based on the illusion that genders are neutral and that none of this will affect the military’s readiness, esprit de corps and ability to wage and win wars.

There is no gender neutrality on a battlefield.

It is the responsibility of America’s military leaders to protect the nation and to obey the lawful orders of those appointed above us. But, our military leaders are not martinets. There is no Fuehrerprinzip in America. An order is not just an order. The nation’s military leaders have a moral duty to inform our elected officials when policies they support and implement are destructive to the nation itself.

Silence is not golden. It is pure and unadulterated moral cowardice.

Congress also has a duty to protect the nation and to insure that the military is strong and readiness is maintained. On the issue of women in combat, Congress has been full of sound and fury, while signifying nothing. Except for a few concerned veterans like Senator John McCain and Congressman Duncan Hunter, Congress has remained silent because a majority of Congress has never served and is largely ignorant of the issue itself.

I cannot in good conscience promote policies that will order American women, ages 18 – 26 to register and be eligible for a military draft which could place them in combat arms units in wartime.

I cannot in good conscience serve as the highest ranking military member of the US military, when I am completely at odds with the social engineering directives emanating from the Secretary of Defense and the President.

The military has one sole mission. That is to wage war and to vanquish the enemies of this nation on land, on the seas and in the air. It must never be used as a social engineering project by naïve and uninformed politicians and lobbyists.

As the military prepares for this cataclysmic change, the enemies of this nation are lining up against us. They know that this is a lose, lose situation for us and a win, win situation for them. They know that we are now going to wage war with a much weaker force and that our readiness is withering by the hour.

It is very possible that the United States of America may never win another war. I do not believe this is hyperbole. I believe this is a fact.

The fate of the republic hangs in mortal jeopardy. I pray that my successor and a new President elected in 2016 have the courage and the wisdom to amend the policies that might very well destroy this great nation I have served for nearly four decades.

I bid you farewell. Semper Fi.
 
 
 
 
 

[..]

Did he write that or is it another's wishful prose?

No media cover of retirement???

[Rams]

Did he write that or is it another's wishful prose?

No media cover of retirement???

Posted to US Defense Watch, April 10, 2016 at 1:18:08 AM EDT
This is all the press coverage it was warranted apparently.......   

[Karen]

He is 100% correct. This election is important for a multitude of reasons. They have also tried to pull all references to God and Christianity out of the military. Hide the Confederate flag because it is offensive to some, BUT IT IS OUR HISTORY. Forget our history, and the values that allowed us to achieve victory in WW2, and we will be speaking some middle eastern dialect very soon, I fear.  Trust me, those of you who served back in the '60's, you would not have wanted me or any of my sisters in your combat units then. Has the female physiology really changed so drastically that women are now biologically equal to men? Ok, so how about some of you dudes start poppin' out babies... 

[Patrick]

We voted for hope and change, and, did it twice. 

Now, I hope we can get some change come November.

[Rams]

Forget our history, and the values that allowed us to achieve victory in WW2, and we will be speaking some middle eastern dialect very soon, I fear.  Trust me, those of you who served back in the '60's, you would not have wanted me or any of my sisters in your combat units then. Has the female physiology really changed so drastically that women are now biologically equal to men? Ok, so how about some of you dudes start poppin' out babies... 

I consider myself language constrained, additionally, my knees won't allow me to kneel to some shadow in the east.   So, while your fears may be real, it won't happen for all of us.

In reference to you or your sisters serving with combat units, there are many ways for all to serve but, the general brings up some very valid points, all of which I agree with.    Political Correctness will be the death of this nation.

[Serk]

Did he write that or is it another's wishful prose?

No media cover of retirement???

Appears to be wishful prose... The author of the piece (Ray Starmann) is not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Joseph Dunford).

[The emperor has no clothes]

Did he write that or is it another's wishful prose?

No media cover of retirement???

Appears to be wishful prose... The author of the piece (Ray Starmann) is not the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Joseph Dunford).

You just had to burst their bubble 

[bigguy]

I can't speak to the article above, but if you'd like an inside look at another Clinton Administration, read "Dereliction of Duty" by Lt. Col. Robert "Buzz" Patterson (ret.)
This is one of the men who carried the Nuclear Football and was at the President's side 24/7. His take is both fascinating and terrifying.

[old2soon]

the obuminater has riffed a LOT of the Warriors. Warriors being the high ranking officers that believe what the Military stands for and NOT this p c bullshit that's being rammed down their throats as the new doctrine to run things. Call me a chauvinist pig if you must but I M H O there is NOT a female that Is cut out for being a "Special Operator"-Contrary to what a hollywood movie or the Army itself TRIED to convince us of. If I were a "Special Operator" and my C O told me I was going into a covert op with a female I'd tender my resignation on the spot. BUT in todays Military climate I'd likely as not get a Dishonorable BEFORE I could tender my resignation. When I went thru basic in Feb. of 1964 the Boot Camp Company Commander-an E-6 could and would punch you if he thought you had it coming. NOT ONE of us that got punched even broached the subject of turning him in-NOT ONE. I don't even believe they make you do push ups til you puke anymore! I took an Oath in 1964 and too the best of my recollection-that OATH is Still in effect. RIDE SAFE.

[The emperor has no clothes]

the obuminater has riffed a LOT of the Warriors. Warriors being the high ranking officers that believe what the Military stands for and NOT this p c bullshit that's being rammed down their throats as the new doctrine to run things. Call me a chauvinist pig if you must but I M H O there is NOT a female that Is cut out for being a "Special Operator"-Contrary to what a hollywood movie or the Army itself TRIED to convince us of. If I were a "Special Operator" and my C O told me I was going into a covert op with a female I'd tender my resignation on the spot. BUT in todays Military climate I'd likely as not get a Dishonorable BEFORE I could tender my resignation. When I went thru basic in Feb. of 1964 the Boot Camp Company Commander-an E-6 could and would punch you if he thought you had it coming. NOT ONE of us that got punched even broached the subject of turning him in-NOT ONE. I don't even believe they make you do push ups til you puke anymore! I took an Oath in 1964 and too the best of my recollection-that OATH is Still in effect. RIDE SAFE.

I don't know about that Dennis. I have felt for a while now that an army of menopausal 55 year old women would kick the crap out of an army of horny 18 year old young men.  Things must have changed a lot in boot camp from '64 to '78. I don't remember any of them hitting any of us. Lots of bullshit mental and physical.

[Roadog]

So...that did not happen MH , in your humble opinion?  Well,  it did, not to me but I saw it.    That was before '78 so they must have pussified boot camp by that time . 
Everybody ride safe
Roadog

[The emperor has no clothes]

So...that did not happen MH , in your humble opinion?  Well,  it did, not to me but I saw it.    That was before '78 so they must have pussified boot camp by that time . 
Everybody ride safe
Roadog

RD, I'm not disputing what O2S said happened in his Boot Camp. What I said was things must have changed in those 14 years. At least I don't remember them hitting anybody. If you prefer to call that pussified that's fine by me. I'm not so sure getting hit by a Drill Instructor makes you any tougher though.  I doubt the Navy was full of tough guys anyway.

[Jess Tolbirt]

doubt the Navy was full of tough guys anyway.

hey watch it bud!!!

[The emperor has no clothes]

doubt the Navy was full of tough guys anyway.

hey watch it bud!!!

It was meant sarcastically since RD felt bootcamp had been pussified. 

[Willow]

doubt the Navy was full of tough guys anyway.

hey watch it bud!!!

It was meant sarcastically since RD felt bootcamp had been pussified. 

I went through USMC boot camp in 1968.  We were in San Diego between a WM boot camp and a Navy boot camp.  Ours was the one that wasn't.     They did put their hands on the boots despite rules against such.  It did make some of us tougher.  It drove some of us away. 

I can remember a short speech in which the series first sergeant described to us what the Viet Cong had done to a captured Marine and expressed to us that that was his idea of what maltreatment was.  The message was he didn't want to deal with any reports of boots complaining that they'd been maltreated.

As to the two surrounding boot camps and their status, they each served their purpose.   

[old2soon]

There is another aspect of boot camp-mine 1964-that today might see charges bought. I'm talking about the G I shower. KI YI brushes and lye soap. We had a slow learner that went thru 2 of them and in the 7th week got set back. Set back being sent back to another company that was just starting basic. I believe at the time I went thru basic was 9 weeks. Never did hear what had become of him cuz after 14 days leave I was on orders to San Diego. After San Diego to the fleet. And my basic was done at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center in Feb which If you've ever been there you KNOW that Feb is STILL Winter. The Company Commander took great delight in dropping you for a quick 50 pushups making cursed SURE your nose touched the deck No Matter WHAT was ON the Deck! Cold melting run off was a favorite of his.  Our sister Company Commander was known for his 5 pushups-HIS count and the first count was usually 1/5th or 1/7th. Saw one guy there that was at it for right at 2 and a half hours for the 5 count. Went to Church on Sundays cuz there was an hour and a half I did NOT have someone screaming in my face.  RIDE SAFE.

[The emperor has no clothes]

doubt the Navy was full of tough guys anyway.

hey watch it bud!!!

It was meant sarcastically since RD felt bootcamp had been pussified. 

I went through USMC boot camp in 1968.  We were in San Diego between a WM boot camp and a Navy boot camp.  Ours was the one that wasn't.     They did put their hands on the boots despite rules against such.  It did make some of us tougher.  It drove some of us away. 

I can remember a short speech in which the series first sergeant described to us what the Viet Cong had done to a captured Marine and expressed to us that that was his idea of what maltreatment was.  The message was he didn't want to deal with any reports of boots complaining that they'd been maltreated.

As to the two surrounding boot camps and their status, they each served their purpose.   

I was in the boot camp up the hill from you. I can remember watching you guys run for hours and thinking to myself that 3/4 of the guys in my unit would have died (probably me included). You won't get any argument out of me about their toughness. Honestly Navy bootcamp was like a summer camp. As long as you could not talk back to them and could stand hours of boredom it was a piece of cake. There were a couple that had dreams of UDT Seals that were pretty tough. Most of us were pretty soft.

[Serk]

<Insert second handy story of how tough my dad's late 1960's Air Force boot camp experience was here.>   

[Michvalk]

<Insert second handy story of how tough my dad's late 1960's Air Force boot camp experience was here.>   

Like going to summer camp......Spent most of my time in classes. USAF '69-'73

[Jess from VA]

I'm pretty sure my 2-week USAF officer's orientation course for those getting direct commissions (only for lawyers, docs, dentists, chaplains, and select reservists) was easier than any of you guy's basic.  

I had learned close order drill in Boy Scouts, where we were allowed to bunk in upstairs barracks in with regular navy boots for a week every summer (the local NAS sponsored our troop).  We had the same DIs they did, but the language and physical abuse was somewhat curtailed for 11 year olds.  Boy scouts loved marching and by mid week, we looked better than the boots.

But I tell you, you never saw anything funnier than 48 brand new direct appointees trying to march for the very first time on the Maxwell AFB flightline.  We had a genuine USAF TI (Air Force for DI) who got shanghaied into teaching us and she was dumbfounded at how badly we sucked at marching (think Monty Python).  Good thing we only had to try it four times.  One big dummy kept marching out of his shoes, cause he liked them loose.  No barracks, no rifles, no PT, no room inspections, just classroom.

We had guys show up who put their bars on sideways, and hats on backwards.  Another had to be counseled to stop referring the the instructor as.... Yo Maj, how they hangin'?  

Of course, you all know what Air Force gloves are, right?       (front pockets)

[Rams]

USMC, 1972, offered RECON while in ITS, turned it down, offered Embassy Duty upon graduation, turned it down.   Both required a greater enlistment than I had volunteered for.   Did my service, went to college and then was selected as an RA Commission in the Army.

I wanted to fly helicopters, eight years later, I flew Scouts (OH58s) Huey's (UH-1s) and Cobras (AH-1s).  A few years later, I was told I was gonna be a Test Pilot.....................    

[scooperhsd]

Having already completed 2 years of college, I then got a 2year NROTC scholarship (books, tuition + $100 / month + uniforms, 1 30 day training cruise like the Naval Academy 1st class mids). However - that meant we needed to "catchup" with those who had been in since freshman year. To that end, we spent 6 weeks in lovely Newport RI, of PT, academics and some other navy training (read- parties ) that did this. Our DI's were the Marine Sargents from NROTC units (most of whom had been DI's), but this was defintely not like "enlisted boot camp". We got pretty decent at close order drill. July 4th, some of us even took a trip down to NYC for the weekend - the less said about that - the better.

[threevalks]

The difference between serving in the Army, Navy, Marine Corp, or Air force. I was stupid, I chose Army.

[98valk]

mabus another liberal UN Marxist commie democrap. I read about this destruction of the US military in one world order reports in the late 1990's. I've seen the changes during my 33yr career with the DON.

Women in combat: Mabus to talk integration with Marines at Camp Pendleton
By Elliot Spagat, The Associated Press, 12 Apr 16

SAN DIEGO - Navy Secretary Ray Mabus has squared off against Marine Corps leaders who resisted recruiting women for all combat jobs. On Tuesday, he takes his case to a broader audience at Camp Pendleton, California. This comes on the heels of a Marine administrative message released Friday that announced an overhaul to the policy that governs women assignments.

Marine Corps leaders had sought to keep certain infantry and combat jobs closed to women, citing studies showing combined-gender units are not as effective as male-only units. Defense Secretary Ash Carter overruled them in December, ordering all positions open to women.

Since then, the military services have put together plans outlining how they will integrate women into male-only units.

Mabus, who sided with the defense secretary against Marine Corps brass, will address about 300 leaders from the 1st Marine Expeditionary Force to "discuss his intent and expectations for gender integration," according to a Marines press release that describes the forum as a town hall setting. He has already visited Marines bases at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and Quantico, Virginia, to tackle the topic.

Mabus, a former Democratic governor of Mississippi, faces a potentially skeptical audience. Marine Gen. Robert Neller made clear his reservations in February even as the Marine Corps began to lay out recruitment plans.

"We have a decision and we're in the process of moving out," Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, told senators. "We will see where the chips fall. And, again, our hope is that everyone will be successful. But hope is not a course of action on the battlefield."

Neller told senators that that Marine Corps testing revealed two significant differences between all-male units and those with men and women. He said all-male units were able to better march long distances carrying heavy loads and also were able to fire their weapons more accurately after marching over distance.

Being big and strong and having a "certain body mass give you an advantage," said Neller.

Asked to list his concerns, Neller said he worried about retention, injury rates and unit effectiveness.

The defense secretary has said moving women into combat jobs will present challenges but that the armed forces can no longer afford to exclude half of the population from grueling jobs. He said that any man or woman who meets the standards should be able to serve.

Marine administrative message 193/16, released April 8, provided advance notice of changes coming to the Marine Corps personnel assignment policy. The forthcoming changes will delete the chapter that governs the assignment of women - there will now be only one assignment policy that governs all Marines. The message also addressed a policy to "determine eligibility for assignment to load-bearing combat arms units." Load-bearing combat arms units are infantry battalions and regiments, reconnaissance battalions, force reconnaissance companies, combat engineer/assault companies, and Raider companies.

This could mean women in a non-combat arms MOS are now qualified to serve in that capacity in a load-bearing unit, or it could signal a rule change that would allow women to lat-move into a combat arms MOS. Personnel officials did not provide answers to repeated requests for clarification. The MARADMIN was authorized by Lt. Gen. Mark A. Brilakis, deputy commandant for Manpower and Reserve Affairs.

A live stream of Mabus' talk is expected to begin at 3:45 p.m. EST.

Staff Writer Lance M. Bacon contributed to this report.

[Rams]

One has to wonder how anyone in good conscience would ask their son or daughter to go to war in a less than capable unit.

[Alpha Dog]

Well one can see Marine General Neller is not long for this job.  He might as well start planning his future.
The PC power want to hear nothing of this.  Probably next will be looking for midgets to give the Corp a boost.

[98valk]

for further research..
The Israelian army tried woman in combat decades ago and stopped it. they found that when a woman gets injured, the men become more concerned with her welfare than fighting the enemy. plenty out there written about this.
it is in men's nature to protect woman. men even do it with co-workers in an office setting.

[baldo]

One has to wonder how anyone in good conscience would ask their son or daughter to go to war in a less than capable unit.

Exactly....remember this little pearl?     

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3jPgljRvzQw

[Jess from VA]

One has to wonder how anyone in good conscience would ask their son or daughter to go to war in a less than capable unit.

More than that Ron, one has to wonder how anyone in good conscience would ask their son or daughter to enter the military at all as part of a grand social engineering experiment.  And with rules of engagement in combat that essentially require one of the good guys get killed before anyone can shoot back.

In theory, I have no problem with women in combat, so long as the minimum physical requirements of training for the unit in question are not eased one iota for them (airborne, rangers, spec ops, PJs, seals, recon, yada).  But experience shows that the requirements are always dumbed down. 

[old2soon]

One has to wonder how anyone in good conscience would ask their son or daughter to go to war in a less than capable unit.

More than that Ron, one has to wonder how anyone in good conscience would ask their son or daughter to enter the military at all as part of a grand social engineering experiment.  And with rules of engagement in combat that essentially require one of the good guys get killed before anyone can shoot back.

In theory, I have no problem with women in combat, so long as the minimum physical requirements of training for the unit in question are not eased one iota for them (airborne, rangers, spec ops, PJs, seals, recon, yada).  But experience shows that the requirements are always dumbed down. 

               Exactly Jess. Dumbing down or lowering standards WILL git good troops killed for no other reason than relaxed standards. And the ingrained gene of the male to protect the female.  While on the carrier  turned aircraft around faster-armament fuel reloads-by NOT using the bomb hoist and hand loading the weps. And-NO-NEVER dropped one. On normal load outs hoist used. It was the fast turn arounds when the brute strength came in. Anybody KNOW what a full combat load weighs for a Soldier or a Marine these days? I've NOT been a front line troop so guessin here BUT if  troop is sposed to carry 300 extra rounds and a female troop can only carry 125 150 extra rounds she is NOT combat ready. If they need to double time 3 miles with a full combat load and she can only double time 2 miles with a half combat load she is NOT combat ready or worded another way-she is NOT mission capable. Course then again MAYBE those cramming this P C bullshit agenda down the Military throats do not WANT our troops Combat or Mission capable!  THAT my friends be a scary thought. RIDE SAFE.

[Willow]

Jess has touched on the two points that matter.  Whether there are women that could meet the standards is not the critical issue.  There undoubtedly are.  They are a small minority but there are some tough women.  There are women in or out of the military that could kick my ass even in my prime.

One issue is that in integrating males and females in training the issue inevitable makes its way to passing a certain percentage of the females and to do so the standards are ultimately lowered to do so.  The result is not only including females that would not have met the original standards but also including males that would have been eliminated by the unmodified standards.

The second and probably more critical issue is the instinctive tendency of the male to be protective of the female.  In a combat situation that will be catastrophic. 

It's a bad idea.  Perhaps we could make it work, sort of, with entirely one gender battalions each being combat trained.  No, I don't think that's a good idea either.

[scooperhsd]

Some units, it can work - others - not a very good idea.

MOST (but not all - notably SEALS) jobs in the Navy can be done equally well by either men or women.

I would say the same about the Air Force (again except for PJs) - and combat flying for both Navy / Air Force is on the table.

Coast Guard - consider them Navy for this discussion.

Army and Marines - jobs short of infantry / armor / artillery / combat engineers - sure (i.e. most support MOS) . For those that want to do these (either sex) - have to pass series of mental compentcy and physical (fastest way to kill someone is send unqualifed people out in the frontlines) - with no compromises made for M/F - everybody must pass the same standards. yes - that may mean those units will have a low percentage of females - but remember - the purpose of these units is to FIGHT.

[Jess from VA]

Gender equality is fair, and the law, but for some few things, performance is everything.  To discriminate based on gender, the courts place the bar very high, but it can be passed, and I think for some combat units it should be passed.  Remember that for units like the Seals, the fail rate for extremely fit males is still very high... like 9 of 10 don't make it.  PC trumping elite combat unit effectiveness is just the worst kind of BS.

Ever wonder why there is no female NFL?  (bra and panty arena ball is not football, though I have watched a little of that, and some of the gals out there are physical monsters who I'd be glad to have on my side in a fist fight, and if they weren't on my side, I'd run)