The American Spectator : Memorial Musings

Text Size

Memorial Musings

Ray Mabus should sober up. He's Navy Secretary, not a social engineer.

Memorial Day is an emotionally complex holiday, mixing sadness at the loss and suffering of so many Americans, appreciation for the selfless and patriotic sacrifices made through the generations, and pride and gratitude that we have a country worth the devotion that has been lavished on it by so many.

The day can be a melancholy business at the Thornberry household because my wife's father, a member of the West Point class of 1934, did not survive World War II. I have my own honorable discharge. But my job in the U.S. Navy during the early days of the Vietnam war was to help keep the Viet Cong out of the Mediterranean and the North Atlantic. Hardly onerous duty compared to what so many of my age-mates had to endure, many of whom paid the ultimate price.

More seriously, my shipmates on the destroyer USS Conyngham and I were taking time out of our lives to help keep the commie hordes to the east from overrunning Western Europe. We were there because the political leaders of a by-then recovered Europe had made the choice not to re-arm themselves in any serious way because Uncle Sam had shown a willingness to defend the independence Europeans no longer cared much about.

Considering what the countries of Old Europe have made of themselves, perhaps we should have let the commie hordes have them. The French would have driven the commissars nuts. And the KGB would have had the Islamists shot. But I digress.

Now while honoring the individuals who've died defending America, we must worry about entire American military services being imperiled by left-wing social engineering run amuck. Some of the offenses are simply aesthetic, such as the Navy's intention of naming a cargo ship after union activist Cesar Chavez. (Can the USS Saul Alinsky be far behind?) Others are more serious.

For decades the military services have dealt, with varying levels of success and failure (and a lot of disingenuous PR), with the chaos and lowering of physical standards brought about by the thoroughly post-everything and counter-intuitive notion that women as well as men should be and can be warriors. We've yet to learn how open homosexuals will fit into the intimate, 24-7 military life. And somehow American combat units manage to perform well even while being obliged to play Mother-May-I with gaggles of JAG officers who second-guess their every move.

The latest frontier in the sexual correctness over mission obsession is Navy Secretary Ray Mabus's intention of assigning women sailors to super-crowded submarines. Submarine crew members live and work so much in each other's back pockets that they must pass psychological exams to determine if they can deal with the closeness. Left ideologues wishing to assign women to submarine duty may as well go the little distance left and assign men and women sailors to the same bunks.

While the country is still celebrating the success of Navy SEALs in sending Osama bin Laden to hell where he belongs, we learn that Mabus, a former naval officer himself but now little more than a courtier, is considering endangering this elite of the elites branch by obliging them to accept women members.

Can he really mean it? Or is he just keeping the left happy by teasing them with this absurdity? I've seen Mabus' picture. He doesn't look like a fool. And he's from Mississippi where there are many sensible people.

"It's my notion that women should have the same opportunities as men in the Navy," Mabus told the Navy Times. He added that the only reason he has a teensy hesitation in opening up SEAL training for women is, "some of the physical things you've got to go through to be a SEAL."

Ya think? Anyone who wishes to water down the physical side of SEALs' training and missions to a level where Demi Moore actually could be a SEAL is in the total grip of leftist ideology. And anyone in a position of power to make this part of the NOW wish list national policy is as big a threat to America's security as a foreign enemy.

Civilian control of the military is absolutely necessary in a democratic republic. But this sort of nonsense should remind Americans that it's vitally important which civilians we put in control. Both political parties in America have saddled our military with too many political and social work deployments (see Haiti), and have treated the services as clay to mold in the shape of their own political and cultural phantasms.

With the right folks in charge we could honor our troops by recognizing that their only mission is to discourage our enemies from attacking us, and, failing that, to close with and destroy our enemies. There's no room in this stark and absolutely necessary assignment for social engineering. None. Sorry, Demi. Sober up, Ray.

About the Author

Larry Thornberry is a writer in Tampa.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (41) | Leave a comment

John Daniel| 5.31.11 @ 7:21AM

The fruits of college deferment during Vietnam. A generation of future politicans out of uniform and clueless. Add to that the McNamara we-are-IBM-managers-in-funny-suits mentality with future generals and admirals as CEO's rather than leaders, then this result is no surprise.

Alan Brooks| 5.31.11 @ 8:17PM

Long as you know that America will not be #1 forever: if the British, who were much tougher than America, couldn't stay on top neither can America.

Roman Empire
Britannia
the Soviet Empire.
ALL GONE

Michael Tomlinson| 5.31.11 @ 7:27AM

Is Mabus the reincarnation of McNamara. This guy is a joke and once he's out the new SECNAV should immediately reverse all of his policies including the naming of ships.

Bravo Zulu to the Washington Times and Mr. Thornberry for unmasking this abysmal failure who typifies all that is wrong with the sinking SS Obama.

Stormzeye| 5.31.11 @ 7:44AM

Great piece. Your take on what I call the "feminization of America" is exactly on point. We discarded merit for inclusiveness and the muscularity of defense with fire and steel for the nurturing of social work deployments whose goal is "nation building". The adoption of the feminine virtues of caring and cooperative outreach to the world's oppressed victims will only cause our military to become as corrupt, confused and feckless as it's political leadership whose only objective is re-election at any cost.

PCC| 5.31.11 @ 10:29AM

Agree and Agree!

Kris Lepine| 5.31.11 @ 8:30AM

Years ago I watched a TV program highlighting the differences between men and women. The NOW women they interjected into the program were irate. Gloria Allred went so far as to say, and I quote, "you should not be doing this program".

The Navy must have been watching and agreed with Ms Allred, because common sense is off the table in our country and replaced by PC.

I wonder how navy wives will feel about this. Secretary Mabus should ask his what she thinks.

Paul| 5.31.11 @ 8:33AM

Might as well let them serve on subs, they have already ruined combat readiness on carriers. On aircraft carriers you have 5000 plus men 90 % of which are under the age of 26. You put 200 women or whatever it is on those ships, and johnny is thinking about getting into his ship mates pants, not doing his job. Then you put an openly homosexual man in the berthing area to really destroy crew unity. You could not pick a better way to destroy combat readiness.

Pecos Pete| 5.31.11 @ 10:18AM

Paul, you are on target. I was in the U.S. Navy for six years, long ago, and can guarantee that termination of the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy will result in loss of combat readiness. The law of unintended consequences will surprise the PC commanders. There will be sailors lost overboard and other acts of violence. Women serving in close quarters with men will result in increased divorces and many more onboard pregnancies. Finally, there will be a reduction in discipline and lowered morale as the commissioned officers struggle with the new PC rules.

PCC| 5.31.11 @ 10:31AM

I have not served in the armed forces, but this must be true.

Hillel| 5.31.11 @ 8:35AM

If you recall the original Atomic subs would surface every four years for the crew to re-enlist. Now we can re-right that, The boats will surface every 10 months to the children can be baptised.

JimP| 5.31.11 @ 9:31AM

Mabus is from Mississippi? No doubt the spawn of some scalawag and a carpetbagger. Ooops, my Southern heritage slipped out. 'I apologize to anyone offended by my remarks.'

Remember back in the 70's when the feminazis condescendingly claimed that if women were running things there would be no more war, blah, blah given their more peaceful, less aggressive natures, unafflicted with testosterone? About a decade later they were insisting on being allowed to be warriors along side the men so they could "... kill. Period". Let's have all female ships and platoons and Seal Teams and separate but equal gay brigades etc. Then the brasshats can compare the combat effectiveness of the various units....... Wait a minute. That might prove that the old system was what worked. Can't have that.

John Navratil| 5.31.11 @ 9:56AM

JimP,

It's just another group claiming Accredited Victim Status. Of course, the peace-loving female politicians exist and have been unfairly denied their place. Same thing with the war-loving Amazons. The solution is always in another program to root out discrimination, find that individual who has been unfairly treated and make it right (poor Karen Hultgren.) Remember, that we males cannot know our own minds and are, no doubt, unaware of the discrimination we harbour.

Petronius| 5.31.11 @ 9:47AM

Half the cabinet officers in our government have the job of disbursing the take and assigning the perks. They don't really manage their departments, but have become secretaries of pity. They must insure "fairness" and keep all the losers in line until next November. The officer corps of the services are now trained to PC at their academies. The army even has chaplains billets for witches!
There is only one way to reverse this recipe for disaster. Every able bodied male of average intelligence or better without a juvenile police record must be required to serve in our military before going on to college or entering the workforce. The level of maturity will definitely improve and we will not be saddled with so many dysfunctional drooling idiots lacking the acumen to be doormen at Walmart, and believe that the government is a substitute for mommy.

John Navratil| 5.31.11 @ 10:03AM

Pertonius,

Be careful what you wish for, you might just get it. At least with the volunteer armed services you get people who want to be there and who appear to be above the national average in many ways.

This issue isn't about the services compelling the individual, but the individual compelling the service. The tail is wagging the dog.

Petronius| 5.31.11 @ 1:53PM

Many a soldier who didn't have an attention span exceeding 30 seconds upon induction usually left the service as a competent adult among my generation. Those D I's took the weenies who couldn't make the team at school and forced them to become responsible, productive, and inculcated the understanding of every man's obligation to establish and maintain himself in society as an individual. The Swiss Army goes one better. Anyone scheduled for service who refuses gets banished from their country.

John Navratil| 5.31.11 @ 5:00PM

Petronius,

I knew people who benefited, as well. I was Navy ROTC - wanting to bounce planes off boats - until my eyes gave up. At that point, our relationship cooled and I suspect I would not have had a very successful career. After all, if I only wanted the Navy on my terms I would have been no better than that which we decry.

Some countries do as you suggest. Others suggest compulsory service is tantamount to slavery (Walter Williams, for example). I don't think any country can banish a citizen - imprison them perhaps.

I don't dismiss your suggestion out of hand, but like it a lot better the way it is today than the way it was in Viet Nam.

Pelligrino| 5.31.11 @ 5:00PM

I think Petronious has a more than valid point. One great reason for conscription across the board of ALL MALES (no females) is that then you have 45-60% of the males who are not all gung-ho about military life , who do their duty, question authority appropriately, and who aren't hook, line, and sinker 'careerists.'

They'll look more that skeptically at the make-work nonsense that is very routine; they'll balk at PC crap.

It is the careerists in our military that have destroyed it. It is precisely these me-me-me focused on their precious 20-year+ career (all those juicy, excessive retirement benefits) that make today's military just a "Yes Man" yippy-skippy world.

And that is an ongoing national security crisis of epic proportions.

That will also be our demise.

Incidentally, women are already slated for subs; they will either soon or have just completed thehir training. The first female ensigns for this duty graduated from the USNA at Annapolis ONE YEAR AGO.

So...it is already too late.

Derek Leaberry| 5.31.11 @ 10:35AM

The military is just another institution that political conservatism refuses to defend. Don't expect a "conservative" Mitt Romney, "conservative" Tim Pawlenty or a "conservative" Sarah Palin to change the Obama policy if they are elected in 2012. As for the "Conservative Movement", as it is fancifully called, expect them to do little or nothing to reverse the Left's social engineering of the military on any issue, from it's feminization to it's homosexualization to rabid use of affirmative action.

Pelligrino| 5.31.11 @ 5:11PM

One of the many Leftist aims in non-stop pushing of greater feminization of our military and gay/lesbian 100% integration is destruction of the Chrisitan chaplaincy -- the majority of what comprises the chaplaincy.

Leftist lawyers with entire teams of thugs are poised for the first whiff of a chaplain who counsels a gay or lesbian soldier or sailor that the military lifestyle/a military 4-10 year time of service just might not be the right vocation.

Then look out! That chaplain will be reamed and pilloried from coast to coast. And the whole issue of why have chaplains will ensue.

What national level conservatives see this coming and are doing anything to thwart it?

Any man (who is a real man + one with a brain) who has served in mixed (male/female) units and in male only, that man would vote with his feet forevermore to only again serve in all male outfits.

When you got 19-24% female component as a percentage of the whole, well, it just isn't military at all anymore.

Joe D.| 5.31.11 @ 10:51AM

Larry Thornberry you are right on target. We need are real comander and Chief. Not this phony in the White House who hates the military.

chris haynes| 5.31.11 @ 11:24AM

What mission?

We're borrowing $180 billion a year from our Chineese friends for the navy.

"their only mission is to discourage our enemies from attacking us, and, failing that, to close with and destroy our enemies"

$180 billion is a lot of money. Who are these enemies?

Bob Grant| 5.31.11 @ 11:45AM

As long as there's no "female" version of SEALs training, who cares about what gender participates in the program.

Pzkfw| 5.31.11 @ 1:10PM

Both grandfathers were killing Russian communists in the 40's...One spent 8 years as a POW, returning to Germany in the 50's ...America...you're welcome.

Happy Memorial Day

Clint| 5.31.11 @ 4:24PM

My Dad & His Troopers spent their time in the 40's killin' Krauts from Normandy,to Paris, to The Bulge, into & through Germany, until linking up with The Russkies in Czechoslovakia.

Thanks Kraut.

Happy Octoberfest.

John Navratil| 5.31.11 @ 5:07PM

Clint,

And if the Allies hadn't pulled up short waiting for the Russkies to claim their divided spoils a lot more Czech patriots would have remained alive.

Signed,
American son of Czech resistance.

Pzkfw| 5.31.11 @ 5:21PM

Your Dad is a warrior and deserves that recognition. On the other hand, it took the entire planet to defeat the Krauts, and it took the allies (not just the Americans) almost a year to defeat my relatives after the invasion.

Sort of the American way...show up at the end, and take all the credit (WWI, WWII). It was the Russians that defeated the Germans..the allies simply closed the door after the party was over.

BUT..Not the case when we look at defeating the Mexico, CSA, Spain, Pirates, Japan, North Korea, Granada, Iraq...but not the Germans..oh and the North Vietnamese

Lawrence D. Cannon| 5.31.11 @ 11:14PM

My grandpa & his brothers got farming deferments. The US was probably better off without them in the military.

dave clowes, sr| 5.31.11 @ 3:26PM

the only appropriate use of the military is to bend our national enemies to our will by the threat or actual use of force. what contributes to the ability to do so is correct. what does not so contribute is an error.

KellyHopkinsville| 5.31.11 @ 3:49PM

I thought Demi Moore was a man. I mean, all that woman stuff was just ILM special effects, right? Besides, lots of people are afraid of Demi Moore. I know I am.

chris haynes| 5.31.11 @ 4:51PM

$180 billion a year.
I thought conservaitves cared about spending.

We're borrowing that much money, from China, for the Navy. What do we get for it?

$180 billion, that's 8 times what we blow on food stamps. Double what we blow on secondary eduaction. There should be a good answer.

I see this: "the only appropriate use of the military is to bend our national enemies to our will by the threat or actual use of force".

Okay, who are these enemies? How are we bending their will?

Richard Baker| 5.31.11 @ 5:43PM

Haynes:
Your gibberish about funding is just that. Do you have any lucid thoughts to share or is the entire concept of National Defense just a parlor game to you? You don't know who our enemies are? Maybe the hallucinogenics (help me here Occam) must have really "messed your mind."

NWBill| 5.31.11 @ 6:15PM

I think the question of whether women can serve in all areas of the Navy (or any other service, for that matter) probably needs to be answered - but I'm wary of making sudden changes in the military that hinder unit cohesion and morale. It's not about social engineering or equality; it's about fielding the best and most qualified warriors in defense of this country. The military is NOT like regular life, and should not be held to the same standards at all times. History (and common sense) prove this. But, in today's modern, technological world, the question needs an answer. If that means including women in all areas and at all levels, then I say let's find out. If a woman can handle - WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS - the training males go through to be a Navy SEAL, then they get in. If they can't, they don't. And I don't think that means feminists have lost; it just means that when you need the SEALs, you need the best. If they're all men - who cares? You think Osama was checking gender when he was visited by the SEALs?

Pelligrino| 6.1.11 @ 12:19AM

You cannot have females with males (or homosexuals within the general unit population) and not have a week-to-week, daily powderkeg.

The writer above had it right: The average ages in all units are well under 30.

This entire population is over-sexed in all their thinking, interests, proclivities, but under-intercoursed (in their firm opinions). They want more "action," and they want it all the time.

They look for any and all and EVERY opportunity to discuss and act upon their desires.

It may not be EVERY day, but then it is CERTAINLY every other day. And if they cannot actually do the deed it is only due to constraints (e.g. not enough females around) they would alter in a nanosecond.

And that is a DAILY leadership, cohesion, and combat/mission effectiveness non-starter.

People may think this crude (and it is), but this is the way the majority of the people who gravitate to military duty behave.

If you have a resonably decent looking daughter in the military and she'll talk candor, then she'll tell you she is propositioned in every way imaginable ALL THE TIME.

Matters not one wit whether she is married or not.

Negro X| 5.31.11 @ 7:01PM

Mabus, Roughead and Mullens, I have worked for them all, all are nothing but PC establishment appeasers groveling for attention.

Rurik| 6.1.11 @ 12:21AM

Years ago in Viet Nam, I tried to object to my transfer from an engineer line platoon to a cushier and presumably safer REMF position. This resulted in a severe lecture from my commander that the army did not exist for my personal self-fulfillment, and that I should serve where I was needed. That is a lesson which a lot a girlies of both sexes seem never to have learned. Nor is the service there to provide anyone's career. Which the star rankes have not learned either.

ティファニー通販| 6.1.11 @ 3:20AM

hard to work

dee see| 6.1.11 @ 7:05AM

--Speaking of Memorial Day--

CATCH how this Monday's Anniversary of the
perpetually 'EUGENICS friendly' KOREAN WAR
doesn't even rate a qualtiy mention as our 4 decades of
systematic cultural degradation,
sellout and Globalist RED China TREASON
rounds the final bend.

GET A GOOD LONG LOOK-----------------------------

ADM| 6.1.11 @ 1:38PM

Mr. Thornberry deserves credit for highlighting the degree to which the services have hidden the changes and effects of integrating women. The reason why none of this has seemed to have an effect on combat, though, is fairly straightforward: we have not fought anyone remotely competitive during this entire period and so our forces have not been stressed to anything like a realistic level. Moreover, the ground combat units that have carried the bulk of the fight are still all-male. We will be in a lot of trouble if we fight an enemy with comparable air and naval forces, an ability to attack our satellites and communications systems, and to attack our rear areas and supply lines.

Clayton Conger| 6.1.11 @ 2:58PM

Now that DADT is gone, personnel should be assigned to units on the basis of gender and sexual preference. Heterosexual men should be assigned to units where all the women are lesbian. Heterosexual women should be assigned to units where all the men are gay. At least this would lessen the frequency of unappreciated propositions and reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies.