AIR Force Lt. Gen. Lori J. Robinson represents a particularly striking example of military affirmative action. Robinson has been nominated as commanding general of the Air Force’s Pacific operations and for a promotion to four-star general. Robinson is not, however, a military pilot. She will be the first non-pilot to command such a large theater of operations, according to The Washington Times.

— Comments —

James P. writes:

General Robinson sure has an awful lot of ribbons and badges for someone who has never flown an airplane or been shot at.

Of course, they all basically mean “good bureaucrat” rather than “brave warrior”.

Laura writes:

I am not sure that she has never flown an airplane. But she was never a fighter pilot.

T.D. writes:

Contrast Gen. Lori with probably the greatest Air Force leader in our history, Curtis Lemay:

Note Lemay’s posture and bearing; he is confident, serious and strong. In contrast, Gen Lori has a stupid grin on her face. Also, despite having never seen combat, she seems to have more medals. I should be more irritated, but I can no longer muster the energy. Winning wars, like space flight, is something our nation is no longer interested in.

 Henry McCulloch writes:

I read Lori’s potted bio.  (Aside: Why do so many ostensible grown-ups in positions of responsibility insist on using kiddie-names?)  Unless things have changed, PACAF (if the bureaucrats haven’t renamed it) is a fighter command, so any use of common sense should tell one that only a fighter pilot would be operationally competent to command it.  But we all know Barack Hussein Obama is about fundamentally transforming America, not about doing the commander-in-chiefly thing of having operationally competent field commanders.  But you also didn’t need me to tell you that.

In a limited defense of Lori, who is after all more a token than a general, she appears to have had some slight experience in fighter control, as a ground controller (GCI) and in the same job sitting sideways in the back of an AWACS.  But not only is she not a pilot; she’s not a navigator either.  Lori holds no aeronautical rating, whatever funny pseudo-wings she may get to put on her uniform.  (Operational note: in the U.S. armed forces that fly fighters, it has always been doctrine that a fighter flight lead considers GCI/AWACS control purely advisory, not mandatory, and can tell the controllers to shut up at will.  The opposite of the old Soviet system still used by many air forces.  But the Hussein Regime may have changed that as well…)

Jon D. writes:

Curtis LeMay led both attacks on Schweinfurt-Regensburg, in World War II. They are considered two of the most dangerous missions ever undertaken by the USAAF. The casualty rates were horrendous.

John P. writes:

There are two further points I’d like to add to this discussion, one significant the other perhaps petty. I suspect these affirmative action promotions are based on the idea held by American elites that the U.S. Military will never be required to fight against near-peer-powers, as they’re called in the parlance, such as China or Russia. All future military engagements will be against third rate powers as the wars against Iraq and Afghanistan were. This means a relatively small group of elite forces will do most of the fighting and all the tough decisions will be made by subordinate commanders. The Generals will in fact be mostly bureaucrats allocating resources and reporting to Washington.

The more petty point is that I dislike women in uniform wearing earrings. This should be allowed only when off-duty. It sends a mixed message that “I’m just one of the girls” but “I’m also a tough as nails combat leader.”

One of the things I like about Angela Merkel (Chancellor of Germany) is that I have never seen a photo of her wearing earrings when on official business. Margaret Thatcher wore earrings but that was a different time.

Laura writes:

Agreed on earrings.

I think the presence of women in highly visible command positions is necessary to divert attention from the reality that women are mostly in a wide range of low-ranking, support positions in the military and are considered to be necessary there because of demographic changes; because they are docile, willing and reliable workers; and because of a general decline in the quality of potential male recruits, a fair number of whom are obese, tattoo-ed, apathetic or addicted to drugs.

Please follow and like us: