Archive for the ‘Military’ Category

Women in Combat

Saturday, January 26th, 2013

On January 23rd the Military opened all combat assignments to women.  This has been a long time coming.  When I resigned from the Navy in 1978 I gave as part of my reason “the admission of women to the US Naval Academy.”  Not many people joined me.  My thinking at the time was that either the nation was not serious about the combat mission of the service academies or was serious about putting women in combat.  In either case I wanted nothing to do with it.

As I reflect on this sustained course of madness, I realize the fact is that we are simply following the inexorable logic of our decision to walk away from God.

God created mankind as man and woman for a reason.  That reason was to reflect God’s own nature in creation.

“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”  Genesis 1:27

God is triune.  The three persons of the Trinity are so united in love that they are just as much one as they are three, and we can truly say there is only one God.  This is imaged in marriage where man and woman become “one flesh” producing yet more life.

In his rebellion against God each man (and each woman) seeks to be his own self-sufficient god.  The fact that men and women are complimentary parts of a whole and need each other is a problem for their self-centeredness.  One way of dealing with this has been for men to oppress women and regard them as lower than human, maybe somewhere between men and animals.  This is common in paganism.  Another more modern way is feminism, which ironically agrees with paganism that true womanhood is inferior and focuses on making women just like men.  The “women in combat” gambit is just the latest example of this need for symbolic sameness.  Perhaps the ultimate way is homosexuality where even the most obvious and irreducible complimentary biological functions of men and women is denied.

In addition to the married state being the image of the Godhead, it is also an image of the relationship between Christ and His Church.  This is described in Ephesians 5:22-33.  We note in particular Ephesians 5:25,

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it”

It is Christ who gives his life for the Church, not the other way around.  All Christian societies have always assumed that men have the duty to protect their women and if necessary give their lives for them.  The men on the Titanic, and before them the men on the Birkenhead, became famous for the saying “women and children first,” willingly giving their lives to save even unrelated women, and reflecting this noble and godly ethic.

When a society turns its back on God it progressively becomes more debased, contemptible, and worthless, as God gives it up to dishonorable conduct and final destruction.  Is a nation where the men think nothing of sending their women to do their fighting worth fighting for?

There is a storm of judgment coming.  Yet even now there exists in America a sizeable number who morn for the ruin of our moral and spiritual state.  It is not yet a time for despair and resignation.  It remains a time for courage and steadfastness.  Here is my verse for today:

“When the storm has swept by, the wicked are gone, but the righteous stand firm forever.”  Proverbs 10:25


 

Declining American Airpower

Monday, February 6th, 2012

An article in the Washington Times discusses concerns of Air Force pilots over the gutting of the Tactical Air Force under the current budget cutting.  Air power has been the key to America’s easy (if not always wise) exercise of military strength around the world, so its diminution is a serious matter.  One thing I would like to point out from the article is the saga of the F-22 Raptor and the F-35 Lightning II.  The Raptor was supposed to be the replacement for the F-15 almost 15 years ago.  It is widely considered to be the best fighter on earth, but at $130 million a copy was considered too expensive.  So they stopped production at some modest number after all the R&D costs had been incurred, which of course makes the unit cost even higher.  They proposed the smaller, less capable single engine F-35 as the replacement at half the cost, supposedly.  Now, after years of new R&D costs and delays the F-35′s are close to coming on line…at $130 million a copy.  Meanwhile, heroic (and costly) effort is required to keep our current jets flying.

The buget woes accompanying our welfare state are only compounded by such false economies in weapons procurement.  It reminds me of when I was in the Navy in the 1970′s.  The Aegis missile system was coming out, and it looked like putting this first class system on our first class nuclear cruiser hulls would push the price tag for a cruiser over $1 billion, which in those days was considered real money.  So they put the first class missile system on the second class hulls of Spruance class destroyers and called them Aegis cruisers.  They put the second class missile systems on the nuclear cruisers (you know, the ones that can keep up with the nuclear carriers they are supposed to protect).  So the total dollar spend was the same while the sticker price of each ship was kept under $1 billion.  Now we have oil powered Aegis cruisers to protect nuclear carriers (that they can’t keep up with) and have scrapped all the nuclear cruisers we built since they don’t have Aegis.  This kind of short sighted decision making is common enough in business, but in government it appears to be the norm.

Corruption of the Military

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011

First, Egypt is dominating the news today.  Here is an interesting insight on what is really going on.  It bears little resemblance to what we hear on the left about “democracy” or what we hear on the right about the “Moslem Brotherhood.”

The destruction of our nation’s military, perhaps the most noble and decent institution in our society, continues apace.  The imposition of the homosexual political indoctrination agenda on the military by the Democrats and RINOs may have been the coup de grace, but there are still some people fighting a last ditch effort to stop full implementation.  I was personally disheartened by how little our newly elected Republicans, our Church leaders, and the American people cared about the front line fighters who did not want this forced on them.

 This stuff has been going on for a while.  I personally resigned from the Navy in 1978 in part because of the admission of women to the Naval Academy, which is the abomination of desolation spoken of by Daniel the prophet.  I figured it meant either we were no longer serious about the war fighting mission or we were serious about having our women do our fighting.  Either way I wanted no part of it.  I figured the real battle for our country would be fought on the home front against the “enemy within.”

 So how did the integration of women into the services go?  To hear the news report, everything is swell.  The military just orders young men and women jammed together on ships to not have sex and they don’t.  We just mix nitroglycerine and tell it to not explode.  Works every time.  Actually what happens is that there are lots of problems and they are just covered up so the top brass can be PC as this article describes.  We just saw the popular Captain of the USS Enterprise fired because some racy skits he participated in offended the all powerful homosexual lobby back home.  Now imagine some future commander trying to discipline a homosexual for inappropriate behavior.  How long do you suppose that commander will keep his job?  Does anyone think Admiral Mullen or Admiral Roughead will stand up for him?

The service academies and the whole personnel side of the military has been taken over by the diversity and PC crowd.  The disease of liberalism must spread until it has corrupted every organ of a society.  But it begins in the Church.  The liberal Church compromises away the faith element by element until they are just humanists with stained glass windows.  The conservative Church goes escapist waiting for Jesus to take us out of the battle he sent us into, abandoning the fields of government, education and law, and thereby abandoning their children to Christ’s enemies.  The only hope is for an awakening in the Church to once again become the Church Militant, advancing His kingdom, and destroying the gates of hell.  That is why I write this blog and why I wrote this book.

Random Thoughts

Tuesday, January 18th, 2011

 Here are a few thoughts on civil rights prompted by a Martin Luther King Jr. Day article on it by the Rev. Sharpton.  Sharpton lauds the progress made by Dr. King’s civil rights movement while lamenting a few things that still need fixing like education, employment, and incarceration in the black community.  He is quite vague about how to “fix” these little problems, talking about “access” to education and employment as if the problem was still George Wallace standing at the school house door.  These problems seem to have more to do with family breakdown than racism, and the civil rights paradigm may have little to contribute to the solution.  The idea of “civil rights” is different from the idea of “unalienable rights” in the Declaration of Independence.  Civil Rights come from civil government and reflect the shifting political power in society.  Unalienable Rights come from God and are enforced by Him.  Civil rights are a form of legal positivism while unalienable rights are associated with natural law.  Does this shift from talking about unalienable rights to talking about civil rights represent a form of apostasy, a substitution of faith in government instead of faith on God as savior?  Subtle changes in the language we use can affect our whole way of thinking.

 On another topic, a therapist in Britain is facing decertification for attempting to help a man overcome unwanted homosexual desires using a Christian framework.  The individual seeking the treatment was in fact a homosexual activist conducting a “sting” with a hidden tape recorder.  This is further proof that gay rights and Christian liberty cannot coexist.  Society must choose sides.  Either you are for Christ, or against Him.  (But here is a differing view.)

China Bow China continues to grow both in economic and military terms.  China announces a new stealth fighter as we announce military budget cuts.  Western leaders seem content to let that occur provided they can personally profit from some short term deals.  A western businessman with a lucrative deal in China has a whole new perspective on things like human rights.  If you were doing a scavenger hunt in the neighborhoods of some of our corporate and government leaders and had to find an American flag or a Bible you might be disappointed.

Other Principles

Wednesday, December 22nd, 2010

The Republican Party platform of 2008 includes the following promise:

“To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America’s Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timelessness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service.”

The platform is not necessarily binding on all candidates, but voters have a reasonable right to expect that honest individuals running as Republicans support the platform unless they say otherwise.  However, 15 Republican Congressmen and 8 Republican Senators voted to repeal DADT contrary to the position stated in the platform of the Party under whose banner they ran.  Few or none had expressed their disagreement with this provision before the election.   Had the Senators who had not previousl expressed disagreement with the DADT provision stuck with their party the DADT repeal effort would have failed.  None have been criticized for this betrayal by any Party leadership to my knowledge.

{In particular, Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts (1) solemly pledged to support retention of DADT when running for election, (2) later said he would vote for repeal only after vigorous debate in the Senate (never happened), and (3) promised he would only vote to repeal DADT if the budget passed (it didn’t).}

This gives social conservatives a pretty good idea where they stand with the Party.

Furthermore, all of the Senators stood by their pledge not to vote on any other issues until an extension of the Bush tax cuts was passed.  So they can stand for their Party’s position when they want to.  Too bad for our front line soldiers that they don’t have a lobby.  

Perhaps Groucho Marx best articulated the views of our Republican Party leadership when he said “Those are my principles, and if you don’t like them… well, I have others.”

John McCain

Monday, December 20th, 2010

I remember when I was a midshipman on summer cruise in the Pacific in 1970.  I learned that John McCain was undergoing torture in a North Vietnamese prison while his father was carrying the burden of commanding all US forces in the Pacific.  The North Vietnamese offered to release John McCain as a propaganda move.  He refused, choosing to remain loyal to his country and his fellow prisoners.  I was so impressed by both men.

Fast forward to 2010.  John McCain is now a Senator.  The homosexual lobby is about to force homosexual culture on military men and women without even asking their opinion about this.  Anyone who does not wish to have homosexual culture forced on them is denounced as a hater and a bigot.  Almost alone, McCain refuses to betray these front line troops.  He sticks his neck out and fights for them while eight other Republican Senators fall over each other seeking the approval of the homosexual lobby and Lady Gaga.  Even my classmate, CNO Gary Roughead, who was probably on that cruise with me, sides with the sex celebrity over the war hero.  Senator McCain’s wife and daughter make gratuitous public statements in support of homosexualizing the military lest they be associated with their husband and father.  John McCain, his concerns dismissed by the country he fought for, publicly betrayed by his wife and daughter, does not betray the troops.  He stands with them.

I have had my share of disagreements and frustrations with the Senator from Arizona, but today I commend him for sticking with his comrades in the Hanoi Hilton and with our front line troops today, which alone among all Americans are prohibited from complaining about what is being done to them by a Congress and a public that could care less what they think.  Denied a vote in the matter, perhaps they will vote with their feet.  God bless you John McCain.

My Classmate

Saturday, December 18th, 2010

Admiral Gary Roughead.  USNA, class of 1973.  Chief of Naval Operations.  My classmate.

Today Admiral Roughead announced that he was “pleased” that the Senate had voted overwhelmingly to legalize homosexual conduct in his Navy and the rest of the Armed Forces.

When Admiral Roughead and I were plebes at Annapolis in 1969, they used to march us to Chapel on Sunday mornings as had been the custom since the Academy’s founding.  You could get out of it if you went to an organized “Church Party” to a church in town, or even to a humanist ethical society meeting.  It was widely believed that some religious reinforcement to an officer’s moral character was a good thing.

The ACLU got someone to sue and some judge put a stop to that practice, so we didn’t have to go after the first year.

In my second year I was involved with the Evangelical group the Navigators.  Athlete’s for Christ and other Christian groups were fairly active, and those of us who were involved in these groups were called the “God Squad.”  In my third year I was baptized in the Holy Spirit and began attending a local house church which was part of what was known as the Charismatic Movement.

I graduated in 1973, the same year abortion was “legalized.”  A few years later, women were admitted to the service academies.  I decided that either we were serious about having women in combat or not serious about combat, and either way it was time to get out.  The battle for America on the home front was more important.  Years have passed, and while Gary Roughead moved up the ranks I was out doing what I could fighting abortion and the whole de-Christianization of America.

So here we are today.  Looks like I’ve lost.  Congress voted overwhelmingly for open homosexuality in the military.  Eight Republican Senators joined in.  Flag officers like Gary Roughead are pleased.  No one asked the soldiers, and no one cares.

Least of all the pastors of our churches.  Less than 1% of Evangelical pastors and Catholic priests have ever spoken out against abortion and/or the homosexual political agenda to any extent.  Have you ever hear a sermon explaining what is wrong with homosexual conduct?  But I bet you’ve heard plenty of manipulative propaganda on TV and in the movies to convince you the Bible is wrong and that homosexual conduct is just as good or better than heterosexual.  These “shepherds of the sheep” seem to think their job is to keep God’s army off the battlefield.

According to Romans, the rise of homosexuality in society is not so much a sin as it is God’s judgment on sinners.  The sin, is having known God, choosing to put Him and His Law-Word out of our minds.  For this sin, we are told, God “gives them up to their own lusts,” with the rise of homosexuality in a society serving as an indicator that God has abandoned a people to judgment.

I am sure the new policy to homosexualize the military will have more negative effects in terms of losing people and hurting recruitment.  I am pretty sure that no matter how harmful it proves to the military we will never go back.

So during our respective careers, Gary and I have seen America move steadily away from God.  The Church in America, in spite of its numbers and resources, has been ineffective in stopping or reversing this movement.  Gary seems to have made his peace with the trend.  As for me, not so much.

Why has the Church failed?  This is a big question, but I will point to a few things.

  1. The Church believes in the “partial lordship” of Jesus Christ.  Jesus is lord of the personal sphere, but governments are free to ignore Him.
  2. The Church does not take the moral Law of God seriously.  Sexual morality in particular is not taught.  The Church is all about forgiveness without repentance, about the promise of heaven without the threat of hell.  We think Jesus died to improve our self-esteem.
  3. More than anything else, the Church wants the enemies of Christ to like us.

I don’t know.  Maybe Christianity has to be outlawed and the whole lukewarm establishment swept away before God can start over with a remnant.

Dodging a Bullet

Tuesday, September 21st, 2010

The nation dodged a bullet today that could have been fatal.  By a vote of 56 to 43, the Democrats failed to achieve cloture of Senator McCain’s filibuster of the Defense Authorization Bill that included the repeal of DADT.  Three Democrats joined all the Republicans.

Allowing homosexual activity in the American military would break it.  Evangelicals and other social conservatives make up a very disproportionate percentage of our all volunteer forces.  Forcing them out by making repudiation of their faith a condition of service would make an all voluntary service impossible.  Returning to a draft would be politically impossible.  The outcome would be a small European style military not capable of real fighting, and the end of America as the dominant world power.  This assessment is supported by over 1,000 retired flag and general officers.

Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick

The elites are committed to advancing the homosexual political agenda regardless of its impact on the military.  The Washington Times reported that Lt. Gen. Thomas Bostick, an Army officer in charge of personnel matters, last month told several hundred troops in Germany that “these people opposing this new policy (open homosexuality) will need to get with the program, and if they can’t, they need to get out.  No matter how much training and education (indoctrination and brain washing) of those in opposition, you’re always going to have those that oppose this on moral and religious grounds just like you still have racists today.”  (Note: the General has denied saying this but the Times stands by its story)

Race and gender are morally neutral and immutable biological characteristics.  Homosexuality is habituated immoral conduct which  can be overcome, albeit with difficulty.  Strictly speaking there is no such thing a “gay people,” only people habituated to this conduct.  Comparison of prohibitions of such conduct to racial discrimination is a clever marketing strategy, but is without scientific foundation.

(James Webb, D-VA, voted for cloture, i.e., for repeal of DADT.  The mising Senator?  Lisa Murkowski, the Senator from Alaska who just lost her primary to a Tea Party guy and is running a write in spoiler campaign.  Interesting)

Will Obama Bomb Iran?

Thursday, July 22nd, 2010

Speculation is rising about what might be considered a very improbable event, namely, the Obama administration going ahead with bombing Iran to cripple its nuclear program.

Running as a quasi-pacifist against the “war-mongering cowboy” Bush, Obama promised to talk our way out of conflicts.  This reminds one of Johnson’s campaign against Goldwater where Johnson promised to not have “American boys fighting a war for Asian boys.”  After being elected, and faced with reality, Johnson greatly expanded the Vietnam war.  Having tried all kinds of bowing and diplomacy and concessions with Iran to no effect, Obama may find himself in the same place.

In addition, Gulf Arab states like Saudi Arabia are clamoring for the US to take out the Iranian nukes.   If we don’t, they say they will let Israel use their air space to do it.  Allowing Israel to try this would be even riskier with less chance of success than for the US to do it.  Furthermore, if Iran gets the bomb, even if they don’t use it to attack Israel, the whole non-proliferation scheme will crumble as Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and other capable nations rush to build their own nukes to deter Iran.  This would make America irrelevant in the Mid East.

Politically, Obama may be able to use such an unexpected attack, which is being urged by his entire military and security team, as an “October Surprise” that would upset the Republican’s election strategy.  Letting Iran get the bomb with all of its negative consequences could also doom any hopes he has for 2012.

So as unlikely as it seems, we may see an American attack on Iran this fall.  Here is a Michael Barone column on this subject.

Is Admiral Mullen a Patriot?

Sunday, June 6th, 2010

Don’t Change Don’t Ask Don’t Tell

Is the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, a patriot?  Not according to George Washington.  In his farewell address, Washington famously said, “Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.”  Admiral Mullen advocates overturning the military’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy and legalizing homosexual acts for its members.  What is this if not a direct assault on Washington’s pillars of religion and morality? 

DADT is not an issue of discrimination.  While membership in a particular race or ethnic group is a morally neutral fact of biology, there is no “gay gene.”  Participation in homosexual acts is not morally neutral and does not make one a member of a minority group needing protection.  Whether a particular behavior should be honored or condemned should be based on the merits of the behavior. 

Homosexual acts, even between consenting adults in private, transgress an important moral boundary and have always been seen as illegitimate.  Such behavior violates the design purpose of God which is obvious in nature and explicit in scripture.  This activity has numerous negative consequences for the individuals involved, their family members and the larger society.  The proliferation of homosexual behavior has always marked societies in decline. 

Repealing DADT means far more than some “live and let live” fantasy.  It will come with mandatory brainwashing sessions and punishment of dissenting members.  It will require persecuting Christians in the military, which may be the true motivation.  It will not be pretty or painless.  And it will not be reversible.

DADT is a pragmatic compromise that allows people involved in homosexual behavior to serve if they keep private matters to themselves.  By not forcing the issue, this discretion also allows others to keep their moral views to themselves.  Ideologues pushing the homosexual political agenda, however, will accept no compromise.  They insist on forcing the issue, consequences be damned.  Anyone opposing their immoral and anti-religious agenda must be crushed with the full force of law.  Adverse effects on national defense or national unity areof no concern to them.

Individuals who have served honorably while “being gay” are often cited as a reason for legalizing homosexual behavior in the military.  But others who have served just as honorably have committed adultery.  Is that an argument for legalizing adultery in the military?  This is a non-sequitur.

Other nations which have legalized homosexual behavior in their armed forces are often cited as an argument for our doing the same.  The decision of fading nations to move further away from biblical morality is no reason for us to join them in moral, economic, and military suicide.  These other nations do not deploy large numbers of personnel overseas for lengthy combat commitments, and do not draw their members from a population as religious as ours.  Their changes are recent and have not stood the test of time.  They provide us with no useful guidance. 

DADT is admittedly a compromise, but it is one that has worked reasonably well.  There is no compelling reason to abandon it in the middle of two hot wars.  The members of our military are too important to be used as guinea pigs in a radical social experiment.  For many of them this will be seen as a knife in the back from the country they have served.  Members of the military have to follow orders, but it is an abuse of power to order them to change their most deeply held religious and moral convictions just to conform to those of the radical homosexual lobby.

Admiral Mullen may see this as a matter of “leadership.”  Others see it as betrayal.