Putting women in combat arms in the US military has already unquestionably lowered its combat effectiveness. Arguing otherwise is lunacy. What's more, it has also lowered the nation's effective casualty tolerance, which is yet another 'force divisor'. In addition, it will predictably result in the lowering of standards---you don't SERIOUSLY think women flunking out Marine Infantry Officer training will be tolerated very long will you?---and not just for women. We're not capable of a least-hard honest quota system, we're way too insane for that.
But, honestly, I'm not terribly upset about this. Consider, who is the US military likely to be used against in the future? Can you think of any conflicts it might get used in that are beneficial to the interests of non-elite white people that aren't dead certain to go NBC on us? Also, hardly out of the question is that institution being used Janissary-style against us. So weakening and desacralizing the institution now is probably actually to the good. The existing order does NOT deserve the courage and sacrifice of men like the two former SEALs who gave the last full measure of their devotion to employees of a State department that holds their like in contempt. This is one of the reasons reactionaries---and frankly libertarians and conservatives as well---should support truly profound cuts in the military budget--at least 50% and probably more than that. Not only can't we afford it, it is extremely dangerous and creates undue temptations to go off in quest of monsters to slay.
Are people really getting smarter?
3 days ago
The libertarians are way in front of the reactionaries on this one.
If such a cut to the military were to be taken, you know it wouldn't even affect the politicians and defense industry. They'd still make out like bandits, it's the actual service members who'd feel it.
Still is a good idea, but in order to have the real financial benefit from it we should also cut social security by half as well.
Imagine if some European state "goes nationalist"
Humanitarian bombing, a la USA-->Yugoslavia in the 1990s, seems quite likely.
A future Obama (or Obama himself, if it happens sooner than expected) would make it happen -- given the flimsiest pretext.
Yes, this is one of the big reasons that the US needs to seriously cut its military.
That's honestly a lot of the hope---that the military cuts boots on the ground massively while spending heavily on the high tech toys that would be useful fighting another nuclear power conventionally (i.e., things actually pretty useless from a realistic perspective). SS probably needs to have the retirement age raised and a cutoff date established. Most people under 50 don't believe SS will be there for them, so phasing it out is probably not a 3rd rail issue if accompanied by some sort of alternate provision. Medicare is a real nightmare though. All things considered, I think we're going to have to have an economic collapse/bankruptcy event to get back on a solid footing.
The military should be cut. But those cuts should be applied to debt reduction. Not making an expensive workfare program for female soldiers.
A civil war without a strong military to pick a side and end it is going to be a very long and bloody affair. I'm not sure that's such a good thing.
A comment published by Lawrence Auster:
"I had been planning to vote for Virgil Goode, but the last debate tipped me over to Romney. In particular, Obama’s bald-faced lie on sequestration (“It will not happen”) and his sneering condescension on the Navy ship count issue (“”We have these things called aircraft carriers, where planes land on them”). My vote will be the one I calculate to do the most harm to Obama."
This seems to fall into the "it has to get worse fore it gets better" line of thought...interesting how, even though we are talking about hope in another Euro-established country, it still has to get worse for the US for there to be any hope.
It sounds simply bizarre that the regime would be able to justify the bombing of a country like, for example, Greece, but I'm sure all propaganda campaigns to build support for bombings and attacks, prior to their actual application, sounded just as absurd.
Post a Comment