A Hollow US Military

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

If the President and the Congress are able to realize their plans for the US military, it will leave American with, as the title to this piece suggests, a hollow force.  It will also place America in a great deal of danger because our military will be a great deal smaller in numbers of troops.

Think about that for a moment.  Not only will our military lose so much of its war fighting materiel, it will lose many thousands of troops.  That’s bad enough but there is something else -- and no one seems concerned about it. 

You see, when the military cutbacks come, we will lose the experience of troops who have actually been on the battlefield, who have actually looked the enemy in the eye, who have dealt with the pain of taking another human being’s life, and the deep abiding pain of losing a friend or companion in battle, who have fought the fight and lived to tell about it. BUT – they will not be available to train the raw recruits that will always be necessary to keep the much smaller fighting force flush with young, robust, well-trained fighting men.

Everything, these days, seems to have a price in dollars and cents.  Not experience.  The value of experienced combat soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines is inestimable. It also holds true, not just for enlistees, but for officers as well -- mustangs and academy graduates, alike.  Experienced officers are a must for a military to even consider executing a victorious military campaign.  Book knowledge is absolutely necessary but it can’t hold a candle to experience on the battlefield.

We are looking at the creation of a hollow force IF congress does not apply the brakes, one way, or the other, to stop what will amount to decimation of the US military. 

You may recall that “decimation” is a word derived from the Latin word “decimatio.”  It means, literally:  “removal of a tenth.”  You see, the Romans would punish troops for cowardice by placing them in formation and then executing every tenth man. Of course, the practice of decimation did not last long before some Roman commanders began to notice their troop strength was suffering badly from their own actions as well as that of the enemy.

In my opinion, the word “decimation” is applicable to what our government is about to do to our military.

Those who have been paying attention to the encroaching chaos in the world, especially in Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, are extremely concerned that only a spark is needed to bring on a global conflict far worse than we experienced in the 1930’s and 1940’s.  We are, of course, referencing multiple tactical and strategic use(s) of nuclear weapons.  Everyone on the face of our planet will be involved, one-way, or the other.

If the US were blessed with forward-thinking leaders, we would be building up our armed forces in preparation for the coming conflagration, which, experts seem to agree, is expected in the very near future. Unfortunately, we are NOT blessed with leaders who understand that history did not begin on the day they were born.

Rather than cutting the US military, the US “standing Army” should be doubled.  Our Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corp also need to be doubled in strength… and as quickly as possible.  When the next war comes, it won’t be fought from 15,000 feet with smart bombs, as we did in the Balkans.  It will be a slugfest in the air, on the sea, and on the land. It will not be contained in a particular geographical region.  There is a strong likelihood that the continental US will be hit.  It is fairly easy for missiles launched from ships, lying off shore in international waters, to burst through our radar defenses and strike targets before we can react to stop them.  That is an uneasy reality.

Unfortunately for what we used to call “the free world,” Mr. Obama’s penchant for leading from behind, simply opened the door for any and all mischief makers, anywhere on the globe, to come out and play.  Many have and many more will

It seems to this scribe, the US needs a crash program, right now; to build our military might to that state of readiness that we reached in the midst of the Second World War.  It is unrealistic today (with nuclear armed rogue nations) to allow one of them to get in the first punch.  No nation can absorb many nuclear first strikes.

It is more than a little worrisome that the Congress and the President do not seem to share the concern of our military that we will not be prepared when the next attack on the US comes. 

If history has taught us anything it is that when the world becomes so stressed-out, especially over the imminent collapse of the global financial system, war is next to inevitable.  Yet, the current leadership in Washington is seriously preparing to reduce our military, substantially.

This is no time for a hollow military.  Reliance on super electronic weapons is no longer a guarantee of victory.  A single electro-magnetic pulse weapons can make them all totally useless in the blink of an eye and pull the teeth of the tiger instantaneously.  But those powerful EMP weapons cannot stop the ultimate weapon – a determined American military man. And THAT is the very weapon of which, we will be in dire need when the first shots are fired in a future war.

We have seen the US military gutted many times in the past only to find we have to pay for that mistake in the blood of our under-trained and under-equipped soldiers in the first stages of the very next war.  Understand: there will always be a “next war.”

The US government has done some dumb things.  But decimating our military, with the world in the mess it is today, ranks among the dumbest.

J. D. Longstreet

American Amazons -- To The Front!

American Amazons -- To The Front!
The Left’s Degradation Of American Women Continues
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Women assigned to frontline combat units is just another way to degrade women and prop-up the lie that women are equal to men -- in all things. Notice – I did say LIE! I admit it. I believe it! That is my opinion.

Now, I am the first to admit that men are not equal to women in a number of things. The first thing to come to mind is childbearing. We simply cannot do that. (Nor do we want to!)

I am convinced it is just another avenue the left has chosen to destroy what used to be the finest military the world has ever known. Today, the US military is quickly becoming second -- behind the Israeli Defense Force.

We can only pray that we will soon have a conservative Commander-in-Chief who will rebuild out military into a war-fighting force rather than the armed peace corps it has been transformed into by the liberal-socialists in the Congress and the White House.

If the current trend continues we will have the best dressed, best equipped, most inclusive military in the world, but -- one, which is unable to fight its way out of a wet paper bag.

With homosexuals able to serve openly in the US military, I expect the country will have no other recourse than to allow women to serve in frontline units! Men, sure as hell, will not want to willingly join a service where homosexuality, a life-style condemned by none other than God, Himself, is accepted.

Oh, did I forget to mention the slaughter of women in frontline combat units? Well, of course, if we only require our military to act as good will ambassadors, charged only with winning the hearts and minds of the enemy (Pardon me while I laugh at “winning the hearts and minds of the enemy!”), and not winning battles or winning wars, then women on the front lines will be OK. Bored to death -- but not shot to death.

On the other hand, should we actually find that we have no other choice but to fire real bullets at an enemy and take incoming fire from said enemy, our women soldiers will be slaughtered.

You may choose to believe Hollywood productions in which tiny women toss men about as if they were dresses piled up on a sales table during a half-price sale, or, you can believe the truth. The truth is: It ain’t possible. Oh, sure, a handful of women can toss an average size man about – but that would be a miniscule number by any stretch of the imagination.

Know this: When ordered to place women in frontline combat positions, the US military WILL DO IT! It is far to politicized to balk and appeal to reason with its civilian commanders. Women will be sacrificed in large numbers before anyone has the cahones to protest that the frontline is no place for a woman – period!

Frontline combat in high intensity warfare is no place for a woman. It is dirty, it is brutal, and it is horrifying. It tears the strongest men to pieces -- physically and mentally. The blood, guts, and gore, the stench of death is everywhere. Once exposed to this degradation a soldier’s mind is forever scared.

Have we Americans become so crass, so insensitive to truth, so ignorant of the laws of nature that we are willing to place who reproduce our species in mortal danger in an attempt to prove an improvable lie that women and men are the same physically, mentally, and emotionally? Societies wishing to survive do not do something this utterly stupid.

Look, the US military needs soldiers who will stare death in the face and still leap toward the enemy as they are being splattered with their friend’s blood and gore, with the dying screams of their buddies to their left and right tearing at their ears through the cacophony of battle and STILL charge forward toward the enemy ripping and tearing his life from him until the battle is won.

Women cannot do that. Most women are not physically capable of performing in such a manner. Most women are not capable of withstanding the dirt, filth, blood, gore, and the pure animalistic bloodlust to kill, to wrench another man’s life from his body as he stares, horrified, into their eyes.

A combat soldier must live the remainder of his life with the memories of what he has done to a fellow human being on the field of battle. Those nightmares live forever. Do we really want the future mothers of our children to suffer from the effects of those mind shattering flashbacks and memories that create a living hell for them when the sounds of the guns cease?

Here in the South, southern boys are taught from early childhood to protect our womenfolk. They are made aware that women are the bearers of our children, that women are chief “child-care” specialists for our children as they are reared. We are taught that women bring civility, gentility, and yes, even religious faith to our society. Our women are more precious than the most priceless of gems. They are the linchpin that holds our society together. Without them – we would be nothing.

A southern soldier’s first reaction in combat will be to make every effort to protect the women in his unit – no matter that those women are also armed and trained to defend themselves. It is nearly instinctual for that southern cavalier to give his life to protect them FIRST, even placing their safety before the success of his mission. The military will have to train that out of him.

That, then begs the question: what kind of man will he become when he returns to his home after having been trained that his mother, his wife, his sister, his daughter is to be treated no differently than his beer-drinking buddies.

The ramifications of women in frontline combat units will have far reaching effects upon American society. There will be an immediate clash with southern culture and, I expect, with the cultures of the other regions of the country as well.

American society is already a near mirror image of the sordid society of the biblical Sodom and Gomorrah. We have a couple of generations, at least, that have been deeply influenced by the leftists fecal matter pumped into our homes (through television) from the sewer that is the leftist entertainment business. Our movies are profane, pornographic, and titillating. Our mainline religious denominations have surrendered to the leftist ideals of something called “social justice,” which is nothing more than pure Marxism. In short we are disgusting as a civilized society. We have become an embarrassment to ourselves! And yet, we continue our steep slide into the abyss.

Further degradation of American women by placing them in frontline combat units is unacceptable and, by any standards of human decency, should be unthinkable.

J. D. Longstreet

Karzai in Talks with Taliban to end Afghanistan War?

Karzai in Talks with Taliban to end Afghanistan War?
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

We have seen AP reports in the past few days that report the Afghanistan government is talking with Taliban leaders to end the war in Afghanistan.

The top commander in Afghanistan, Gen. David Petraeus is reported to have said: "There are very high-level Taliban leaders who have sought to reach out to the highest levels of the Afghan government and indeed have done that … "

Petraeus is also reported to have said: “Reconciling with Taliban leaders is being "pursued by the Afghan leadership at the very highest levels.”

(You may read the entire AP Staff Report at CNSNEWS.COM (HERE).)

OK! So now, the obvious question(s): What the hell are we fighting for in Afghanistan?? And: Is the Obama Regime behind the Karzai/Taliban talks as a desperation move on Obama’s part to cut and run from Afghanistan?
I have seen very little reporting on this in the press and I must tell you I find that appalling!
BOTH these questions are extremely important.

Look, too many American lives have been lost in that that woefully backwards land for the Obama Regime to command our troops to cut and run and effectively hand the country, lock, stock, barrel, and government to the very forces we have been fighting and shedding American blood to squash.

I am no diplomat (obviously), but it seems clear to me that Karzai’s very life is dependent upon US forces remaining in Afghanistan and finally defeating the Taliban. Inviting the Taliban to become a part of the government of Afghanistan amounts to handing over control of the government to them (the Taliban).

If the Obama regime stands by and allows this to happen, then the lives of all the military service personnel (Americans and others) killed since that war began will have been lost in vain. That is unacceptable. At least it OUGHT to be.

“Waheed Omar, a spokesman for Karzai, denied that President Barack Obama's stated goal of beginning to withdraw U.S. forces from Afghanistan in July 2011, if conditions allow, spurred the Afghan government to set up the council or reach out to the Taliban.” (SOURCE).

Sorry, but I am not buying it. The whole things smacks of exactly the type scenario that fits, “to a tee” the way the democrats would slink off a battlefield.

What happened to the democrats “Good War?” What happened to the democrats (and Obama’s) “The RIGHT war?” Remember when George W. Bush was President and Obama was a candidate -- that was the way the democrats described the war in Afghanistan?

The limp-wristed liberal democrats have no clue how to run a war. They do not understand the military and the certainly do not understand the application of military force. They don’t have an inkling what it does to a proud military force when their Commander-in-Chief declares victory and yanks them from a battlefield in the middle of a war.

Ask a Vietnam combat veteran about winning every battle but losing the war in Vietnam. Go ahead. Ask them. Let them tell you about the stigma they carry with them the remainder of their days on this earth.

Consider what this will do for the morale of the Islamofacists we are fighting around the globe. It will reinforce their belief that America is a “Paper Tiger.” They will be emboldened to escalate their terrorist war on Americans costing more and more American lives.

Look, when a nation confronts evil in it’s purist form, that nation cannot turn its back on the fight. Evil will not back down. To defeat it, it must be destroyed – and destroyed completely.

Obama either does not know, or does not care that backing down from the enemy in Iraq and in Afghanistan is an open invitation to the Islamofacists to bring the war to the American homeland. Make no mistake about it. They will do exactly that.

Remember this when a suitcase nuke is detonated in Washington, DC, or New York, or some other major US city.
THIS is why, my non-American readers, the American people do not trust a democrat president during wartime. Somehow, America forgot, as they were caught up in the mad rush to elect the first black President of the United States.

American voters need to remember this when they head to the polls on November 2nd, too. The US desperately needs to relieve the democrats of power in our government and replace them with conservatives who understand that America is in a fight for its very life with the Islamofacists. Americans need to understand; too, this fight will go on and on and on as long as there is one single nutcase terrorist left alive on this planet. Dropping our guard for a single instant invites disaster of biblical proportions.

Dear reader, all of this simply underscores the importance of the November 2nd, Mid-Term Election. It is too important to overestimate. The lives of thousands of Americans are at stake. The freedom of the country is under attack by the liberal-socialist democrats who subscribe, some unashamedly, to the teachings of Marx and myriads of other communists.

I cannot stress enough that the American constitutional republic is facing its most dire threat ever. President Obama has proven he is not up to the task of President. He has certainly proven he is not up to the task of commanding our military as the Commander-in-Chief. Our current Congress, both the Senate and the House of Representatives, has proven it is not up to the task of protecting the country and insuring its continued existence. Why, they won’t agree to even construct a measly fence to provide a small measure of security along our southern border with Mexico. THEY MUST GO – or America will go!

I have avoided broaching the subject of the impeachment of President Obama but, I must tell you, if we learn Obama’s Regime, in any way, encouraged the talks between the Afghanistan government and the Taliban, then we strongly suggest an incoming GOP controlled Congress has a duty, I repeat, HAS A DUTY, to the American people to begin such proceedings immediately after the swearing-in ceremonies.

The insult to the American military by the Obama Regime must not be allowed to pass unchallenged.

We urge you to “Remember in November” and vote accordingly.

J. D. Longstreet

Obama’s Wars

Obama’s Wars
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

Remember how Obama continually stated how the war in Iraq was “The Wrong War.”

Remember how Obama remarked that President George W. Bush made a mistake by moving much of our war fighting capability from Afghanistan to Iraq?

Remember how Obama leaned on Bush for concentrating on Iraq instead of Afghanistan… over and over and over, ad infinitum?

Now: Remember how we told you that these wars would become Obama’s wars?

We remind you of all this because, just as we suspected, Obama has no clue how to run a war -- or how to relate neither to his generals nor to the military in general.

I have thought for sometime that the President of the United States, of a necessity, ought to have had military service in one branch, or the other, of the US Military. I still do. I think it ought to be a requirement, one of the qualifications for a would-be candidate seeking the office of the US Presidency.

So few members of the US government, these days, have had military service, of any kind, that there is only a weak connection between the government overall and the military.

When “The Brass,” the generals and admirals, begin to mock, criticize, or correct the Commander-in-Chief, even in public, that is evidence of a serious breakdown between the war fighters and their Commander-in-Chief. That is NEVER good.

When a Commander-in-Chief’s main objective is to withdraw the troops from a war, which is still raging, and concede defeat of the American military, that demonstrates a deep disrespect for the men and women in the ranks, in the foxholes, in the line of fire, in harm’s way. The men and women who have volunteered to put their lives on the line for America’s freedom all around the globe deserve more than that – MUCH more. They deserve a Commander-in-Chief who, even if he does not have their courage, at least respects them FOR their courage and their efforts for their fellow countrymen.

To put it bluntly, the US military deserves a much better Commander-in-Chief than Obama has been, is, or ever will be.

The revelation (in a recent publication) that Obama was seeking a way out of Afghanistan came as no surprise to this scribe. We have a leftist President and that is what leftists do when someone challenges his or her right to be free on a battlefield. They immediately head for the exits. They run.

The left, Obama among them, has no concept of military honor.” Having never served a single day in uniform, he cannot relate to those brave people who protect you and me with their lives. He simple doesn’t understand his soldiers, he doesn’t understand his generals, and he does not understand the war planners and war fighters. At some level, I suspect he fears them.

Obama’s ineptness in foreign affairs, as a whole, is staggering. Obama’s joyful visit with Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, a fellow socialist, told Americans all they needed to know about Obama’s distaste for our constitutional republic. Many conservatives understood immediately that he was on a mission to transform America into another Venezuela.

So what does this have to do with Obama and his wars? Practically everything. He is dealing with a part of the US government that is hugely politically conservative. I have come to believe that Obama fears the US military.

The US Military is filled with conservatives. A whopping portion of the US Military is made up of Southerners who are born with “Warrior” stamped, indelibly, on their heels. An important part of their DNA is “honor.” They don’t have to learn what honor is; they know from birth what is expected of them -- to protect the honor of their family, their country, their fellow soldiers, and finally, themselves. Too, they understand the oath they take when entering the military is a solemn and sacred oath to protect the constitution and everything they love and care from ALL enemies foreign AND DOMESTIC. They also understand there is no expiration date on that oath.

It is no small thing when the leader of those military men and women places their honor in jeopardy by seeking a way to “cut and run” in the face of the enemy!

An army MUST respect its leader. It must trust his leadership. It is his command that may cost a soldier his or her life. When the troops lose respect for their leader it is a sad and a dangerous thing. Oh, they will obey his commands, but they will do so grudgingly. Evidence of that can be seen even in the US military’s top brass today.

When that lack of respect for their leadership infiltrates the troops on the frontlines, casualties begin to go up. We see that today in Afghanistan.

NO SOLDIER WANTS TO BE THE LAST SOLDIER KILLED IN ANY WAR! Now that Obama has set a date for withdrawal of the troops from Afghanistan, the enemy feels emboldened because they know that US troops will psychologically go into a defensive mode. Suddenly, the advantage in the war swings to the enemy’s side. We see that, today in Afghanistan, as well.

Obama’s Wars are not going well. In Iraq, just about everyone outside the Obama White House understands that as soon as US troops finally leave Iraq, it will be taken over by another strongman dictator and revert back to its former repressive totalitarian condition. In Afghanistan, we know the Taliban will move, almost instantly, to re-establish their control of the Afghanis and the drug trade.

Frankly, I do not believe the Obama Regime cares, one way or the other. All the evidence tells us Obama just wants out of both theatres of war. As Commander-in-Chief he is demoralizing our troops. As President, he is emboldening our enemies and demoralizing our allies.

As a wartime president Obama is pitifully lacking. But, then again, that can be said of all other aspects of his presidency, as well. Pitiful.

J. D. Longstreet

Will The US Military Be Disenfranchised this November?

Will The US Military Be Disenfranchised this November?
Will Those Fighting To Protect The Right To Vote Not Have Their Votes Counted?
A commentary by J. D. Longstreet

There is concern that Obama’s DOJ, under the leadership of Eric Holder, the US Attorney General, might not be enforcing the new Military and Overseas Voter Empowerment (MOVE) Act as vigorously as they should.

The MOVE Act, which was passed last October, is supposed to ensure that servicemen and women serving overseas have plenty of time to get in their absentee ballots. However, if the DOJ does not enforce this law by holding the states to compliance, thousands of ballots from US military personnel serving overseas, including in Iraq and Afghanistan, may not arrive back in the home state of the soldier, sailor, Airman, or Marine, in time to be counted in the November 2nd Mid-Term Election.

Eric Eversole, director of the Military Voter Protection Project, a new organization devoted to ensuring military voting rights has said: “It is an absolute shame that the section appears to be spending more time finding ways to avoid the MOVE Act, rather than finding ways to ensure that military voters will have their votes counted… ” Mr. Eversole continued: “The Voting Section seems to have forgotten that it has an obligation to enforce federal law, not to find and raise arguments for states to avoid these laws.” (SOURCE)
The MOVE act requires states to send absentee ballots to overseas military troops 45 days before an election, but a state can apply for a waiver if it can prove a specific “undue hardship” in enforcing it.

Senator Jon Cornyn, Republican of Texas, was one of the co-sponsors of the Move Act. On July 26th he wrote to Attorney General Eric Holder and complained that he is concerned that the DOJ is allowing states to opt out of compliance with the Move Act. In a statement to Fox News Senator Cornyn said: “Military voters have been disenfranchised for decades, and last year Congress acted.” Cornyn went on to say: “But according to recent information, the Department of Justice has expressed reluctance to protect the civil rights of military voters under the new law. All our men and women in uniform deserve a chance to vote this November, and the Obama administration bears responsibility for ensuring that they have it.”

Cornyn continued: “For far too long in this country, we have failed to adequately protect the right of our troops and their families to participate in our democratic process. The MOVE Act was supposed to end this sad history. The right to participate in democratic elections is fundamental to the American experience.” (SOURCE)

At least seven states, plus the District of Columbia and the US Virgin Islands, have filed requests for waivers with the USDOJ. If those waivers are granted those states will not have to send ballots to their servicemen and servicewomen overseas on time. That means, even if they DO receive their ballots and get them filled out and mailed back, they will not arrive in their home states in time to be counted.

The list of states, Districts, and US Territories asking for waivers: Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, the Virgin Islands, Washington, and District of Columbia. (SOURCE) (We believe this list to be incomplete as some news organizations are reporting as many as twelve states; others are reporting ten states, etc.)

Understand, it is the Department of Defense, which will make the final decision on whether the waivers will, or will not, be granted. BUT, it is the job of the Department of Justice to see that the law is enforced.

With the democrats set to receive a well deserved drubbing this November, it will not be surprising if those waivers are granted.

The MOVE ACT contains a waiver provision, which allows states to exempt out of the requirements by demonstrating an extreme emergency. BUT, that state must also submit a plan that provides sufficient time for military voters to have their vote counted.

Where is the outrage from the citizens of those states? Isn’t it past time to fire off a letter, an e-mail, or just pick up the phone and call the Secretary of State’s office in that state -- or the state Board of Elections, and demand that they get those ballots to those US citizens who are putting their lives on the line – daily -- to protect the right to vote for ALL Americans, including themselves.

There is something very wrong about disenfranchising a soldier serving his/her country overseas, especially in a time of war. As my father would have said: “If we can put a man on the moon, surely we can get a ballot to a soldier in the field and back in time to be counted.”

This is wrong, folks. Just plain WRONG!

J. D. Longstreet

Should God Apologize To Sodom And Gomorrah?

Should God Apologize To Sodom And Gomorrah?

A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet

***************

"This year, I will work with Congress and our military to finally repeal the law that denies gay Americans the right to serve the country they love because of who they are. It's the right thing to do." … B. H. Obama President of the United States in his State of the Union Address January 27th, 2010.

There is an old expression that says: "If God does not destroy America the He owes an apology to Sodom and Gomorrah!" It seems more applicable today than ever before.

Look, having a known homosexual in a military unit disrupts that unit’s cohesiveness. If it happens to be a combat unit, lives are at stake.

Homosexuality is even splitting apart mainline religious denominations in America and around the world… and you REALLY think it will not disrupt the US Military? Get REAL, PLEASE!

As a subscriber to the Christian faith, I believe homosexuality is an sinful lust forbidden by God. In the scriptures we are told that God, himself, said to His people Israel, "Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22). "If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" (Leviticus 20:13). In these passages homosexuality is condemned as a sexual perversion. It is considered a “Prime Sin.” As a Christian I cannot change how God views homosexuality and I cannot turn my back on it and say that well, times have changed, and God must change too. THAT is blasphemy.

Now, before some of you point out the obvious, that this scripture is from the OLD Testament; I give you Saint Paul’s view of Homosexuality from the NEW Testament. (Paul is the Apostle credited with bringing the Christian faith to the Gentiles of the world.) Paul wrote a letter to the people of the Christian church in Corinth. In that letter Paul said the following: “ Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10- nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”
It could not be any clearer. Homosexuality is condemned in the scriptures just as murder, adultery, premarital sex, kidnapping, lying, and idolatry are condemned.

Back to the incompatibility of Homosexuality with the military: “Homosexuality is simply incompatible with the principles of military services, which include a focus on the mission, service, discipline, bodily integrity, and control over one's impulses. Homosexuality does not appropriately reflect these principles.” This sentiment was reflected in an article signed by Gen. Carl E. Mundy, Jr., a former commandant of the Marine Corps; Adm. Leighton W. Smith, a former commander of U.S. Naval Forces Europe; Gen. Charles A. Horner, who commanded U.S. aerial forces during the 1990-91 Gulf War; and Adm. Jerome L. Johnson, a former vice chief of Naval Operations. They wrote, succinctly, "Homosexuality is incompatible with military service". Read the article HERE.

In 2008, the Republican Party Platform said the following: "To protect our servicemen and women and ensure that America's Armed Forces remain the best in the world, we affirm the timeliness of those values, the benefits of traditional military culture, and the incompatibility of homosexuality with military service." Read the article HERE.

Many retired military officers, including several who were top commanders, have urged President Barack Obama and Congress to maintain the law that bars gays from serving openly in the armed forces. They claim openly serving homosexuals would undermine recruiting and retention, impact leadership at all levels, have adverse effects on the willingness of parents who lend their sons and daughters to military service, and eventually break the All-Volunteer Force. They, too, believe that repeal of the current law, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” could jeopardize morale and “unit cohesion.” Read the article HERE.

Back in June of 2006, I wrote the following: “As a veteran, when I served, a homosexual was not allowed in the service, period. If they did manage to get in, as soon as they were found out, they were gone. And it was quick.

I remember, in July of 1959, at Fort Jackson, South Carolina, as we stood in formation on Tank Hill, we recruits were instructed to immediately turn in any in our ranks we suspected might be homosexual. We were led to believe that if we knew, and did not turn them in, we were in danger of being kicked out of the service as well.

I liked that. It gave me a certain confidence in my fellow soldiers… that they were who they said they were.

In my time in the US Army there was no such thing as privacy. You did everything as a unit. You slept in the same room, you showered together, you ate together, and you even relived yourself in full view of all the other soldiers who happened to be in the latrine at the same time. There were no “stalls” with toilets in them. There was a line of toilets, in a row, and it was quit possible for two soldiers to have a conversation, while relieving themselves, sitting on those toilets. Did I mention there was no privacy? I did, didn’t I?

It was important that a soldier knew his fellow soldier was the same gender as himself.”
My opinion has not changed.

There is no effort here to “gay-bash.” I am merely expressing my opinion as a Veteran of the US Military and as one who subscribes to the Christian faith.

For the record, I do not care a whit what other country’s militaries do. They can have all homosexual regiments for all I care. But, I DO care what the US military does.

Public support of the US military is vital to their morale and their effectiveness as a fighting force. Allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the US military will rob them of the support they now enjoy from the American public. It will destroy the All Volunteer Force we have so painstakingly built up. That means the return of the draft.

I do not support the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. I support the old policy of not allowing homosexuals to serve in any branch of the US Military -- at all.

J. D. Longstreet

Making Babies in the US Military

Making Babies in the US Military
A Commentary by J. D. Longstreet
************************************

"The U.S. Military commander in northern Iraq defended on Tuesday a new policy imposing strict penalties, including possible jail time, for troops who become pregnant or get other soldiers pregnant. "In this 22,000-soldier task force, I need every soldier I've got, especially since we are facing a draw down of forces during our mission," Major General Tony Cucolo, who commands U.S. soldiers in northern Iraq, said in a statement. His policy applies only to his command." (Read the entire article HERE.)

It is a "No-No!" You can look but you cannot touch. Well, that rule works about as well today as it did way back when chaperones were in vogue.

See, once again, we are messing with Mother Nature. And it never works! At least, it never works out well.

With all the babies being conceived at the front lines in the two wars in the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Iraq, another of the socialist government's social experiments has failed.

Let me see how plain I can make this: Even a complete fool, a blathering idiot, an imbecile, a Moran, knows -- without a shadow of a doubt -- that if you put young men and young women together in an environment where hormones surge continuously they will find each other and they will copulate. It is Mother Nature's way of insuring the survival of the species.

Everybody KNOWS this instinctively. Except, it would seem, for the feminists among us who deny the existence of natural law. Call it what you will -- when you deny that young men and young women will not find a way to engage in sex ANYWHERE, including the battlefield, then you are denying the existence of such a thing as natural law.

OK. Just so the record is clear. I do not believe there is a role for women in combat, anywhere, anytime, under any circumstances. PERIOD! Women are the sacred "givers of life." Without women the human species would die out -- and quickly. Women should be protected, at all costs, even at the cost of the male's life.

Nature (God, if you please.) created the male and the female differently with different characteristics. The male was made larger, muscular, and more aggressive. The female was made smaller but with the ability to hold within her body a new life which, when fully developed, would emerge as a brand new human being. The female would perpetuate life, she would insure that the human species would survive on this garden planet which was given us as our home.

The point is, if there were no female combat soldiers, the military would not be facing this problem. "Oh," but you say, "There are no American women serving in combat roles in the US Military!" That is pure "bovine scatology!" If you believe that I have a hell of a deal on a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to talk with you about!

Woman soldiers have been fighting, in combat, in Iraq and Afghanistan right from the start. Their roles have been disguised as truck drivers and security for convoys, helo pilots, tanker pilots, etc, etc. The ruse goes on. They are out there getting shot at and shooting back. And, in my opinion, they ought not be anywhere near the battlefield! There are plenty of jobs for women in the military -- in the rear areas -- completely away from combat. Filling those jobs with women would free up the men, now sitting behind computer monitors, to grab a rifle and a pack and get their dead rear ends to the front and engage the enemy!

Want to know how our politically correct military is handling the situation of so many pregnant soldiers at the front? Take a look at this: "The military's solution, instead, is to promote total abstinence, which let's face it, is entirely unrealistic. Cucolo's policy also prohibits soldiers from having sex with Iraqis or from spending the night with a member of the opposite sex unless married or granted explicit permission. Instead, the military might fare better if they provided reliable access to birth control for soldiers, both male and female."
You may read the entire article HERE.

Back in my day in the US Army we were issued "Pro-Kits" when we received a three-day, or a weekend, pass. It was understood that we were going to have sex with an accommodating female as soon as possible and as often as possible. You could always tell when it was "Pay Day" on the Post without ever glancing at a calendar. The main streets of the Post would suddenly be filled with automobiles, filled to capacity, with women of all descriptions flaunting their wares and assuring us they would be waiting to fulfill our dreams just outside the front gates. And they always were.

Within my first week as a soldier in the US Army my company was marched over to the WAC (Women's Army Corp) barracks and we were lectured while standing just outside the wire fence that surrounded that forbidden land. We were told in no uncertain terms that if we were caught on the other side of that wire we would be shot -- period-- end of discussion! You know, I believed them!

I think it is admirable for a young woman to want to serve her country in the US Military. But, I also think her service should be confined to a military occupation that insures her safety far from the killing and dying. She should NEVER be in danger. But then, I am "an old foggie", a believer in chivalry, a man who was reared to respect women, and time has passed me by. So say some.

Forgive me if I see no respect for women by placing them in harm's way on the battlefield -- even if they demand it. The complete idiocy of such a policy says much about a nation's care for its citizens. Placing women in combat positions breaks the foremost rule of Nature, and it will insure the downfall the nation that makes it a practice and it places the entire human species in danger of extinction. How DUMB is THAT?!

Had those female soldiers not been there to begin with, this problem would never have come up.

Woman in combat is just plain DUMB! And you wonder why America can no longer win a war? Really? I mean, do you REALLY wonder about that?

J. D. Longstreet