Judge Advocate General Dana K. Chapman

KATHERINE writes:

Here is an announcement about a speaker at Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina:

The Riley Institute presents Lt. General Dana Chipman, Judge Advocate General, U.S. Army, speaking on “Combat Boots and Benefits:  Equality in an Era of Change” on Wednesday, March 20, 7 p.m. at the Younts Center.  This talk will focus on how the military is on the front lines of social change as it begins to allow women in combat, equal benefits for gay Americans, religious exceptions to grooming, and also seeks an environment free from sexual harassment.  Free.

Oh my, this is so depressing.  The JAG no less!

I often re-read your kind e-mail of condolence after my husband died. In it you said that my alienation from this culture is a sign of health. I must be in great health, because, wow, do I feel alienated when I see an announcement such as this one!

As always, thanks for your great website.

— Comments —

Terry Morris writes:

I must be in pretty good health too. I feel completely alienated from the U.S. Military when I look at that photograph. Why is he smiling? What, in his position and in that setting, is there to smile about? His title should more reflect what he is really about: Gay Advocate General.

Laura writes:

A general should not smile in this way, except perhaps after a military victory.

Buck writes:

The Lt. General’s girlie-man smile irks me, but not as much as this subterfuge of “Combat boots…of Change.” He’s not a warrior come to speak at Furman, he’s the Social General; Officer Friendly. That’s why he’s invited.

When I was young, one of our most popular insults was “your momma wears combat boots!” That was so outrageous an image, so laughable and so unthinkably impossible, that it was the perfect innocuous slam. It was a put-down so unreal and absurd that it couldn’t do any real harm.

Well, in an ironic way, it’s still absurd. When women were admitted to West Point and they found it difficult to run in combat boots, it was suddenly discovered to be inefficient training. Running shoes were issued to all. Coincidentally, a host of physical standards were lowered to accommodate the comfort of females.

The facts show that since running shoes have been introduced, injuries are up. Recently, to try to correct that, more specialized running shoes were adopted to fit to the individuals particular foot after each soldier’s feet were evaluated; another increase in injuries.

Were the men who won World War I and II, the men who slogged, marched, slept and died in their combat boots, tasked and ordered to run at an even pace with a measured gait and a perfect foot strike, and only on a smooth, regular surface? Who instructed these men to run comfortably after the enemy or for their lives or to save their buddy, without assorted footwear?

I hated running in combat boots. Maybe I should have stomped my foot, whined and objected or maybe I should have led my platoon into voicing our discomfort and advocated for an “era of change” back in 1968 during our pampering at Parris Island. “Yo Gunny, your momma wears running shoes!”

Convenor, Sydney Traditionalist Forum writes:

Regarding Laura’s comment, “except perhaps after a military victory:”

On the contrary. No dignified commander smiles at the defeat of his enemy after combat. There is a certain brotherhood between knights. Both risk their lives for a higher ideal. Neither, assuming they are both noble in spirit, would “smile” at the defeat of the other. Of course, that is the ideal. What we’re seeing today is the open repudiation of traditional ideals on all fronts in the military. It should come as no surprise if a correlation were to be made between the feminization of the armed forces and the barbarization of the individual soldier in battle. Such is the consequence of putting women in uniform: Knightly virtues have no place in an environment that is inherently hostile to the basic philosophy that underpins those virtues.

Please follow and like us: