Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday January 13 2017, @09:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-the-experts-say dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

The Pentagon could be poised for a rapid about-face under the Trump administration, with the Obama administration's push for social reform surrendering to what could be an old-school emphasis on combat readiness and the spirit of the United States military, experts told FoxNews.com.

Under President Obama, the military sought to integrate transgender persons into the ranks, allow women into special operations forces and purge the nomenclature of gender-specific words, adopting what some critics say was a "politically correct" liberal agenda. That's a contrast to the traditional U.S. military approach.

In addition, some Navy ships have been named for civil rights activists. And while the Obama administration has taken an inclusive approach on some issues, it has also worked to minimize expressions of Christianity in the ranks. For example, several officers have been disciplined for displaying Bibles or gospel verses in their quarters.

Veterans and military experts told FoxNews.com that, while some of Obama's civil rights advancements may be locked in, neither Trump nor his choice for secretary of defense, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, are likely to make social experimentation a priority.

Source: Fox News


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Friday January 13 2017, @11:02PM

    by NewNic (6420) on Friday January 13 2017, @11:02PM (#453552) Journal

    There has been pressure on the Marine Corps, to commission some female combat officers. To date, no females have met the physical requirements to become combat officers. It will happen, sooner or later. But, there shouldn't be pressure on military officers to sign off on a female officer - or a black officer - or a white officer - or whatever. Officers need to meet requirements, if they can't meet the requirements, then they can't be officers. Simple as that.

    It's not as simple as that. Life isn't black and white.

    You also have to show that those requirements are actually necessary for proper performance of the job.

    --
    lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:26PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 13 2017, @11:26PM (#453572) Journal

    Actually, I believe the reverse to be true. If you (plural you, not you personally) believe that those requirements are unnecessary and/or unfair and/or unreasonable - it's up to you to prove your case.

    Mankind has thousands of years of fighting experience. Pretty much all of our basic requirements for soldiers and sailors have a long, proven historical necessity. All other things being equal, bigger people have the advantage in most physical contests. Stronger people have the advantage in most physical contests. Faster people have the advantage is some physical contests. The soldier or sailor who can't keep up can prove to be a liability.

    If you can prove that an 80 pound, 4 ft 6 inch woman can routinely kick big men's asses, then the military will thank you for your contribution, and start changing a lot of requirements.

    • (Score: 1) by NewNic on Friday January 13 2017, @11:33PM

      by NewNic (6420) on Friday January 13 2017, @11:33PM (#453576) Journal

      What percentage of the today's military actually sees front line combat?

      --
      lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:51PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 13 2017, @11:51PM (#453597) Journal

        You hit on one reason I respect the USMC so much. Every Marine is a rifleman. No one is so high, or so low, or so specialized that he is exempt from front line duty.

        IMHO, if you aren't willing to go in harm's way, you shouldn't be in the military. Any branch, at any level.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:02AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:02AM (#453607)

          Take note, derpaway just admitted that NewNic was right and he was wrong. He's just too fragile to actually say it.

          Every time he is faced with facts he can't dispute, he tries to make all it about his glorious opinions.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @11:54PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @11:54PM (#453601)

      If you (plural you, not you personally) believe that those requirements are unnecessary and/or unfair and/or unreasonable - it's up to you to prove your case.

      So it's not up to the people who put the restrictions in place or continue to keep them in place to justify their existence? Really? This sort of backwards anti-individual mentality has no place in the 21st century. Government should have to rigorously justify every single thing it does, without exception.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:11AM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:11AM (#453611) Journal

        How informative. So, based on your word, we can just shitcan then entire legal system, our legislative branch, our executive, basically all of government. Just throw it all away, unless they can prove that they are necessary.

        What a putz. Maybe we can just throw YOU away? Prove that you have any value, then maybe we'll keep you.