Thursday, September 17, 2015

The Potemkin Marines

The USMC's top-ranked sergeant takes the Secretary of the Navy to task:
In response to the Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus saying the Marine Corps should've chosen better females for the infantry integration experiment, Sergeant Major Justin LeHew stated:

"...This was as stacked as a unit could get with the best Marines to give it a 100 percent success rate as we possibly could. End result? The best women in the GCEITF as a group in regard to infantry operations were equal or below in most all cases to the lowest 5 percent of men as a group in this test study.

They are slower on all accounts in almost every technical and tactical aspect and physically weaker in every aspect across the range of military operations. SECNAV has stated that he has made his mind up even before the release of these results and that the USMC test unit will not change his mind on anything."
The inclusion of women is never about anything but the inclusion of women. No matter what excuses and justifications are provided.

20 comments:

Midnight Avenue J said...

The inclusion of women is never about anything but the inclusion of women.

THE most succinct declaration on the topic I've read. Will use this in the future.

My only wish, or hope, is that women could see this for what it is: appeasement. We know it never works, it only heightens the hunger for more. Downside, it weakens the institutions hoping appeasing the whinge contingent will make it go away. Wrong answer.

Desiderius said...

"The inclusion of women is never about anything but the inclusion of women."

Oh I think they've amply demonstrated that they're never close to satisfied with mere inclusion.

Bob said...

Same in England with the new Labour leader. 16 women to 15 men in his shadow cabinet, and they're STILL not happy, because they want only the top jobs: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11863014/jeremy-corbyn-shadow-cabinet-live.html

Cataline Sergius said...

Honestly the left has no use for the military whatsoever except as a parade ground for social justice vanity projects. The defense of the nation isn't a serious matter to them. It never was.

However degrading and demoralizing the armed services is the only way they can get close to what they really want here, which is SJW entryism. However unless they institute a draft that will remain a dream.

SJWs do not like to get their hands dirty. Also there is no psychotropic drug that won't get you automatically PMR'd at MEPs and they are all on some kind of serotonin reuptake inhibitor. So the incompetent SecNav's answer is to cram MOAR Grrrrls into combat units where ever possible and no matter what their performance is like.

Although plan B is good too. Which is try to make the military as much like college campuses as possible. Here is an example I wrote about a while back. Consent is Sexy In the Military. This is for real. Everyone of these warriors is required to attend these manhood negating classes.

Miguel D'Anconia said...

I say send their asses into combat. Let's see how long this discussion goes once women start getting wiped out, captured and raped.

Tom K. said...

Women in the military is now and always will be, a disaster. Women cannot do the job, do not want to do the job, and shouldn't be allowed to do the job.

I should know. My ex-wife was an army sergeant. I was an air force sergeant. Long before we were married we were both working in the service for the NSA overseas. The intelligence community is a combined service/civilian organization so there is full integration across the board. Women service members can do as well as women civilians in the intelligence community because we are as far from a military command structure as you can get! We were on a civilian base, working for civilians. There was even talk of getting rid of our uniforms in order to reinforce our cover story.

My wife however, had served in the army BEFORE they fully integrated men and women. She used to tell me it was so much better in the WACs (Womens Army Corp) where the army treated women like women and not as dickless men. In other words, they were expected to act like women and not men. They were not permitted to nor expected to do the work of men. Of course, you must never tell a woman she is NOT PERMITTED to do something! Doing so will only unleash her rabid hamster!

Today, the U.S. military is a joke and I'm too disgusted to say more.

Wormwood said...

Women are all about the power of choice, for them. They wanted full access to all types of military duty, but have been completely silent regarding registration for selective service. They have no interest in anything mandatory. Hypergamy is about restriction of male choices and maximization of female choices.

justaguy said...

People that do not feel threatened by outside forces experiment with their armed forces and fail to prepare. The pressure cooker bombs of the wannabe terrorist/immigrants affect such a small number of people, so we still feel safe and secure. Even after not winning the last several wars, we still feel secure.

Only in sci-fi stories do scenarios occur where the American people don't really feel safe and secure. So who is to say that pandering to our peculiarities with our armed forces is a bad thing? It isn't as if we need them to defend our cities or the sea lanes. We hide behind oceans, and land mass barriers. Maybe we will have time to evolve trough the Darwinian effect of combat effective armed forces. That is what occurred in WWII, the last real conflict where we felt threatened.

I submit, the US still thinks it can use technology to maintain safety and security and hasn't worried that it's highly paid, highly trained and high tech force can degrade any threat to the homeland. Why shouldn't it think it is okay to play high tech, pc games. In what credible scenario is the security of the US dependent on its manpower in the armed forces?

b1bae96e-6447-11e3-b6bb-000f20980440 said...

Only in the United States can you justify spending $2 million training an inferior female soldier when it costs $250k to train an average male soldier. At least when you see them around the world (Gaddafi, Kim) their military status is merely there to give the wife a face save from the harem they actually are.

ray said...

"The inclusion of women is never about anything but the inclusion of women"


It's also about the 'inclusion' of an entire (unacknowledged) cadre of inferior males, who are backers, funders, and enforcers of feminist inclusion, empowerment, entitlements, separate legal systems, etc. These males are now in command positions throughout U.S. society, starting at the top, with Muslim feminist Barack Hussein, VAWA Joe, and so on. And on.

The gynarchy consists of various socio-political, economic, and religious alliances. The males (including current hero, Donnie Trump) of both the Left and Right back Female Inclusion and almost all of the rest of the fem-agenda. If they didn't, they would never come into power in New America. Not even as County Dog Catcher.

The U.S. and European Right thinks it's gonna get off easy, with its immigration block and its anti-Semitism. They'll learn the hard way. For the few remaining with the humility to learn at all.

LP999/S.I.G. said...

No and No. Women do not belong in the military. Let the men be medics, nurses, front line, infantry, etc., get the women out of mgmt too.

Mindstorm said...

^
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CO4B1LlVEAAvLPd.jpg

Robert What? said...

I assume this standup sergeant will be fired soon. Hopefully he'll be able to leave with his military pension in tact.

James Sullivan said...

Robert What?

I once heard it took a near act of God (act of congress, actually) to fire a Sergeant Major or above (enlisted above). Anyone know if that's true?

ScuzzaMan said...

"SECNAV has stated that he has made his mind up even before the release of these results and that the USMC test unit will not change his mind on anything."

Remember, these are the rationalists. The people who fucking love science, who insist on a citation from a recognised authority before they will accept that it is daytime.

Made up his mind before the test, and the failure of his position during the test wont change his mind.

Got it.

Conscientia Republicae said...

You can't fire an enlisted man. SgtMaj LeHew is the METC Sergeant Major, not the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps. To get rid of LeHew, you'd have to general court-martial him and get several other Sergeants Major and a couple officers to convict him and award him an OTH, BCD or Dishonorable Discharge.

You can fire officers at will, since they serve on a commission, not a contract.

dolokov said...

Surely a weak US military is a good thing. I would rather when the US decides to bomb budapest that the bomber pilots can't read maps.

rick said...

@ James Sullivan,

You can fire an Enlisted member. I've done it, twice; but that does not remove him from the service. The same applies to an Officer. It's called a Relief for Cause. It results in a very bad rating which will kill you career-wise. And if criminal, their may be an Art 15, or a Courts Martial. Many people get fired in the military. Sex and alcohol are usually involved in these cases. The Garrison Commander ( a Colonel) in Vicenza got fired some time ago--alcohol related. The MG in charge of HOA (Baker?) got fired--sex related. Years ago my 1SG got fired--integrity related. It happens.

Removing from the service, however, does take time, but it's not hard.

(frenchy)


Tom K. said...

But as I understand it, the hierarchy goes, God. His Son. Sergeant Major. The President. The Joint Chiefs.

At least that's what I've heard.

Tom K. said...

But as I understand it, the hierarchy goes, God. His Son. Sergeant Major. The President. The Joint Chiefs.

At least that's what I've heard.

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.