DON VINCENZO writes:

On December 3, in a statement that did not surprise many, Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter announced that women would now serve in any and all phases of the combat arms. He said (in part): “There will be no exceptions. They’ll be allowed to drive tanks, fire mortars and lead infantry soldiers into combat. They’ll be able to serve as Army Rangers, Green Berets, Navy Seals, Marine Corps infantry, Air Force parajumpers and everything else that was previously open only to men.” Welcome to the surreal world of the Obama Administration, and that of Ashton Carter.

Ashton Carter is a typical bureaucrat with a difference: an academic who spent much of his life researching historical events, has a Ph.D. in Medieval History, and done extensive research in particle physics. Carter has never been in the military, and rose in the chain of command at the Department of Defense as “an intellectual among warriors.” But he is also what Lenin called, “a useful idiot,” for I have no doubt that prior to his appointment as Secretary he had agreed to proposals such as he announced in early December that will, inevitably, weaken – not strengthen – the U.S. military.

But the theoretical world of Ashton Carter often collides with the real one, and shortly after the announcement, the Military Times newspaper ran the following article:

The men in the U.S. military’s most dangerous jobs care little about political correctness or gender equality. And they have a message for their political leadership. When they are fighting in the shadows or bleeding on the battlefield, women have no place on their teams.

In blunt and, at times, profanity-laced answers to a voluntary survey conducted by the Rand Corp., more than 7,600 of America’s special operations forces spoke with nearly one voice. Allowing women to serve in Navy SEAL, Army Delta or other commando units could hurt their effectiveness and lower the standards, and it may drive men away from the dangerous posts. An overwhelming majority of those who agreed to respond to the RAND survey said they believe women don’t have the physical strength or mental toughness to do the grueling jobs.”

But that, of course, is of no consequence to Carter and his boss.

Shortly after Carter’s announcement, the Navy’s eunuch hierarchy, which varies very little from the command positions in the other military services, announced that applications by women into the SE, Air, and Land Teams, aka “SEALs” would be soon accepted. Anyone who is even vaguely familiar with how one becomes a SEAL knows that the physical and mental rigors required prevent more than 90% of the applicants from being selected, many of whom are very athletic and talented young men.

As I noted in the case of the two “successful” female Army “Rangers,” in this case the word will come down to Navy brass from up high that several women will be chosen, and one or perhaps two will make the final cut. No doubt a high administration official will come to the graduation ceremony. Then their scores will also miraculously disappear, as they did with the female Rangers, but no matter: they will now proudly wear the insignia of the SEALs.

While our enemies must laugh at the idiocy and delusional aspects of these announcements, Ashton Carter represents another aspect of the president’s wish to transform America, and in so doing weaken our ability to defend the nation. I have no doubt that the GOP Establishment will go along with the proposal, for they, too, while blustering about the damage done by Obama, also strive to be politically correct.

Laura writes:

Thank you for your comments.

I cannot agree that Carter is a “typical bureaucrat” or a “useful idiot.” The decision to introduce women into combat is one of the most radical instances of social engineering, and it was made without any significant clamor for it by the American people and despite the fact that most men and women in the military apparently do not want it. It was a foregone plan. This man clearly is not stupid. All the rigamarole about testing women to see if they could do it was a show.

Who is Carter?

Christopher Bollyn has an interesting article about Carter’s background. Food for thought. Bollyn writes:

Ashton Carter is a hawk. Carter supported the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003, and is an advocate of preventive wars against North Korea and Iran. In response to the situation in Ukraine, Carter considered proposing deployment of ground-launched cruise missiles in Europe that could pre-emptively destroy Russian weapons. Carter is certainly a hawk, but whose hawk is he?

[…]

It is certainly not America’s national interest that motivates Ashton Carter. If Carter were truly a supporter of American values and interests he would not have supported the invasion of Iraq in 2003. This war is now recognized as having been a strategic blunder and a war crime, a war of aggression based on false claims and lies. Furthermore, if Carter’s actions were based on U.S. national interests would he engage the U.S. military in Syria in an illegal war against the government of that country? It is primarily because of the involvement and support of the U.S. and other outside forces, such as Saudi Arabia and Qatar, that the war in Syria has dragged on for more than four years and caused a massive flow of refugees from the war-torn nation.

All of his jobs since graduating from Yale in 1976 and before joining the Pentagon were with organizations affiliated with the Rothschild banking empire.

Ashton Carter has been cultivated for decades by the Rothschild banking family to serve their interests, which is what he is doing as U.S. Secretary of Defense.

Bollyn quotes:

The American military has become the enforcer and muscle that the globalists have been using to keep uncooperative nations in line with the international financial system… The three policies that are critical to the goals of the international bankers are free trade, mass immigration, and American interventionism abroad.

– Brian O’Brien, “What do the Bankers Want?” The Tyranny of the Federal Reserve (2015)

Let’s add social engineering to undermine the family to that list. The decision to place women in combat has nothing to do with military effectiveness.

— Comments —

Eric writes:

You quote Christopher Bollyn, who states, “Carter supported the illegal invasion of Iraq in 2003 … a war of aggression based on false claims and lies”.

Actually, at the decision point for Operation Iraqi Freedom, Iraq was evidentially in material breach of the Gulf War ceasefire for casus belli. On the law and the facts, President Bush’s decision for OIF was correct. See the explanation of the law and policy, fact basis for Operation Iraqi Freedom here drawn from the primary sources of the mission.

Please follow and like us: