KARL D. writes:

Laura writes:

Once again it is entirely acceptable for a military woman to be insubordinate. Navy Vice Adm. Michelle Howard is quoted as saying that the Navy is sexist. I call that insubordination. She also calls sailors who question the wisdom of women in command “knuckleheads.” The inescapable rule is that women in the military end up fighting the military.

Howard has probably been the beneficiary of much favoritism  — and even so, at the very moment she is nominated to the second highest position in the Navy, she still accuses the military of  sexism. Of course, the military is sexist and should be sexist, but she thinks that’s wrong.

Also look at this absurd image, which captures just how ridiculous the idea of women in command is. Here we see a short, stocky woman among men. Also listen to her soft, feminine voice in the video in The Daily Mail, and tell me that she can command effectively.

She is also clearly of mixed race, but will count as a black for political purposes.

T.D. writes:

I served in the active Navy for eight years, and I am currently in the reserves (though for how long, I cannot say).  I actually met Admiral Howard last year at an exercise in Norfolk, VA.  I got to shake her hand and see her speak in a couple of venues.  She was easily the least imposing person in the room, especially compared to her male aides.  Take a look at some portraits of traditional military leaders, men like Chester Nimitz, Bull Halsey, Chesty Puller and George Patton.  Look into their eyes.  Those men were stone killers, willing to sacrifice all for victory, capable of leading warriors in battle.  Admiral Howard is leading a neutered bureaucracy, and she looks the part.  It doesn’t really matter; winning wars, like space exploration and large scale infrastructure projects, is something this country no longer does.

P.S.  I was a submariner.  I left active service when they decided to put women aboard subs.  It was obvious to me that a navy that was willing to sacrifice the cream of the fleet for political correctness was no longer a serious institution.

Laura writes:

Here is a portrait of Chester Nimitz.

Donald writes:

There is just something wrong with the notion of a feminine warrior. The optic of Vice Adm. Michelle Howard with a chest brimming of medals smiling on with freshly applied lipstick is incongruous and bizarre. Her comments about sexism are just as bizarre. The military is in the business of aggression, period. It is where young men go to channel aggression in pursuit of adventure and a purposeful end. Instead of nurturing that instinct she aims to eliminate it.

Laura writes:

Exactly. Liberalism is destroying the very qualities of the warrior, which is no surprise since it has always been pacifist.

Anti-Golbalist Expatriate writes:

Why are none of these high-ranking females in the military, nor their civilian fellow-travelers and enablers, agitating for women to be subject to Selective Service registration, I wonder?

Is it perhaps that when push comes to shove, that they know that women aren’t really that keen on being forced to, you know, actually fight and die on the front lines?

I guess some forms of ‘equality’ are more appealing than others – especially the kind of equality that requires one to risk life and limb, rather than simply gadding about in spiffy uniforms and receiving pay, promotions, and power in return for pretending to be ‘fearless’ and ‘courageous’ in situations which don’t involve the possibility of coming to actual physical harm.

 Laura writes:

Women will never be required to fight. Feminists are demanding all of the privileges, but not all of the duties.

 Pete writes:

After reading your piece, “Woman Nominated for Second in Command in Navy,” I felt a surge of anger, but then sadness, resignation and finally contempt. Goodness knows I am no Communist, but perhaps Karl Marx was correct when he said, “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, second as farce.”

Regarding the comment: “I was a submariner.  I left active service when they decided to put women aboard subs.  It was obvious to me that a navy that was willing to sacrifice the cream of the fleet for political correctness was no longer a serious institution:” Of course, your reader T.D. is correct; the navy is no longer a serious institution. No military organization which takes itself or its mission seriously could possibly want someone like Michelle Howard as its leader – let alone as a leader destined for the pinnacle of the military establishment.

We should be so lucky if the troubles of the military were confined to being unserious, but they are far-worse than that. If Vice-Admiral Howard was in command of the Public Health Service or perhaps something like the Salvation Army, we could shrug this whole affair off as political correctness run amok and go about our business relatively unconcerned. Unfortunately, we are not going to get off the hook so easily. However unserious Howard and her ilk may appear, that does not change the fact that (if approved) she will be in command of the most-powerful navy afloat – some of whose vessels carry nuclear arms. Howard may look like she is playing sailor, but her actions will have real consequences – consequences which may prove to be no laughing matter.

It speaks to the depth of the corruption present in the senior naval officer corps that admirals and captains are not resigning en masse in protest of this appointment.

In July, 2008, while speaking at Boulder College, Colorado, Barack Obama called for the formation of a civilian national security force “just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded as the US Military.” Today, Obama has made much progress towards that goal by militarizing civilian agencies of the federal government, such as the Department of Homeland Security, and other agencies. However, he has also made rapid progress in purging the military of personnel whose views are not in alignment with his own. “Politically-unreliable” senior officers are being relieved for cause or forced into retirement in record numbers. They are being replaced by the likes of Michelle Howard; individuals who will do Obama’s bidding, no questions asked.

As it happens, I know a large number of presently-serving and retired military personnel, including some from America’s most-elite special operations forces. It may interest your readers to know that a number of them have come forward and stated that prospective senior appointees (i.e., all officers up for promotion to flag rank or higher must be approved by Congress) to Obama’s “new” military are being asked a “litmus test” question: are they willing, if ordered, to fire upon U.S. citizens.

Domagoj writes:

And who says war can’t have a nice face?

Who needs grumpy old white men when this nice lady can protect you?

After all, we sleep safely at night because nice ladies stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us. :-)

Please follow and like us: