PETER F. writes:

I am a regular reader of your fine website, and have been meaning to write to you for some time. Some recent comments concerning the feminization of the Armed Forces finally moved me to action. If you’ll bear with me through some background information, I think you will find my story both interesting and relevant to the subject.

My late father was a U.S. Navy veteran of the Second World War and the early Cold War. However, for a number of reasons, I did not go into the military as a young man. These range from the fact that the Vietnam War had ended not many years before I turned eighteen to the fact that my mother was dead-set against me joining the military (a fact I did not know at the time) and probably influenced my father not to encourage my interests in that area. Still, like many boys and teens of my vintage (I was born in 1961), I was into all things military as a kid – GI Joe, models, playing war with friends, reading military history, shooting my rifles, etc. – you name it, I was into it. I knew so much military history that I was asked by my principal (a man) to deliver a talk on World War II to my elementary school class and later to an assembly. My interest was in aviation especially. Instead of enlisting, I went off to college – as I was expected to. I wasn’t the kind of kid, not in those days anyway, who would defy his parent’s advice.

When I went off to college, I did try joining the U.S. Navy, with the intent of becoming a naval aviator – but that required 20/20 or better vision, which I did not have. I was very disappointed, but life goes on. I completed my education, began working and met and married my wife. During the mid-1990s, I was again briefly interested in serving, but the Clinton-era military was shrinking and I was told my chances were poor at being accepted if I wanted to join.

On September 11, 2001, I had just turned 40. By traditional standards, that is old for military service – but after seeing the World Trade Center Towers collapse on TV, I immediately decided that I would do my absolute best to get into the fight. There is some historical precedent for middle-aged men serving in the Armed Forces; during World War II, for example, fit forty-year-old men were accepted into military service. In fact, a number of them went on to distinguish themselves in that conflict. Paul Douglas, later a U.S. Senator (IL), actually made it into the Marines as a fifty-year-old enlistee (although he had an “in” because he knew Secretary of the Navy Frank Knox), became an officer and was decorated for heroism on Okinawa. The men in my family are not military professionals, but we have always stepped forward when the country needs us during time of war. That is what I thought I was doing. I had fully expected the nation to go to war, as it had done during World War II. “All hands on deck” and all of that. I was sorely mistaken.

Despite being only a single year over the age cutoff when I started my quest, I was unable to get an age waiver to serve in any branch of the military.  My credentials were outstanding, even superb. I was (and remain today) very physically fit.

At forty, I was capable of exceeding (in some cases by a considerable margin) the physical fitness standards of all of the regular service branches of the military, i.e., Army, Marines, Air Force, Navy and Coast Guard. I ran fine, could do 80-100 sit-ups and pushups without a problem. Additionally, I could then military-press 175 lbs. and could lift-and-carry a 200-lb. man in a fireman’s carry. In fact, not to brag, but I can still do most of these things today as a fifty-two year old man. Here are additional qualifications that I possessed:

1. Black belt in hapkido; taught martial arts and hand-to-hand combat

2. Trained medic in civilian life, with trauma care experience gained working at a major big-city university hospital & trauma center

3. Trained parachutist

4. Expert rifleman and shooter of a variety of firearms; reload my own ammunition; capable of accurately engaging targets at anywhere from point blank range out to 600 yards using a rifle, pistol, or shotgun

5. Seasoned hiker; spent two summers living in the wilderness in Canada and northern Minnesota

6. Qualified engine and diesel mechanic; once held three ASE certifications in auto/truck repair; know my way around mechanical devices, tools, and the like

7. Advanced degree in history, with expertise in several fields of the subject, including military history; published author.

Sorry for listing my resume, but it is to make a point. With all that I had to offer, the military rejected me out of hand solely on the basis of a regulation would could have easily been waived (more on that below). I was especially perplexed that the Army and Navy were not interested in me as a medic or corpsman, since around the time I was working my hardest to get into the Navy as a corpsman, the Marines were in desperate need of guys willing to be corpsmen and “go green,” which means being willing to serve with Marine infantry as their combat medic. That’s exactly the job I wanted, and was already – by virtue of my civilian training and experience – qualified to do. I’d have made a very good corpsman, but the Navy would not give me a chance.

Finally, we get to my point: While trying to get into the Navy and the Army, I visited a number of recruiting stations and depots. I visited Great Lakes Naval Base in North Chicago, one of the biggest and busiest USN/USNR bases in the country, and a major center for recruitment and training of Navy personnel. A Naval recruiter who was kind-enough to take my case and process a request for an age waiver asked me to go ahead and run through a physical exam in case the higher-ups gave me the green light. I did and, no surprises there, I was in great shape physically. My mouth fell open, however, at the various “sad sack” excuses for sailors I saw at Great Lakes. Of course, there were plenty of squared-away Naval personnel and even a few Marines here and there, but I also saw some “sailors” who could only be described as pathetic. One of the gals who examined me was in fact an HM (or corpsman); she couldn’t have been more than a hundred pounds soaking wet, and looked like a child in her uniform. She also made half a dozen pretty substantial mistakes in the medical work she did on me. Her deportment and bearing were more akin to that I would expect in a sorority girl or teenager down at the mall, than a soldier or sailor.

Being a corpsman is one of the most-demanding enlisted jobs in the entire military. That applies especially to Fleet Marine Force Corpsmen, who are both warriors and proficient medics. That means that you must not only master combat medicine and routine care of your platoon (or ship) mates, you must also do everything that Marine infantry do, from hump 60-lb. packs on 15-mile road marches to mastery of every individual/crew-served weapon the Marines use. One must be physically tough and strong enough to lift or drag a wounded comrade to safety if necessary. When you are on patrol or out in the field, you – as the “doc” – are responsible for everything related to the health and well-being of your squad mates, from routine sick care to battlefield surgery, if necessary. If the action gets hot-enough, you are expected to fight alongside your Marines. Corpsmen have won more awards for valor than I can list. One of the six flag-raisers atop Mt. Suribachi on Iwo Jima (during WWII) was a Navy corpsman, John “Doc” Bradley.

Does the Navy really expect that small, weak, and not very proficient young woman, the one with whom I interacted at Great Lakes, to uphold the highest traditions and honor of Navy corpsmen, if called upon to go into harm’s way? I possessed every quality (and then some) the services say they desire in their officers and men, but I could not get into uniform, despite literally almost begging to do so. The Army and Navy seemed all too pleased, however, to take in lots of these small, weak, timid-looking gals and also many sub-standard men as well. Why? Because they were young and had a pulse, I guess. Merit, excellence, demonstrated achievement, and proficiency of the kind I offered were turned away.

Sorry to say, but she was far from the only example. I saw plenty of fat, disrespectful, sloppy, slovenly and plain unmilitary people at Great Lakes. Don’t even get me started on the officers, who were – with some exception – every bit as bad.

I saw the same pattern when I visited Army and National Guard recruiters and bases: fat guys who barely fit into their uniforms and women who didn’t look fit-enough to even load a rifle, let alone shoot it properly.

Eventually, after having the door slammed in my face enough times, I got the message. The Armed Forces weren’t going to let me in.  By then, I had learned more about the good, the bad and the ugly of how our Armed Forces work (or fail to work) than I ever imagined I would. Initially, I was deeply disappointed at not being able to get into uniform, but in time that emotion was replaced by anger at the idiocy, incompetency and rampant political correctness I had seen, and finally contempt.

What galls me the most is the hypocrisy of the government and the military. During the years I was trying to get in, I was told more times than I can count, “Standards mean everything to us (meaning the Armed Forces),” and ‘I’d like to help you, but the rules can’t be waived for anybody.” Well, that’s a load of nonsense. The Pentagon and the Armed Forces not only lie to the American people about the effectiveness of the new military, they lie to themselves as well – in too many ways to mention here. The military/government claims that standards are sacrosanct, but uses a handicapping system (called “gender norming”) weighed heavily in favor of women, to make up their shortcomings compared to men. Did you know that a fifty-year old men already in the military has to pass a PFT (physical fitness test) that is harder than that given to a 25-year old woman? Moreover, women are assigned a greater number of points in their fitness reports, for meeting standards which are manifestly inferior to those men have to meet. I can pretty much guarantee you that none of the women in uniform I saw could surpass what I offered to the Armed Forces; most would get nowhere close to the kind of performance I was capable of delivering – but they were/are the ones in uniform, not me. I am not being bitter because I was rejected; any male veteran or presenting serving male member of the Armed Forces can verify the truth of what I am relating to you.

To put a cherry on this cake, I found out latter on that even the age regulations, the ones the military claimed it would take an act of Congress to break, are waived all the time, but only if you are a member of the political class or economic elite. Former Governor Mark Sanford (R-S.C.), the same guy who got caught flying to South America, at taxpayer expense, to see his mistress, got a USAF reserve officer commission at age 43 – which is well-past their cutoff – despite having no prior military service or relevant experience to offer. In private life, before entering politics, Sanford was a real estate developer.  Yet, his age waiver got approved by the USAF in fairly short order. Why? Because he was governor of South Carolina at the time. So it turns out that if you know someone, have some clout, or are a member of a protected class of people, it is a breeze to get into the military. However, if you are not a member of these groups and need a hand, you are out of luck.

The military in which my father (WWII) and grandfather (WWI) fought wanted men; it wanted warriors. Today’s military isn’t interested in warriors, at least not if my experience is any indication. Neither is the modern military interested in merit or proven excellence. I applied not only for enlisted combat jobs, but also for many and varied other positions – officer and enlisted alike. Heck, I’d have gladly taken a job turning wrenches to fix tanks or choppers, if they’d have offered it to me, but they couldn’t even manage that. Meanwhile, the hard-pressed guys who are already in the Army or Marines are on their fourth or fifth tours, the services are so short on people wanting to join. That was the situation back in the early-to-mid 2000s. Can you explain how any of this makes sense? I certainly cannot. At least I sleep well at night, knowing I did my absolute best to get into the fight and to do my part.

These days, seeing what Obama and Company are doing to our once-proud Armed Forces, perhaps it was a blessing in disguise that I was rejected. As I said, my dominant emotion these days concerning the military is usually disgust or contempt.

Of course, the experiences of one man – good or bad – matter little in the big scheme of things. I fear, however, for our republic and its safety, knowing what is being done to our once-great Armed Forces. Everyone talks about how formidable our military is, about how it cannot be beat. Perhaps there is some truth to that, but history shows that when a nation, its institutions and people become corrupt, soft and complacent, that’s when trouble usually strikes. If present trends  continue, the Chinese or whoever we end up fighting next may very well clean our clocks on the battlefield. Well, at least Suzy the Soldier will have her teddy bear (I’m not kidding; I have seen pictures of female “soldiers” sleeping with their teddy bears) to throw at the Chinese. Good luck with that.

— Comments —

Alex writes:

Peter F. wanted to get into the military for the wrong reason – love of country. He was also too capable a man. The U.S. government wants as few such people as possible in the armed forces. The ideal military for this government is one where people go strictly for career purposes; a jobs program open only to the right kind of people. Having a military full of people too different from the kind of creature composing all other arms of the government would be very unwise for the ruling class, unless it wants to end up like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.

In a country with a regime as hostile to its people as that of New America, the military is the No. 1 “must-have-on-our-side-at-all-costs” institution for the government. Peter F. must have triggered the “Keep him out!!!” instinct in every military bureaucrat he dealt with.

Laura writes:

Alex is dead on.

Peter F. wasn’t rejected because he was too old. He was the wrong kind of man. It would be dangerous to have too many men like him, soldiers who see themselves as defending the America of their forefathers.

Peter F. writes:

Alex commented: “Peter F. wanted to get into the military for the wrong reason – love of country. He was also too capable a man. The U.S. government wants as few such people as possible in the armed forces. The ideal military for this government is one where people go strictly for career purposes; a jobs program open only to the right kind of people. Having a military full of people too different from the kind of creature composing all other arms of the government would be very unwise for the ruling class, unless it wants to end up like the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.”

Alex, I’d better go buy a bigger hat, as the Texans like to say – after your kind compliment of calling me “too capable of a man.” I am not sure the praise is deserved, but thank you anyway. You should know that there are plenty of veterans and currently-serving military men whose resumes far-surpass mine. However, I was a very competitive recruit, enlisted or officer…. I’ll acknowledge that much.

There is undoubtedly some truth to your observations. The armed forces have become very ideological and politically-correct; this means that if you fall within one of the groups protected by diversity and affirmative action – female, minority (male or female), handicapped, Muslim, and now with Obama, LGBT – an extra effort is made on your behalf. Standing operating procedure will be waived; if necessary, the favored individual will be exempt from normal rules and regulations. Exceptions to policy and the law will be made, if necessary at the highest levels. That also applies to the rich, powerful, and politically-connected – who also receive special consideration. On the other hand, if you do not fall within one of these groups, you receive no special treatment.

During the mid-1990s in the wake of the “Tailhook” scandal, the Navy was ordered by the Clinton administration to permit women into carrier-based combat aviation units. Navy pilot Lt. Kara Hultgreen, who washed-out of F-14 transition training several times, was retained in the program at the orders of the naval high command, and was later killed trying to land her F-14 Tomcat on the deck of the carrier U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln. Hultgreen, who had not performed up to the standards normally expected of carrier aviators, had no business flying an F-14 – but her unit was ordered to keep her for political reasons – and she was killed as a result, endangering the lives of fellow crew members and the operational status of her vessel.

Professor Bruce Fleming of the U.S. Naval Academy at Annapolis, has written extensively on the degradation of standards at that institution in the name of diversity, affirmative action and political correctness. The Academy was caught red-handed some years back fudging grades and test scores for minority and female applicants, both to permit more to enter the academy and also to prevent them from flunking out once there.

Back in the 1980s, when women first started entering the army in large numbers in jobs formerly closed to them, it was discovered that almost all female recruits were incapable of throwing a grenade far-enough to escape its blast cone. Instead of admitting this inconvenient truth publicly and dealing with it openly and honestly, the army covered-up this politically-embarrassing result, and then dumbed down the test to make it easier for women to pass. Other examples abound; many women do not possess the strength to cycle the action on a machine gun; henceforth, tasks more “appropriate” to females were written into the training cycle instead. This is how the game is played.

In short, substandard performance is tolerated or swept under the rug if a member of a protected group or class is involved; those who are not members of these groups are expected to perform to the letter of published regulations, or they are washed-out, do not get promoted, or are separated from the service.

It is not common knowledge, but the new military allows quite a substantial number of amputees to remain on duty, including in combat jobs. Some time back, I read the story of a paratrooper who’d lost both legs, but who was allowed to remain on active (deployable) jump status in the 82nd Airborne Division. There have also been blind soldiers who have remain on active duty, including one in the elite Army Special Forces (Green Berets). Individuals with these handicaps are not permitted to join the military, but once one is in uniform, extraordinary efforts are made on behalf of the handicapped, maimed and severely wounded. This is arguably a good thing; few of us would disagree that these individuals who have sacrificed so much deserve anything less than the best that can be done for them – with the caveat that accommodations are not taken too-far and do not affect the ability of the military to accomplish its assigned missions.

However, this does beg some questions. How is a guy missing two legs considered “fit” to serve as a paratrooper, possibly in combat, when an intact, fit, but slightly older man is not? If performance matters in the new military, how can retaining the permanently blind on duty be rationalized? If academic standards at the service academies are sacrosanct, why are those standards diluted or waived for certain people but not others? If throwing a grenade is a critical soldierly skill, how is it less important for a female recruit to do it properly than for a male recruit? If a fighter pilot is expected to meet an elite standard before being entrusted with an aircraft costing tens (perhaps hundreds) of millions of dollars, how does it make sense to waive that standard if the pilot happens to be female?

This is how the military lies to itself and to the people of this nation.

Re: “Peter F. wasn’t rejected because he was too old. He was the wrong kind of man. It would be dangerous to have too many men like him, soldiers who see themselves as defending the America of their forefathers.”

Yes, I see that now. I am not the kind of man who would stand silently by without mentioning that the “emperor has no clothes.” In many ways, the “new” military is a lie, one in which I would not participate willingly. There is an old and very apt saying concerning the peace-time military, “warriors interfere with the smooth functioning of the military.” During wartime and when the nation is under threat, the warriors are needed and honored, but as soon as the war is won, they are hustled away before they can upset the apple cart and the status quo any further. Would generals like Douglas MacArthur or George Patton be tolerated in today’s army? I think we all know the answer to that question.

Laura writes:

Here is a description of the crash that killed Lt. Hultgreen. She overshot the centerline on approach to the aircraft carrier and, in correcting her error, caused an engine to fail. The New York Times gave a very different account of the accident.

Paul writes:

I hear Peter. Although I am automatically disqualified due to back problems, I figured I could drive a truck over a mined road as well as many less powerful females. I knew my chances of being accepted were not only nil, but also I knew my death would kill my mother. My impression is those joining currently do it for the excitement, the sex, for nothing better to do, or for all three. Fighting for their culture is way down on the list.

Peter F. writes:

Re: “I hear Peter. Although I am automatically disqualified due to back problems, I figured I could drive a truck over a mined road as well as many less powerful females.”

Your situation, Paul – though somewhat different than mine – shares some commonalities as well. By diluting standards of performance – or looking the other way when members of protected groups fail to meet existing standards – the military exposes the utter intellectual and moral dishonesty at the core of its policies. The Department of Defense and the Pentagon want to have their cake and eat it, too, because they are attempting to reconcile two ways of thought that are completely at odds – namely, the belief in quantifiable, measurable standards of performance, i.e., can you do a certain number of push-ups in two minutes or can you run one and a half miles in certain time, etc. – with the notion of affirmative action and standards which vary according to who is being tested.

The case I made to the military was that if a twenty-year old female recruit with objectively inferior performance to mine was suitable to be a soldier, then I was also, not withstanding my age. Yours would be similar; if a double amputee can be a paratrooper in the 82nd Airborne and remain on active duty, then why can’t a guy with a bad back get into uniform also? These are the ridiculous dilemmas which follow as a natural consequence of the military’s personnel policies and the abandonment of one standard of performance for all. There is no consistency in the present policies, nor much logic. If military service is indeed a right, as those on the left are fond of claiming, then open it to everyone as a sort of government jobs program. On the other hand, if service in the military is not a right but a privilege, and subject to specific and necessarily inflexible demands, requirements and conditions, then enforce those rules equally for everyone. At present, the armed services are trying to have it both ways – and it isn’t working. It’s a mess, and many of the best people in uniform are hanging it up in consequence.

Treating military personnel differently based on membership/non-membership in a specific demographic or other groups is extremely damaging to espirit d’corps, unit cohesion and overall morale. To an extent seldom (if ever) seen in the civilian world, soldiers depend on trust in one another and faith that the man next to you can do his job as well as you can do yours. He has your back, you have his; if you risk your life for him, he will do the same for you. The pervasive climate of political correctness and groupthink within the new military is extremely destructive of this bond between soldiers.

Laura writes:

Your last point is especially important.

Alex writes:

It almost looks as though the U.S. military is being remade from a force designed to fight external enemies into a force designed to protect the leftist government from its internal enemies; from a force best able to fight and kill for their country into a force willing to fight and kill for the safety of their government jobs, benefits and pensions, their racial and gender privileges.

A gradual unionization of the armed forces would be the logical next step.

Please follow and like us: