We’ve seen a lot of changes concerning the military during the past couple of decades, mostly of the Politically Correct nature: sensitivity training, repeal of DADT, gender issues, iffy ROEs, fast-track promotions, the greening of the services, nation building trumping victory and dhimmitude, to name just a few.
Many good NCOs are retiring early due to frustrations with Leadership (or the lack thereof…) and the looming defense cuts in numbers and money.
We have civilian leadership with very limited Military experience leading to political grandstanding over reality-based decision-making.
We have a CinC who could care less about the Military and only pays attention when he needs a good Photo Op. (But he loves him some drones!)
But this bit of news is over the top, if it bears out:
Draft Army Handbook Wades Into Divisive Afghan Issue — Wall Street Journal
WASHINGTON—American soldiers should brace for a “social-cultural shock” when meeting Afghan soldiers and avoid potentially fatal confrontations by steering clear of subjects including women’s rights, religion and Taliban misdeeds, according to a controversial draft of a military handbook being prepared for troops heading to the region.
The proposed Army handbook suggests that Western ignorance of Afghan culture, not Taliban infiltration, has helped drive the recent spike in deadly attacks by Afghan soldiers against the coalition forces.
“Many of the confrontations occur because of [coalition] ignorance of, or lack of empathy for, Muslim and/or Afghan cultural norms, resulting in a violent reaction from the [Afghan security force] member,” according to the draft handbook prepared by Army researchers.
Unfortunately, you have to have a subscription to the WSJ to read the rest of the article.
But, if you have been following the nonsense coming out of DC regarding the Military over the past 2 decades, this development is not at surprising. Many articles and papers have been written over the past couple of decades about creating a kinder and gentler Military.
Yet, there are those that know better:
Marine Gen. John Allen, the top U.S. military commander in Afghanistan, neither endorsed the manual nor agreed to sign a foreword written in his name. “Gen. Allen did not author, nor does he intend to provide, a foreword,” a spokesman for the U.S.-led coalition said. “He does not approve of its contents.”
(Read Wes Pruden’s column about this here.)
If winning hearts and minds is to be the mission and victory only comes when roads (which the libs keep screeching about here), schools (which the condition of schools here the libs keep complaining about and demanding more money for) and water systems (for libs here it’s all about infrastructure as the magic bullet for our failing economy) are built and the populace “loves” us (at great sacrifice and loss for so many of our own), then bring our Troops home and send in the Peace Corps. They’re more suited to this CinC’s ideology, anyway. Self-service and sacrifice for the greater good - without the collateral damage.
Besides, they don’t ‘kick down doors”, “terrify women and children” and use all those evil weapon thingies.
Wait…maybe that’s not such a good idea ~ we’d probably have to send in Special Forces to rescue them eventually.
This social engineering agenda, the mandatory cultural sensitivity classes, the rapidly spreading dhimmitude and appeasement of corrupt dictators and ludicrous Rules of Engagement are insults to the highly principled branches of our Military. Also insulting is a CinC who only views our Troops as pawns in his ever expanding power grab.
But then, what else can one expect from a Communist-inspired, Islam-appeasing Dictator Wannabe?
Scott Holleran says it best in his recent column: War: Sacrifice for the Sake of Sacrifice
In the context of the longest war in American history - an abomination of military involvement in which very little or nothing in our interest has been accomplished - with dreadfully anti-American rules of engagement which constantly put the lives of American military members at risk, Morning Star should cease its faith-based operations or continue its selfless activities at its own risk, refusing future help from the U.S. military. With our military being decimated by the Obama administration, which seeks to cut defense spending, and the threat of foreign invaders rising, not falling, we should not risk a single soldier’s life under current rules in a primitive nation run by tribalists, warlords and religious barbarians. Be selfless on your own, and you’re free to do so, but leave our Navy SEALs and other members of our great military free to fight where they might actually be permitted to fight back and defend U.S. interests.
The Obama government, of course, sees the death of Nicolas Checque as merely another sacrifice for the sake of others - a moral directive, sacrifice of self for its own sake, that guides Obama’s administration in foreign and domestic policy. Obama’s Defense Secretary said: “In this fallen hero, and all of our special operators, Americans see the highest ideals of citizenship, sacrifice and service upheld.” And Obama, who lied about our military involvement in Afghanistan when he said we were leaving (we’re not, as I observed here), disgustingly said this of Petty Officer 1st Class Nicolas D. Checque: “He gave his life for his fellow Americans, and he and his teammates remind us once more of the selfless service that allows our nation to stay strong, safe and free,” which is also false. What allows our nation to be strong, safe and free is the opposite of selflessness: a military defense dedicated to the nation’s self-interest in its every action, including and especially rules of engagement. Our military should stop being systematically annihilated by our leaders and instead be radically and urgently repurposed to uphold the highest principle of the nation; defense of America’s self-interest.
It’s a deplorable tragedy that our Military, which has included so many of our country’s finest men and women, is infected with the noxious dogma of this corrupt government.