MICHELE FLOURNOY, the highest ranking military woman in American history, announced her resignation today, stating that she is leaving her position as Under Secretary of Defence for Policy to spend more time with her three children, the youngest of whom is nine, according to the Associated Press.

Instead of openly admitting that she has been neglecting her duties at home and expressing remorse that she now will be abandoning her duties to her country, Flournoy resorts to the nauseating, self-exculpating language of “balance.″ “Right now I need to recalibrate a little bit and invest a little bit more in the family account for a while,” she said.

Leon Panetta stated in his own touchy-feely statement about her resignation: “I will personally miss her valued counsel, but I understand the stresses and strains that holding senior administration positions can have on families.” The defense secretary did not point out that those stresses and strains are unique to women or at least imply that married women don’t belong in the highest ranks because of their family responsibilities. Flournoy’s departure is portrayed as a purely personal matter and not a form of betrayal. After many years of costly investment in her career, in grooming that might have gone to a man who would not have the same stresses and strains, she is leaving. Married women are extreme risks at the top and there is an impenetrable wall of silence about the waste of so much training.

According to the AP, “Flournoy said her children understand that their parents’ hard-charging jobs are “once-in-a-lifetime opportunities” at an important juncture in American history, but it has required difficult trade-offs.”

Nonsense. Children consider themselves once-in-a-lifetime career opportunities. Flournoy has probably reached some crisis point in which her absence from home is causing evident harm. Instead of being honest in order to protect the integrity of military service and prevent other women from falling into the same trap, she speaks of recalibrating a machine. The family is similar to a car or a furnace that must be retuned. In reality, this woman abandoned her family – not a machine –  for years and her children have probably paid a steep price for her absence.

                                                                         — Comments —

Fred Owens writes:

Good for her. If more women go home, it might improve my chances and my wages.

Kristor writes:

To Fred Owens: Unfortunately, the departure of Flournoy will not do you a bit of good. It will force the Pentagon to look harder than ever for another woman to fill her shoes (or those of the man appointed to her office).

Laura writes:

It would be helpful if Flournoy would be more specific about her reasons. She and her husband both have high-powered jobs. They can afford top private schools, babysitters, tutors and maids. So why exactly does she want to be home, especially now that her children are well past early childhood? What is missing?

And if someone at her exalted level feels her absence is detrimental to her children, what about all those families who cannot afford contracted services or attentive schools? It would help if she would address what the model she has upheld throughout her career entails.

James P. writes:

I am highly skeptical that Flournoy will stay home and “invest in her family.” People who resign in Washington always say they want to spend time with their families, and that is rarely their true motivation. Flournoy was making $250K at a think tank before she joined the Pentagon, and thus took a pay cut in her Pentagon job. I expect she already has a high-paying think tank job lined up, plus she will consult on the side. She could make even more money if she got a job in defense industry. Somehow her kids will learn to adjust when she decides she has “invested” enough in their account and needs to return to work.

Laura writes:

She said she is interested in working on the Obama campaign. 

Please follow and like us: