While the world burns, U.S. Army Sergeant Major admits this ‘key’ problem

At this critical time for our U.S. military, we should not be focusing on social engineering and pet political ideological agendas.

I know, the immediate retort from the progressive socialist left is that we’re winning against ISIS — how peculiar. We’re now bombing ISIS sanctuaries in Libya, if you haven’t noticed. And I’m tired of being told about ISIS no longer being in Ramadi or Fallujah — they weren’t there before we made the foolish decision to conduct a complete withdrawal of our combat ground forces.

Yet, ISIS still maintains solid bases of operations, centers of gravity, in Mosul, Iraq and Raqqa, Syria. Meanwhile, ISIS has spread its cancerous barbarism to far more areas and states. So we’re not “winning” against ISIS, nor are we winning against the global Islamic jihad. If you haven’t seen, the Taliban just claimed responsibility for an ambush of U.S. and European tourists in Afghanistan. My question is, who chooses an active combat zone for a vacay?

The world is in a chaotic and tumultuous state, and what is the U.S. Army Sergeant Major doing?

As reported by The Daily Caller, Sergeant Major of the Army Dan Dailey has urged female non-commissioned officers (NCOs) and officers to apply for combat jobs, as there is a notable lack of females ready to fill those positions.

“Currently, we have over 100 young women across America who have volunteered to join our ranks as cavalry scouts, armor crewmen, fire support specialists and infantrymen,” Dailey, the Army’s head non-commissioned officer, said in a memo Monday, according to Army Times. “… As young soldiers do, they will look for leadership and mentorship from their superiors. Unfortunately, we have not had a sufficient number of serving female soldiers and [noncommissioned officers] volunteer to transfer into these mentorship and leadership roles.” 

For Dailey, the key problem is a lack of females in combat leadership positions. As part of the Army’s plan to integrate women into all-male combat units, the service has decided to move females into leadership positions in those units, so that they can then facilitate more junior females coming in. 

The Army has approved an estimated 22 female officers for the role of second lieutenant in infantry and armor, but those officers will have to pass training first to qualify as infantry officers.

At a time when we’re witnessing the decimation of the U.S. Army, taking it down to pre-World War II levels, a key problem of the Command Sergeant Major of the U.S. Army is the lack of females in combat leadership positions? I would think a key problem would be the growing numbers of deployments for a force that is being depleted. Another concern should be the rules of engagement that restrain our combat troops from engaging the enemy.

A preeminent concern should be “mission creep,” where we’re introducing small numbers of troops into the cauldron of combat, without clear strategic guidance and objectives. We’ve previously shared with you that our troops in Afghanistan are not allowed to engage the Taliban, just because they are Taliban — excuse me, but aren’t these guys the enemy?

Now, the progressive socialists who troll these pages looking for attention will try and make some weak argument about integrating blacks. Sorry folks, but we can go back to Crispus Attucks, the first black combat unit to wear the U.S. uniform was the 54th Massachusetts Regiment who distinguished themselves at Ft. Wagner, South Carolina.

And let me clarify something: we’re not simply talking about women being in combat. Mary Ludwig Hayes, known as “Molly Pitcher,” stepped onto the artillery gun line at the Battle of Monmouth during the Revolutionary War. Anyone deployed into a combat zone is in combat. What’s being discussed here is having female troops in close combat units.

I’m quite sure this is another exhibit that will go in the Barack Obama presidential library. Perhaps it can be next to the beheading of James Foley exhibit? My overarching concern is that this will become an issue of quotas, not standards. And the push will be to meet the numbers, so the White House can have its photo ops…

Speaking of which, where are the first two female graduates of Ranger School? Are the skills in which the American taxpayer invested being put to use? Perhaps they should be in Kurdistan training female fighters on small unit tactics. And why is the U.S. Army “approving” female officers for the role of Second Lieutenant in the Infantry and Armor branches? One has to ask, will they have to meet the same physical requirements as a male officer — meaning the APFT — or is there a different standard?

My point should be simple to understand. If we were living in a world of unicorns and rainbows, this would be an understandable pursuit. However, we are not. The Obama administration is more focused on social engineering issues of “fairness” than actual military capability and capacity — peace through strength. Then again, Barack Obama believes we’re stronger because we’re saying females can be in these combat unit formations. Our military strength does not come from giving out “participation trophies,” but rather from fighting and defeating the enemy.

I know progressive socialists do not believe there are differences in genders. And there are truly exceptions to any rule. But on the battlefield, there is no fairness. And it appears that simple maxim is lost on the social crusaders — but they’re going ahead and implementing these misguided beliefs and concepts in our armed forces anyway, while they have the opportunity. Good thing, folks, a win in November for the good guys means we get things realigned.

And we fight the enemy and kill them…knowing that as the quote attributed to George Orwell states, “People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”

Leave a Reply

Be the First to Comment!

Notify of