‘[I]f they have specialties that we can use, especially if we want to maintain an all-volunteer force, we want to bring that talent into our services.’. //

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, previously endorsed allowing trans-identifying individuals to serve in the U.S. military, a position military specialists and reports have warned hampers the force’s overall readiness.

I’ve been through a lot: combat tours, job changes, divorces and family challenges. (Yes, I love my mom very much, and she loves me.) I have always led with honesty, integrity and passion. Tragically, many veterans never find the purpose for their next chapter and succumb to the bottle, depression or, worst of all, suicide. I understand what they are facing—because I’ve lived it. But by the grace of God, I took another path. My Lord and Savior Jesus Christ has renewed and restored my life. I am saved by his grace.

In 1941, the United States suddenly found itself in a war that would span a third of the Earth's surface - the Pacific Ocean. They faced an implacable enemy with imperial ambitions, and the Pacific Fleet - or at least, what wasn't on the muddy bottom of Pearl Harbor - was built in part on Great War relics.

Four years later, the United States Pacific Fleet had more modern combat ships than all the other navies of the world combined. The United States, as Admiral Yamamoto warned, had fired up its enormous industrial base to a war footing faster than anyone thought possible, and we drowned the Empire of Japan in steel - and atomic flame.

Today there is another Asian power with Pacific Ocean ambitions, and we have some problems that didn't exist in 1941. //

The primary problem, according to Eaglen, is that China may well win dominance in the Pacific without firing a shot. And, as is always the case, the problem has a lot to do with logistics.

“If they know if this ever got beyond competition to something with the use of violence, we don’t have that capacity to rapidly repair and resupply forward in Asia, and it’s a really long way home to sail and fly things. You see how Beijing’s starting to win without fighting,” she concluded. //

America does have some advantages in the Pacific. Our undersea fleet is the most advanced in the world, and as the Germans learned as early as the Great War, submarines are a great force multiplier.

Currently, the Navy has more admirals than ships.

John Ʌ Konrad V
@johnkonrad
·
Follow
The U.S. Navy has more Admirals than ships, yet it can’t keep the Red Sea open or deliver new ships on time.

So, how do Navy Admirals spend their time? World travel to 4-star hotels!

Here's their Nov conference list

P.S. The list for Army & Air Force Generals is even longer.
8:08 AM · Nov 8, 2024. //

It's a good thing that he is not a creature of the Navy hierarchy and is not beholden to the military-industrial complex for his next gig. I can't be convinced that either of those groups cares much about winning wars and protecting America. //

NavyVet
7 hours ago
There is a clear pattern in President-elect Trump's cabinet picks: they have proven successful in competitive real-world endeavors, based on merit.

This is a sharp contrast to the last four years, where power was given for pure political reasons, with nary a real success among them.

Because these are not isolated producers swimming in a sea of political incompetence, they will be a force to be reckoned with. //

NavyVet DukeUSA
7 hours ago
My point has nothing to do with the Navy per se, what I am observing is the overall theme of his cabinet picks: proven winners, willing to approach government like a business, rather than corrupt political wrangling. //

Douglas Proudfoot
8 hours ago
There is no accountability for failure in the flag officer ranks of the US Military. The British famously executed failed Admiral John Byng in 1757, to, as Voltaire put it in "Candide," encourage the other admirals. Britania ruled the waves for about 180 years after the execution. In the US, a flag officer's failure on the battlefield or in weapons procurement should, at the very least, lead to retirement after a reduction in grade, at the lower grade. The president should see this done as Commander in Chief. If not, the Senate can refuse to confirm retirement as a 3 or 4 star flag officer. Right now, morale is low. Nobody respects senior leadership, because they take no responsibility even for obvious failure. This has to change. Rewarding failure means we'll get a lot more of it.

Me=USAF Systems Analyst Officer 1972-1976, Meritorious Service Medal 1976. //

anon-x1lc
7 hours ago
Congress's lack of a proper budget since Pres Bush have done great harm to the Navy. Continuing resolutions screw everything up. Can't budget for 5 and 10 years out for repair and refit. Plus the DEI cluster fark didn't help. FOcus on social engineering instead of competent leadership also screws things up. Cpt allowing a Starlink Sat antenna on her ship tels me the leadership is FUBAR and incompetent. If the command doesn't notice an extra antenna bolted on the side of the superstructure, they are complete idiots.

The curtains are beginning to close for the A-10 Thunderbolt II (aka Warthog). The United States Air Force is set to retire 56 in fiscal year 2025 (around 20% of the remaining inventory), reducing the number of A-10s in active service to around 200. Meanwhile, the US Air Force has stated it is about to retire the last of its Warthogs based in South Korea, and these will be replaced by F-16 Fighting Falcons (upgraded with fifth-generation-like software).

Jesse Kelly
@JesseKellyDC
·
Follow
There’s nothing in the world that would help the morale of the men than to see a flag officer face real punishment the same way the guys on the ground have.

You officers have no idea how much resentment your little club has created in the troops.
Barry R McCaffrey
@mccaffreyr3
Trump plans to recall retired officers to active duty to court martial them for Afghan withdrawal will be a disaster for military morale and a political bomb for him. The Uniform Code of Military Justice is a codified Congressional statute and operates under Federal law…. not…
3:57 PM · Nov 19, 2024 //

You're dang right it's politically-motivated. The general class is infested with left-wing partisans who put politics above the rank-and-file, sometimes with deadly consequences. The purge is coming, and no amount of crybagging from the press is going to stop it. Buckle up.

That virus is the implementation of DEI and gender theory in our service academies. This is damaging to the intent of those academies. It's dangerous. It's harmful. And it could cause us to lose a major war. Pete Hegseth obviously understands this. //

Pete Hegseth has been there. He has led men in a war zone. He has smelled the smoke, and knows what it is like to be in a foreign place, to be in danger, to face possible death or maiming - and to have his men look at him and say "Sir, what do we do now?" Making a decision and acting under those conditions is like nothing else in any other field of endeavor. The wrong decision may get the officer and all his men killed, and he may have only seconds to make that decision. Pete Hegseth knows what that is like.

In its Tuesday night hit piece on Hegseth, authors Joe Gould, Robbie Gramer, Paul McLeary, Connor O’Brien, and Jack Detsch published critical remarks from an anonymous defense lobbyist, who gave the game away by lamenting how the Trump nominee isn’t embedded in D.C.’s military-industrial complex.

“Who the f-ck is this guy?” the source reportedly said. The lobbyist wanted “someone who actually has an extensive background in defense. That would be a good start.”

The authors went on to fearmonger that Hegseth’s nomination “will do little to quell fears inside the Pentagon” that the former president will select a defense secretary who agrees with his agenda — something presidents have been doing for centuries. They also noted, “Trump’s campaign trail rhetoric has primed fears that his second term could see a swift and divisive overhaul at the Pentagon.”

Got that? The left’s problem with Hegseth isn’t that he’s a Fox News commentator. It’s that he’s someone from outside the incestuous government-defense contractor system who actually cares about the men and women in uniform. //

For all of their unhinged outrage about his nomination, Hegseth understands the biggest problems plaguing the military better than the Democrats and media hacks calling him “unqualified.”

During his recent interview with fellow veteran Shawn Ryan, the Army veteran eloquently explained how the sole purpose of the military should be winning wars — not conducting left-wing social experiments. He further chastised the Pentagon bureaucracy for its ineptitude and detailed the ongoing threat that Red China poses to the United States and the global security environment. //

For the left, Hegseth’s biggest crime is his willingness to buck the corrupt system that’s been allowed to fester in D.C. for decades. Unlike many of his predecessors, he understands that the men and women who wear the uniform are devoted human beings and not pawns in a geopolitical chess match that can be cast aside to fulfill the wants of the Pentagon blob that’s shepherded Washington’s failed foreign policy for decades.

His outsider status makes him a threat to the bureaucratic rot infecting the highest levels of the military. And that’s the reason he’s the perfect man for the job.

Early in his third presidential campaign, Donald Trump vowed to establish a “Truth and Reconciliation Commission” to “declassify and publish all documents on Deep State spying, censorship, and abuses of power.” The phrase “Truth and Reconciliation” recalls bodies established to investigate abuses by toppled Communist regimes such as East Germany’s, or the former apartheid government of South Africa. The framing suggests that Trump views the entire past decade, from “Russiagate” to the “lawfare” cases entangling himself and his advisers, as the fruits of an illegitimate regime that threw the rule of law out the window.

This interpretation of recent history, surely viewed as partisan by Trump’s opponents, will be tested by the facts, once they become better known and documented. But the president-elect’s suggestion that the workings of the U.S. government must be more transparent is long overdue. //

It is high time for a serious overhaul of classification procedures, with the appointment of a presidential “task force” of the kind suggested in the Classification Reform for Transparency Act (which still awaits passage). President Obama’s Executive Order 13526 of 2009 limited classification times for ordinary records to 10 years and established a cap of 25 years for more sensitive files. But the nine telltale “exemptions” were left in place, allowing security agencies to continue stonewalling — while adding massively to the vault of our nation’s secrets.

If we streamline exemptions to a few simple categories such as “sources at risk,” private data of living citizens, and military-technological and trade secrets and shorten classification to a single presidential term of four years (e.g., to prevent an opposition party from mining recent presidential files for use in election campaigns), we could exponentially reduce the expense of classification going forward and restore public trust in Washington, D.C. — not least by putting a healthy fear into our public servants that they cannot abuse their powers and get away with it.

Meanwhile, why not declassify all U.S. government files more than 25 years old? If a strict exemption threshold is met, government agencies could still redact personal data or trade or military secrets — but the files themselves should be opened. Rather than require citizens and historians to pry information out of Washington via FOIA applications, the burden of classification should be placed where it belongs — on the government.

Files should be open to the public unless otherwise specified, not secret by default. We the people have a right to know what our government does in our name, and to know our own history.

“For all you stupid f*cks out there that still believe military service will be voluntary. Remember Germany 1936.” //

Selective Service @SSS_gov
·
Yesterday an inappropriate X post related to a mandatory draft was reposted on the Selective Service Agency’s X account. We are investigating this incident to determine how this happened and are proactively taking steps to prevent this from happening in the future. The reposted… Show more
10:25 AM · Nov 7, 2024. //

DaveGinOly in reply to inspectorudy. | November 7, 2024 at 4:17 pm
A POTUS’ authority to conduct the business of the United States (executive authority) is delegated down the chain of command. A POTUS can rescind that authority from any non-compliant agency, agency office, agency official, or employee. Those so divested of authority to act in the stead of the POTUS would no longer be able to access government networks or classified documents, authorize spending/purchasing, nor to conduct any government business. They will still be employed, they will still be paid. But they will only be able to twiddle their thumbs. Congress will have no say in this. An attempt to meddle with the POTUS’ authority to grant/rescind delegations of executive authority would be a violation of the separation of powers. //

CommoChief in reply to inspectorudy. | November 7, 2024 at 4:44 pm
Yep. Reassigned to Ice Station Zebra in the Arctic Circle to help count snowflakes as part of an ‘interagency TF’. They can always resign instead….

Based on recent IAEA reports, one nuclear watchdog group concludes that Iran has completed all the steps needed for full nuclear weapons breakout and — whenever it makes the decision to go nuclear — could produce up to nine nuclear warheads in a month, and 15 in five months. Moreover, it was discovered last year that Iran has built a new nuclear facility under a mountain near Natanz that is so deep underground that it might be beyond the reach of conventional weapons. With this facility, it will be able to make nuclear warheads even faster.

Whatever the scope of Iran’s secret nuclear activities, it almost certainly has not been producing nuclear weapons. Rather, what Iran has been trying to do in secret is get ready to produce nuclear weapons. In order to engage in serial production of nuclear weapons, Iran will need the far-flung facilities that it has developed under the guise of a civilian program. All it has to do is to stop cooperating with the IAEA and withdraw from the NPT (whether formally or de facto) so that it can pull a veil of secrecy over the entire program.

From that point forward, we will have to assume that Iran is a nuclear weapon state. North Korea didn’t conduct its first test of a nuclear device until 2006, but by then the U.S. had long since been forced to accept the high probability that it was a nuclear weapons state.

Iran’s withdrawal from the NPT will result in a cascade of disastrous consequences. Saudi Arabia has said that if Iran gets the bomb, it will get one, too. Turkey and Egypt are then likely to join the club. And consider how desperate Israel’s position will become. It will have to assume not just that any ballistic or cruise missile launched from Iran could be nuclear-tipped, justifying the use of its own nuclear deterrent, but that Iran could smuggle a nuclear device into Tel Aviv with plausible deniability that it had done so. //

As practiced by Iran and its proxies, on the other hand, missile terrorism is an entirely different kind of threat, as the July War itself had shown. The 100+ rockets that Hezbollah fired at northern Israel every day for a month caused few casualties. But they scared a third of Israel’s population into bomb shelters for weeks. Many Israelis started leaving for the United States, in many cases indefinitely.

Hence, missile terrorism poses a threat to the existence of Israel that is far beyond the potential casualty figures: A state that cannot make its people feel safe going about their daily lives, that can’t even keep its airports open because of terrorism, is in danger of failing. Whereas Palestinian terrorism targets Jews for the sheer satisfaction of murdering them, Iranian terrorism targets Israelis’ faith in the state of Israel. Iran has realized what too many Israeli leaders have not: that missile terrorism is an existential threat. Missile defenses such as Iron Dome have lulled too many Israelis into thinking that the threat is manageable. It isn’t.

So here is the question. After holding back from helping Hamas in its confrontations with Israel for nearly 20 years, why did Iran decide to join the fight this time? Perhaps Iran sensed a unique opportunity to combine the missile terrorism of all its proxies and the mayhem that antisemites and wannabe terrorists could cause in Western cities and universities to deliver a fatal blow to the morale of Israel.

Maybe. But alas, Iran’s decision to fight Israel now was likely part of a much more dangerous plan. //

The NPT allows states to withdraw with 90 days’ notice. When North Korea withdrew from the NPT in 1993, it waited to see what America’s reaction would be. When it seemed that Clinton might be prepared to use force, North Korea went down to the wire and “suspended” its withdrawal from the NPT a few days before the 90 days were up. North Korea then bluffed its way to nuclear weapons by threatening to unleash war on the Korean peninsula, a real bluff considering North Korea’s dictatorship could not have survived three days of such a war.

We should expect similar gamesmanship from Iran. We are at “the River” in Texas Hold’em. All the community cards have been revealed. Iran has a weaker hand than its enemies but is willing to risk far more. Israel is keeping its cards close to the vest, American surveillance and leaks notwithstanding, but its one ace — nuclear weapons — is worthless now. America has by far the strongest hand in the round, but it has become risk-averse to the point of torpor: its increasingly besotted national security establishment equates deterrence with provocation, which is the strategic equivalent of unilateral disarmament. Iran likes its chances.

Obama Undermined the Diplomatic Option to Stop Iran’s Nuclear Program.

When Iran’s nuclear program was first discovered in 2003, the U.S. could have nipped it in the bud with a single airstrike. The argument against that move at the time (and against military action since) was that Iran would quickly reconstitute the program.

If that was the right answer, it was the wrong question. The military option on Iran’s nuclear program has to be assessed in terms of what Thomas Schelling would call a “tacit negotiation” between the U.S. and Iran: Properly conceived, the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program would be an important but incidental benefit of military force; the right goal — as with sanctions — would be to convince Iran to abandon the program.

And for that strategic objective, the target list is much broader and includes everything the regime needs to survive in the short term. That means oil refineries, power plants, ports, and military command-and-control, up to and including Iran’s Ministry of Defense and the offices of the Atomic Organization of Iran. Targeting any of those early on could have fatally undermined the internal influence of Iran’s nuclear hawks.

Solving problems before they become crises is always a good idea. In international relations, the time to stop a dangerous deterioration in the status quo is at the start, before it has run its course. That is the single most important lesson of the chain of events that led to World War II, and it is particularly true in the case of a rogue nuclear program. It would have been much easier to convince Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions when it had just one pilot facility that it half-expected somebody to bomb at any moment.

Now the nuclear weapons program is the crown jewel of the Islamic Revolution, to which the mullahs have subordinated all other priorities. As Henry Kissinger wrote, in order to avoid the use of force, it is sometimes necessary to threaten its use. Because we have not done that, we are now playing defense at the one-yard line and may have no other option.

Though its chances of success were never very high, there was a diplomatic option for dealing with Iran’s nuclear program — until President Barack Obama cashiered it in his Joint Comprehensive Plan Action (JCPOA), one of the most consequential examples of aiding and abetting terrorism in world history.

During the administration of George W. Bush, the U.S. was able to orchestrate a powerful Iran sanctions regime, backed by the U.N. Security Council with the support of Russia and China. That was a remarkable feat considering that Iran is an important client of Russia and China is more dependent on Iranian oil than any other major economy. Obama, to his credit, built on those sanctions, which soon brought Iran’s economy to the brink of collapse. In 2014, Iran’s currency lost more than half its value.

But just in the nick of time, Obama came to the mullahs’ rescue with the JCPOA, which dismantled the sanctions regime and provided Iran with a massive infusion of cash, just to secure Iran’s forbearance to go nuclear for a few more years. Needless to say, Iran took the money and ran.

Under President Donald Trump, the U.S. moved quickly to abandon the JCPOA. But alas, its benefits for Iran had already largely accrued. Obama’s cash infusion (which his dunce Secretary of State John Kerry had promised would not be used for terrorism) allowed Iran to lavishly fund the IRGC and Hezbollah. Even worse, the international sanctions regime could not be resurrected. The U.S. imposed “maximum pressure” through sanctions of its own, but while those exacted a heavy price, the reality was that Obama had fatally undermined the diplomatic option for stopping Iran’s nuclear program.

In the supposed interest of peace and stability, the U.S. has waited until its most virulent enemy is in a position to turn the world upside down. The moment that the mullahs have been waiting so patiently for, suffering through decades of sanctions and privations, is finally here. They have a nuclear weapon within their grasp. They need but seize it, knowing that the odds of America’s folding are in their favor, and overwhelmingly so, as long as Joe Biden or Kamala Harris is in power.

All Iran needs to do now is withdraw from the NPT, and it will be a brave new world.

“Our nation’s brave men and women in uniform brought to our attention that there has been inadequate education at the administrative level on how to register to vote, request an absentee ballot, and fill in a federal write-in absentee ballot if their state-issued ballot does not arrive in time," the letter continues.

“Other service members also stated that when a request for a federal write-in absentee ballot was made, they were told the base’s stockpile of such ballots was depleted and had not been replenished."

But since when did Democrats become pro-war? Why would they defend someone like Liz Cheney, who ostensibly represented everything they claim to despise?

The answer is simple: They only pretend to be antiwar when it suits them. If they can score a few cheap political points against their most hated political opponent, they will welcome every single bloodthirsty warmonger with open arms. //

GreenLanternMD
2 hours ago
I remember reading that, after Clinton was elected following 12 years of Reagan and Bush, one leftist looked out on some troops and said, “Those are ours now,” and realizing that they really weren’t really antiwar at all. In the same sense, leftists hated the CIA and FBI until they were in charge.

The upshot is that leftists and neocons are authoritarians, more alike than different, consolidating behind Harris and (God forbid) Walz, while the free speech, antiwar, and now MAHA Democrats and MAGA Republicans and embracing a more skeptical paleolibertarian view of government. It’s a realignment that has needed to happen for a century.

The Montana-class battleships were the pinnacle of U.S. battleship design during World War II, intended to surpass the Iowa-class with unmatched firepower and armor. Featuring twelve 16-inch guns and enhanced protection, these ships were designed to counter Japan's Yamato-class battleships and bolster U.S. naval strength in both the Atlantic and Pacific theaters.

When drones swarmed our military bases, the only thing bureaucrats ‘shot down’ were proposals about how to deal with the problem. //

In the end, the Journal strongly implies that the drone intrusions over Langley Airforce Base came to a halt only because twenty-something Chinese student Fengyun Shi accidentally crashed his drone into a tree. Law enforcement identified Shi’s suspicious behavior, and he was arrested before he could escape on a one-way trip back to China. He was convicted of espionage and sentenced to only six months in prison.

This story provides a genuine, although probably unintentional, insight into American national security. U.S. policymakers tie themselves in knots over what they view as insurmountably complex technological and regulatory questions, instead of accepting common-sense approaches. //

Our national security apparatus is addicted to complexity. The more complex the problem, the more our elites feel justified in insisting that only the experts with the best credentials at the highest levels can be trusted to address the challenges we face. The larger the budgets that can be requested, the easier the excuses for when the problem remains unresolved.

The purpose of swarm tactics (whether from drones or otherwise) is to overwhelm a single target with multiple autonomous entities, which become increasingly difficult to track and react against.

The vulnerability being exploited isn’t a technological one. Rather it’s exploiting the opponent’s centralized and rigid decision-making process. This is the same logic deployed by Antifa rioters, who seek to overwhelm law enforcement with dozens of independently operating affinity groups.

Where all tactical decisions are increasingly centralized, and often subjected to political pressure (such as the role played by vice presidential candidate Gov. Tim Walz in the loss of the Third Minneapolis Police Precinct during the 2020 riots), autonomous swarm tactics win the day. Where individuals and small groups are empowered to respond as needed and cut through the red tape, swarms can be defeated, as amply demonstrated by the response from Florida police to illegal efforts by pro-Hamas protesters to blockade major roads in April 2024. Where power is centralized, the swarm wins every time.

We should be wary when the national security apparatus insists that if we just granted them additional powers, they could defeat the latest and greatest threat. We should be skeptical of claims that we must continue to centralize power so our safety can be ensured. Instead, to defeat the swarms that threaten us, we should be on the lookout for ways to decentralize our security, spreading out responsibilities and empowering those closest to the problem to react with prudence.

After handing off the body of our fallen brother, we walk back to our rooms in silence. Thinking about the journey this body would take back to his loved ones on the other side of the world. We did this over and over for the next 14 months . There were times when there was much left of a body, and those times still haunt me. I was ask to do a honorable task, the burden of that task is still with me. Men and woman who sacrificed it all for a country they loved, I carried them to fly back home. Their loss forever with me.

<Walz stealing those sacred moments, to drape himself in THIER honorable sacrifice is one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever heard. His lying fill me with a rage and anger that I hope fall upon him one day. He dishonors his own service with these lies. He dishonors our nation’s heroes by stealing their courage and glory. 24 yrs of service thrown away because he knew he quit on his men, quit on himself, and is filled with the shame for who he sees in the mirror. Let us never forget those who gave it all. Let us never allow their glory, courage, and selfless sacrifice be stolen by anyone. We live our lives today to honor who they were as men and woman, TRULY THE GREATEST AMERICANS.

myx0mop
4 hours ago
I don't think they're trying to do what's right. They simply realize they're about to lose the election, and are trying to score some popularity points with the American voters, most of whom realize that our foreign policy has been a complete CF, and we've become a laughing stock and a toothless tiger under the FJB-FKH pathetic regime.

For seventeen consecutive days in December 2023, highly sensitive US military bases in the Hampton Roads area of Virginia were the target of a drone swarm of unknown origin, type, or purpose. The official response seems to be one of studied indifference. //

Officials didn’t know if the drone fleet, which numbered as many as a dozen or more over the following nights, belonged to clever hobbyists or hostile forces.

If this story is true, what the military doesn't know about the drones dwarfs what it does know. No estimate is given for the number of drones that appeared over Langley AFB before decamping for a flyover of other installations. That isn't an accident. If the size, altitude, and speed of the drones are known, I'm sure someone at least tried to count them, though, in fairness to the military that Joe Biden has created, they may have been unable to do that. It is difficult to believe that after a couple of weeks of appearing at roughly the same time, no one thought about having a helicopter aloft to follow the drones home. Likewise, a 20-foot object flying at 4,000 feet should show up on one of the dozens of radars managing airspace over Hampton Roads unless it has a stealth design, in which case we can rule out a non-national actor. The idea that a rogue hobbyist dropped a few million to develop a massive drone fleet to fly over US military installations strains credulity. //

Just for context, the Shahed 131/136 drone used by the Russians in Ukraine to attack Ukrainian cities and infrastructure is 11 feet long and has a maximum speed of 115mph. It carried a 110-pound warhead. The drones spotted at Langley are roughly twice as long. Every $350 million F-22 you see parked there could be hit by a rather cheap drone before the airbase had time to decide they were an "imminent threat" and react. //

Dieter Schultz Laocoön of Troy
12 hours ago
Hmm... thanks.

I fear we're setting the stage for a Pearl Harbor-type surprise here, where we've opened ourselves up to an attack, widespread or local, that will cost us dearly.

It won't look like what happened in 1941, they'll use different methods, but it'll be about as embarrassing to the country as that was.

Donald Trump has seen the deterioration of our military like everyone else has, and he's made a point to do something about it. The moment he's elected, he's going to make sure the DEI-obsessed, LGBT-heavy influence that has turned it into a joke around the world is cast out, and in its place, he's going to put real leaders who will whip it back into shape and return it to being respected, not laughed at.

In short, he's going to make it a military worth joining again.

Trump released an ad making this very point, and it holds nothing back. To get his point across, he uses clips from Stanley Kubrick's "Full Metal Jacket," to give people an idea of how his military will be run. An efficient, serious killing force that trains men to be warriors. The ad juxtaposes this by showing clips from the current state of our military, which is a lot of soldiers disrespecting the uniform by transforming into drag queens, as well as a clip of Rachel Levine calling it a "summer of Pride." //

Vivian Kubrick, the daughter of famed director Stanley Kubrick, dropped a bomb on the left, and stated that her father, a Reagan supporter, would have actually agreed with this ad on the basis that a very strong military is needed to achieve peace: //

Because I’m sure the irony of using FMJ footage is not lost on Trump or his team - Trump is always seeking to end wars and use peaceful methods. However, that’s primarily what FMJ is about, the shocking and complicated paradoxes of human nature.

And thus, on this tooth and claw planet, you need a very strong military - so I’m going to stick with the idea that FMJ footage was used primarily because of its powerful, realistic portrayal of boot camp, juxtaposed with the entirely demoralizing and inappropriate injection of WOKE ideology into the USA military. Which I agree with myself and which I’m certain my father would have agreed with.

Truthfully, I believe my father (who supported Reagan), would very much approve of saving America, indeed the world, from the highly destructive Globalist forces threatening to take over this planet. And if that footage from FMJ helps Trump make the point that the US military needs properly trained, super tough, focused, dedicated warriors, and not introduce the demoralizing effects of woke-ism, and attracting people to join up simply to have their sexual reassignments paid for, then Trump has my blessing. //

My father had a great respect for life - his movies being unimpeachable evidence of his love for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness! So on that basis, I feel very confident he would be a Trump supporter and would forgive using FMJ incongruously, if it helps the cause of freedom!

Capisce? //

flguy
an hour ago
Weakness invites aggression, not strength. Geo. Washington said we must stay strong to avoid war, and JFK said the same in his inaugural - "We dare not tempt them [potential adversaries] with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed." The left doesn't understand this concept. //

Weminuche45
an hour ago

• The job of the military is to break things and kill people.
• The job of politicians is to support the military's ability to do that
• To limit the necessity of using the military to solve problems that could have been solved another way
• To get the hell out of the way and let the military do what it does, kill people and break things, when war becomes necessary as a last resort.

I think it is inarguable that the military created by Joe Biden and Kamala is only fractionally as effective as the military under Trump. And even in Trump's first term, the rot of DEI and "gender equality" had already taken root. The failure of Biden and Harris is made clear every day as the only way the services make their manpower goals is by cutting end strength. //

The official and institutional embrace of sexual fetishes as a normal part of the military has been shocking. The clips Trump shows are nowhere near as bad as the situation really is. //

Kamala HQ @KamalaHQ
·
Trump says he will “fire” America’s military generals and replace them with MAGA loyalists, echoing Project 2025

12:24 PM · Jun 2, 2024 //

FOX NEWS: Are you going to fire those generals? The woke generals at the top?

TRUMP: Yes, I would get rid of them. Yeah. But see, now I know them. I didn’t know them before. But, you know, I came in, what do I know? I was a New York real estate person. But no, I’d fire. I would fire them. You can’t have woke military. //

If Trump intends to politicize the military, filling the ranks with loyalists, it sets the stage for a dramatic and fundamental change in how the United States is supposed to operate.

I'd encourage this guy to review how Thomas Jefferson dealt with known Federalist Army officers or ponder the fact that the military is not the civil service. The military is not an independent power center that has "equities." The president is the commander-in-chief. Every commissioned officer is appointed at each step of his career by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. I have a copy of the Congressional Record when the Senate voted to make me a second lieutenant. No one is advocating a partisan military, but Trump and many of us would like to return to the days when active-duty general officers, or even retired general officers, stayed out of partisan politics and basic standards of civilized behavior adhered to; see General Mark Milley Reportedly Stocking Up on Brown Trousers in Case Trump Is Reelected – RedState. The president has the right, and I would argue the duty, to ensure that senior officers faithfully execute his will and not sandbag him behind his back.

The former president has lashed out at generals before, but this was new. Trump apparently envisions a system in which U.S. military leaders will be subjected to some kind of ideological review, in which members of a task force — whose members will presumably be appointed by Trump — will go about assessing the generals’ and admirals’ personal attitudes.

Those deemed “woke” will apparently see their military careers curtailed.

What could possibly go wrong?

There is nothing wrong with Trump doing just that, and the worst results of that process would not be as bad as what we've seen with the military being suborned on a wholesale level by the left. //

ColderWeather
2 days ago
Step 1: Politicize the military
Step 2: Complain about the politicization of the military when someone tries to depoliticize it //

polyjunkie
2 days ago
The (false) assumption by this leftist tool is that the CURRENT military leadership is somehow apolitical. Nothing could be further from the truth. Obama retired hundreds of officers who didn’t support his view of the military, enabling the remainder to be politicized to implement the leftist agenda. Trump needs to purge (yes, the correct term) any officer at any level who supports the “woke” agenda and has implemented DEI policies from the last administration. If the leftist don’t like it, tough doo doo.

Oh, and call Miley back to active duty so he can be reduced in rank and court martialed. //

anon-kvbw
a day ago edited
Obama was the one who purged the military of officers who believed in the rule of law and constitutional governance. All Trump proposes is righting the ship. //

DoctorB92 anon-kvbw
a day ago
I was Army during the Obama reign of terror and I don't recall the number but he purged hundreds of Army officers at the general down to the colonel level because of their lack of social conscienceness or something like that. He forced warriors out and put in politicos and now we are continuing to reap the fruits of that disaster.