BUCK O. writes:

Happy Fourth of July. 

I’m a former Marine Sgt. (40 years ago this September), who occasionally peruses U.S. Marine news. I came across this article and almost immediately thought to send it to you. (Your website is like a drink of cool water during a forced march through the desert). I’m not sure what to think about this married couple. I’m a tad jealous and also troubled. Their story is described as a classic romance. Hopefully they go home together and begin their family. 

I remember what was always said about marriage when I was in the Marines. “If the Marine Corps wanted you to have a wife, they would have issued you one.” Sounds cold, but it made clear the answer to any questions about commitment. This circumstance seems to be about as close as you can get to a literal wife/husband being issued by the Marine Corps. What preoccupies the minds of each of these Marines, in the throes of romance, when they hear of each other in the throes of battle? How can this further the mission of the United States Marine Corps and strengthen a weakening America? 

How does a nation constitute and maintain a force of warriors (McChrystal?) and also blend them in with it’s liberal society and culture?

Laura writes:

Happy Fourth to you, and to all who have served our country in the military.

This is a very disturbing story. Love can blossom anywhere. But it shouldn’t have occasion to blossom in the Marines. In answer to your question, our military stands at odds with liberal society, or it deteriorates. Even the best-supplied armed forces need a warrior ethic.

                            — Comments —

Sean writes:

I wanted to send you a link to a Canadian news story that is quite apropos to the subject Buck O. just raised.  It is about a month old but I don’t think this story has made any waves south of the border.

In late May, a major scandal erupted in the Canadian Forces command in the Afghan campaign. It led to the recall of the top Canadian general there, Daniel Menard. Unlike General McChrystal, this was a sex scandal – apparently Menard had been carrying on an affair with a female solider on his staff. What is even more interesting, as you will note in the article, is that Menard’s wife is a major in the Canadian Forces herself!

When this story broke, I closely scanned the media reaction to the scandal. Not one – not one! – journalist or public figure dared to make any connection between this scandal and the larger issue of male and female soldiers serving together on campaigns. In fact, one piece from one of Canada’s more prominent left-wing newspapers, The Toronto Star, argued that this was no different than soldiers visiting brothels during WWII – totally missing the point that there is quite a difference between soldiers carrying on with civilian women during war and affairs between soldiers themselves.

I once asked my brother, who is in Afghanistan on tour right now, what male soldiers thought about serving side-by-side with women. Actual soldiers are, at best, very ambivalent about the subject, but it is obvious that the political and military brass demand it and so questioning inclusion of women in the army is a career-limiting move for them.

My brother did say that when the military became “gender equal” in the eighties, all of the physical requirements for soldiers were quietly lowered to accommodate more women.  Even so, most regiments are still 85-15 male-female despite recruiting drives targeting women, and there are very few female officers. Female soldiers tend to take medical or staff positions, as they always have in the military – only now, they are referred to as Corporal or Sergeant instead of Nurse or Secretary. Furthermore, the elite units which carry out the most dangerous missions are entirely male, as I would suspect is the case in the U.S. Army.

He also mentioned that he thought that any army with female combat soldiers could not fight Hitler if equipped with WWII-era technology.  He thinks the reason why social engineering has progressed to the point it has in most Western armies is due to their technological superiority. Physical strength and endurance aren’t as vital as they used to be. Hence, we have 21-year-old 110-pound female soldiers in full battle gear out on the front lines.

Anyway, the treatment of this affair demonstrates that the commitment to “gender equality” and now homosexual promotion in Canada’s army is total. No one may question it. The Army recruits at homosexual pride parades, for heaven’s sake.  I wonder what the heroes of Vimy Ridge  – the Canadian army’s finest moment – would think of that.

The good news is that despite far more political pressure on the military than in the United States, our military has been unable to completely deny biological realities.  Unfortunately, that just leads to even worse attempts at doublethink, and will inevitably lead to more ridiculous and tragic stories like the Menard affair. What frustrates me, as usual, is the sheer dishonesty of the boosters of this radical innovation.

 Laura writes:

The point is frequently made that because military service no longer requires as much physical strength it is therefore more suited to women, but of course combat and military sevice have always involved more than strength and physical skill. They also require decisiveness, aggression and the sort of bonding that occurs only among men. Obviously,  the recruitment of women also denies the realities of male-female interactions and ignores the effect of unpredictable service and distance from home on children of women soldiers. This effect on families occurs even if women do not serve in elite combat positions.

Please follow and like us: