General Dempsey Attacks SpecOps Group for Protesting Whitehouse Leaks

[SASless]

General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, recently attacked a group of former SpecOps and CIA Agents who are protesting the continuing leak of sensitive Classified Information that is alleged to be sourced amongst Obama White House National Security Staff or Senior Advisors to the President.

I felt compelled to tell the General what I thought of his comments about that group and what they are doing.

OPSEC is a very common concern here in this forum and I find it extremely odd that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would find fault with a group that were protesting the leak of operational information and techniques that plainly endanger serving SpecOps forces.

Was I too harsh on the General?




General Dempsey,

I am a former Army Warrant Officer Helicopter Pilot and NCIS Special Agent. I take great offense at your comments about the former and Retired SEALS, SF, CIA and others who are speaking out about the continuing leaks of very classified information which appears to be coming from the White House Staff.

Your criticism of those who are speaking out is wrong headed, absolutely devoid of any consideration of their First Amendment Rights as they are no longer on Active Duty, and who take effective efforts to prevent Active Duty Personnel from violating restrictions against Military Personnel participating in political activities.

They are far more correct in their conduct than is Leon Panetta (SecDef). Panetta, as you well know allowed Military personnel to participate in the Gay Pride events around the country recently while wearing their Uniform.

I might remind you Sir....Gay Pride groups are patently political in their activities.

Are you blind to the hypocrisy in the position you and Panetta demonstrate with your decisions and comments?

I am shocked that you elected to criticize the SpecOps folks as you did.....and did not take a public stand against the Gay Pride participation by Uniformed Personnel.

You are supposed to be the Senior Military Officer in this country and are thereby charged with seeing to the very best interests of those forces.

I view your lack of Honor to be much the same as William Westmoreland's when he traded my generation's lives for his promotion to the number one Soldier's job after his tenure in Vietnam. He sold us out then and Sir....in my view you have sold out the current generation of Soldiers in our military today.

You owe the Troops both an explanation for your comments and an apology for having made them. I see this as being no less an insult to the SpecOps guys than Patton slapping the Soldier. Loyalty is a two way street General....you seemed to have forgotten that.

Instead of criticizing the SpecOps guys you should be leading the effort to get to the source of the leaks they SpecOps guys are protesting about. You appear to have your priorities upside down.

[Old-Duffer]

Well SASless,

The general can have no doubt about the strength of your views but the problem is; will he ever see your letter?

The top brass is protected by a screen of minders who filter out things which, for whatever reason, they don't think the great and good should see. Your best chance of exposing this issue is probably through a sympathetic press. In UK many stories come to the fore because the newspapers (not necessarily national at first) get hold of the story. You might also find an ally in a congressman/senator with a spec ops background.

In Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) the forces lost a big advantage when some of their tracking methods were exposed and in the Falklands conflict, various leaks/speculation endangered military ops. Both these things were revealed by people who couldn't keep their 'gob' shut.

Good Luck

Old Duffer

[Finnpog]

I don't think that you were too harsh on the General.

However, the minute you tied your feedback about leaks into the issue about Gay Pride, you devalued your original point and condemned yourself into looking like a homophobe (in Their eyes).

IMO, you should have stuck to the point and maintained the moral high-ground over the single issue of OPSEC and it being spunked up the wall for the sake of petty political currency.

[Big Pistons Forever]

SASless

The way I read your letter, it seems to me it is less about OPSEC and more about the increasing untenable retrograde anti gay attitude that is regrettably still prevalent in the US Military.

As a straight Reserve member of the Canadian Forces, an organization that recognized gay rights over 15 years ago with zero effect on operational effectiveness I think like the institutional racism against blacks that existed 50 years ago, the Neanderthals in the Military will eventually be left behind as civil society demand they align themselves with what the what the majority have decided is now an unacceptable prejudice

[SASless]

Finn,

I posted that message at his Facebook Page....I bet someone read it!:uhoh:

The point is not Homosexuality or Gays in the Military. The point was the SecDef's pointed approval of allowing the wearing of the Uniform by Active Duty Military folks at the Gay Pride Events which are annual occurrences. In that Letter of Approval it was limited to just this year alone.....out of some sort of idea that a one time approval (Exemption from the Historical Policy of no Uniforms at Political Events, Protests, Rally's) was acceptable in light of the recent ending of DADT in our Military.

My point was to point out that allowing the wearing of the Uniform as approved by SecDef closely followed by Dempsey claiming the Military (even those out of Uniform and no longer on Active Duty) protesting the leaks ,was improper ,directly contradicts the SecDef's decision re Gay Pride events which are very political.

How can Dempsey condemn those not on Active Service and not in uniform....and not say the exact same thing about Active Duty Personnel in Uniform at the Gay Pride events. That is my point.....made by using a very recent and very high profile event that directly flew in the face of historical precedent and existing Military Policy.

At the first National Tea Party gathering in Washington DC, a few Military folks commuting from Work to Home happened to walk through the area where we were gathered. They were not part of the Protest....just simply guys and gals headed home after working in the Capitol Building in some liasion office. They were escorted out of the area by Police and I would bet some sort of report was made to their Command. Most of them pulled rain coats out of their back packs, removed their head gear, and took every effort to appear to be anything but Military upon realizing what they had walked into. That is how strict the rule is...and should be.

Dempsey is wrong....very wrong.

What is the difference between John McCain running for office as a Retired Naval Officer and these Spec Ops guys who are retired and voicing their concerns? Do we ban Retired and former Military people from running for office or participating in the political process they guarded with their lives?

This Dempsey guy is spineless....two faced.....and an embarrassment to those of us who served in the Military and does not warrant any respect at all. He of all people should be banging on doors demanding a full and prompt investigation into the leaks. Serving members are at risk due to the leaks....sources are being compromised.....and I bet lives either have been lost or are going to be lost as a direct result of the leaks.


BPF.....you need to hone your reading comprehension and also remember your history. The US Military was de-segregated by Harry Truman in 1948. The Military led the nation by almost 20 years in that. The Military has complied with the various policies set down re Homosexuals serving. The USMC which had the most resistance to the ending of DADT is leading the services in adopting the new policy. I would suggest your comments show a complete misunderstanding of both our history and the way in which our Miltary adapts to change.

[course_profile]

His criticism is only of people who are giving the impression that the military is aligned with a particular party.

His issue isn't with what they're saying. He even declined to comment on that. This is what he should do, because I don't think senior military figures should criticise the civilian administration in public.

I think you're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. All he says is it's unhelpful to him, which it probably is!

Re the pride march, it's not partisan political in this way and the US Military has officially endorsed equality of sexual preference so I'd say you're comparing apples and pears.

[Pontius Navigator]

SASLess, I agree with Finnpog. Regardless of any of the issues you raised, I think you failed in not maintaining your aim. While you may be valid in everything you say, feature just the main point and hammer that one alone. Westmorland is just an historic distraction. Dempsey, in your letter, would be collateral damage.

Old-duffer's suggestion is the best. I know you have posted the whole letter to his FB page but you can ensure it reached the light of day through an 'agent of influence'.

I know somene who placed a story through a former news editor which caused accute embarassment to the hierarcy who discovered the carpet was smaller than they thought it was.

Find a sympathetic journalist and go from there.

[Trim Stab]

I got as far as your mention of gay-pride, then mentally threw your letter in the bin..

[Training Risky]

I got as far as your mention of gay-pride, then mentally threw your letter in the bin..

So just because you agree with the politicisation of the military when it panders to your particular leanings, it's OK to discard someones entire argument at the first mention of something you don't like?

What an open and pluralist mindset you have.:ugh:

SASless - good luck. We can only hope that the relentless misuse of the Armed Forces as a political tool by the tools in UK/US politics will one day cease.

It may take a coup d' etat first though!

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

SASless,

I also think that, whilst your point regarding OPSEC is perfectly valid, the mention of gay rights detracted from your point. It could - and I might add, probably will - allow the politicians to write you off as a homophobe whose points are invalid. As stated earlier - maintenance of the aim.

Duncs:ok:

[charliegolf]

SAS,

Can you get me Jethro Gibbs' autograph?

CG:ok:

[Trim Stab]

So just because you agree with the politicisation of the military when it panders to your particular leanings, it's OK to discard someones entire argument at the first mention of something you don't like?


No, it wasn't because I don't like his statement, it was just his attempt to link an unrelated issue that triggered my nutter radar. He weakened his entire letter with that sentence.

[baffman]

The US Military was de-segregated by Harry Truman in 1948. The Military led the nation by almost 20 years in that. The Military has complied with the various policies set down re Homosexuals serving. The USMC which had the most resistance to the ending of DADT is leading the services in adopting the new policy. I would suggest your comments show a complete misunderstanding of both our history and the way in which our Miltary adapts to change. Good stuff! :ok:

Not doubting the OP's sincerity, but it's an election year, and there might be more to this controversy than meets the eye.

Joint Chiefs Chairman, Special Ops Officers Condemn 'Shameful' Anti-Obama Groups | ThinkProgress (http://thinkprogress.org/security/2012/08/22/725291/dempsey-special-ops-anti-obama-groups/?mobile=nc)

That's one biased version from one side of the political divide. There is plenty from the other side as well.

None of which detracts from the OP's right to criticise. The same point has been made in the UK about the hypocrisy of encouraging uniformed military participation in Gay Pride events. It isnt (necessarily) a homophobic point of view. The OP's drafting might have made this clearer.

[Lonewolf_50]

The OPSEC degradation problem is older than this administration, but this administration has done BLOODY FA to fix the problem.

Pols have been leaking stuff for their own reasons for decades, and please recall that :mad: J. Deutsch who took home stuff classified high enough that had I done so, as a serving officer, I'd still be in Leavenworth.

End of rant.

General Dempsey forgot rule number one: never overlook a chance to keep your mouth shout.

[Finnpog]

SASless.
As I said earlier - I think that they way you tried to align the two issues devalues your critical point about OPSEC breaches endangering lives.

If your point is about increased politicisation of the military - then a better rant would be to condemn all of the stage-managed photo opportunities which the Chief Execs (POTUS / CinC in your corner of the world & the PM over this side of the Atlantic) are portrayed with a host of service personnel being used to "demonstrate the Leader's commitment to the military and to Truth, Justice and the Western Way).

Wearing the military as a 'badge' of virility for their own political ends and personal benefits devalues us all, particularly when the Covenant is something quickly swept under the carpet as necessity bites.

Think more like a Scout-Sniper when you make the point.

[The Sultan]

The value Gen Dempsey puts on Sasless's rant: $0

What it costs to be a certified "Seal Boater" (besides loosing all respect): $13 on Ebay for your Trident, another $20 if you want to "have been awarded" the Medal of Honor

For Sasless to out himself as such a right wing Tea Partier (see SAS I did not say Tea Bagger): Priceless

The Sultan

[SASless]

Sultan.....you plainly ignore repeated attempts by many here to convince you that passing up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut and only appear stupid would be of real advantage to you.

What's wrong....too much heat in Jet Blast to suit you?

[Robert Cooper]

Unfortunately, Dempsey is acting like a political hack for Obama, and for a man still in uniform that is not on. The folks he is talking about are veterans who are no longer in uniform, and they have the first amendment rights that they spent most of their lives defending. Dempsey should keep his mouth shut.

Bob C

[ihoharv]

Some people just cannot get used to a black man being POTUS can they..? Why are they so "un-American?"

[SASless]

There I was thinking he was of Mixed Race.....fancy that....Obama is Black!

I guess he is the "second" Black President then as Bill "Bubba" Clinton claimed the title of being the "First Black President" years ago.

Also...if we use the Liberal Media's Zimmerman Rule....that would make Obama a White Black!

[Robert Cooper]

I suppose it was inevitable that some left-wing socialist would try and play the race card to obscure the issue. It matters not whether POTUS is black, white, yellow, pink or whatever, it is not un-american to to oppose someone bent on destroying the country. Some of the folks Dempsey commented on happen to be black too.

Bob C

[TheWestCoast]

I am consistently stunned by the conspiratorial nonsense spouted by those on the right wing of this country's political spectrum.

[Rosevidney1]

For what little cheer it may afford him, I'm with SASless. The services are getting increasingly politicised and I think everyone is against that as it is contrary to our military ethos.

[SOSL]

SAS... your letter in the o.p. is far too long, slightly self serving and not properly focussed on your main point.

Your subsequent posts on this thread don't seem to make sense and also seem to be pointless.

Just get a grip and stop showing off!

Rgds SOS

[SOSL]

Bob C - are you for real ??

Rgds SOS

[Lonewolf_50]

SOSL, I suspect Rob Cooper cares a bit more about America than you do, given his locale and yours. (in the area under the name).

Whether or not his estimation of the president's aims is closer or further from the truth is a matter of opinion.

[Robert Cooper]

SOSL

Most of us conservative veterans over here see a real problem with the policies of the current Administration. You folks over there are not seeing the day to day violations of our constitution. We the People want to see our government return to the principles of that constitution. The elections this November are going to be the most significant this century for America. I am a patriot and am prepared to go on the line if necessary.

Bob C

[SASless]

RC.....SOSL is just a troll....don't waste your time on him/her.

[Pontius Navigator]

SOSL is no troll; read his other posts.

The majority commenting here as Stateside and clearly hold strong beliefs in what they say. On our side of the pond I don't think any of us have expressed a view on the topic but on the way in which SASless has chosen to express his view.

We all favour the single rapier thrust rather than the slashing sabre. That probably says as much about our psychic as yours, but we all clearly support you SASLess.

[SOSL]

Wot he said!

Rgds SOS

[SOSL]

Well done for spotting the location under the name.

Rgds SOS

[Tankertrashnav]

We all favour the single rapier thrust rather than the slashing sabre. That probably says as much about our psychic as yours, but we all clearly support you SASLess.


P-N , clearly we all don't if you read the thread. I for one don't.

[Pontius Navigator]

TTN, oil and water :)

[TT2]

Well, the Dutch seemed to have done o.k. with a politised military. The most mercenary bunch of trade union sea lawyers I have ever met in my life are. 1) RN 2) RAF.
No, I am not ex Army.

[SOSL]

I don't think I support the view SASLess is making; but I'm not sure, because his letter is kinda difficult to follow. Too many digressions and too much vitriol never helps. Better plan is a short letter, to the point and maybe a touch of sarcasm if you really want to get it off your chest.

Rgds SOS

[Heathrow Harry]

Where did the spirit of compromise go in the USA - they all seem to take extreme positions at the drop of a hat

when someone says they are willing "to go on the line if necessary" we are a very short step away from the Oklahoma City bombers and their ilk

[SOSL]

I've just re-skim-read this thread.

CG - # 11 ... I'd rather have Abbi's autograph - Beagle has Susan Hampshire in his heart; I have Abbi from NCIS!!

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRPbu4pbUwv-WCNIRFzZr71d80zu3oX-k9w2Mlmk0EUD1vJ5BaA9ZWZaWs (http://www.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://images.buddytv.com/usrimages/usr3531489/3531489_out956907-web_400_400_16384.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.buddytv.com/ncis/user-quizzes/abby---how-much-do-you-know-about-her--600000489.aspx&usg=__Aj1xwHEKQwoC5IHo9I2RuXeIw6Q=&h=400&w=322&sz=20&hl=en&start=14&zoom=1&tbnid=PVwlMRERkjaaSM:&tbnh=124&tbnw=100&ei=OGpDUO6oCsmR0QXCxYGIDg&prev=/search%3Fq%3DAbby%2Bfrom%2Bncis%26hl%3Den%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3D isch&itbs=1)



Rgds SOS

[BEagle]

Beagle has Susan Hampshire in his heart

A libellous assertion, SOSL! Susan Hampshire indeed - she who played 'Fleur' in The Forsyte Saga....:bored:

However, I do most certainly have a soft spot for the late Susannah YORK:

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/SY05.jpg

:ok:

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

Beagle,

Your best post to date!

Duncs:ok:

[SOSL]

Mea culpa, Beags. How could I have got it so wrong? Still it seems to have brightened up Duncans day.

What about the other picture of Susannah... you know the one I mean.

Rgds SOS

[500N]

"What about the other picture of Susannah... you know the one I mean."


I hope no one posts "that" picture of SY again, talk about blowing
the bubble !

.

[Milo Minderbinder]

do you mean this one.....

http://thefilmexperience.net/storage/1960s/yorkhorses.jpg

[500N]

No, not that one but you have now restored my faith in SY.

(The photo I was referring to was SY at age 60 or 70 that
someone posted a month or two ago).

.

[MrBernoulli]

What was that? Did someone say "Susannah York's soft spot"? Ding dong! :E:E

[SOSL]

No, no, no. I meant the nice one in the hotel bedroom!

Rgds SOS

[Red Line Entry]

No, it was BEagle's soft spot.

The years do indeed condemn...

[BEagle]

Oh alright then, if you insist.....

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/SYork03-1.jpg

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/SYork02.jpg

:ok:

[SOSL]

Thankyou Beags...

Rgds SOS

[MrBernoulli]

No, it was BEagle's soft spot.I would have thought that most of the chaps here world be far more interested in Susannah's soft spot, not BEagle's!

BEagle's soft spot? Ewwww!!!! :D

;)

[SASless]

Dempsey is at it again.

He is all up in a dither over the lack of Political Correctness in Course Material being taught about Islamic Terrorism by Army Instructors. He has removed one Instructor over accusations course material being used by the Instructor were insulting to Islam.

That combined with his telephoning a Minister and telling him not to burn Qurans and also suggesting Youtube remove the controversial video show he has no concept of the Freedoms he is supposed to be defending.

The issue is not that the video and Quran burnings are the thing to do and not that they are useful as tools to those who incite violence in the Muslim countries around the World but the fact that Dempsey sought not to persuade but atttempt to pressure the folks despite them being very much within their rights to do what they did as offensive as it might be to some.

This White House and its current occupant is pushing the Islamist agenda to the detriment of the country and General Dempsey is too willing to get involved in political issues that he has no business being involved in.

[PTT]

They (the minister and the maker of the video - not knowing the content of the course which is being redacted I don't have an opinion on that) are falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre. First, their actions can be described in no other manner than intended to cause a disturbance; second, they (and much of the press) have attributed the issues of terrorism to being a problem with Islam (estimated 1.5 billion followers) rather than a problem with a smaller group of people who use Islam as a recruiting tool, much as the Papal States used Christianity as a recruiting tool several hundred years ago.

Freedom of speech is a very powerful tool, as the Christian church learned to its chagrin at the time of the Renaissance, but "with great power comes great responsibility" (quote attributed to Uncle Ben, Peter Parker's father figure, or Voltaire - take your pick).

[PTT]

If you believe Wikipedia:In April 2012, a course on Islam at the Joint Forces Staff College was suspended when it was revealed that students were being taught that all Muslims, not just terrorists, are enemies of the United States, and that it would be justified to "obliterate the Islamic holy cities of Mecca and Medina without regard for civilian deaths". The instructor, Army. Lieutenant Colonel Matthew Dooley, also taught that in the current conflict, the Geneva Conventions are "no longer relevant." The Pentagon launched an inquiry to determine whether Dooley had acted on his own initiative, or been given the approval of superiors for his course material.(emphasis mine)

[SASless]

I don't believe Wik....but I do understand what I read....and Dooley's Course Materials are on line and available if you will look for them. Read them and make up your own mind.

Also recall the FBI, CIA, and all other Federal Law Enforcement Agencies had to scrub all of their documents and course materials of material that put Islam or Muslims in a bad light. That came from a directive issued by Obama.

I suppose that videos of hostages having their heads hacked off by Al Qaeda while shouting Allah Akhbar had to be removed as it would have shown some Muslims in a bad light.

The point is there are bad Muslims....some Muslims do bad acts....some Muslims are Terrorists and commit terroristic acts. You cannot paint them any other way and tell the truth. The fact there are unflattering aspects to Islam when compared to Western values and beliefs is not avoidable as they are real and true.

So just how do you teach your people about all this without including material that would be considered offensive by the very people you are fighting a war against....the radical Islamists who are engaged in carrying out attacks on our Military, Diplomatic, and intelligence forces and our Civilian Population?

Remembering we still teach the use of Nuclear Weapons against those who have Nukes themselves....and I am sure there are courses that suggest the use against major Urban areas containing large numbers of Civilians.

So why do we scrub materials that are possibly offensive to Muslims but still teach Nuclear War?

Short answer....the occupant of the White House as we speak.... a guy who is very pro-Islam....who has undertaken a foreign policy of appeasement and a showing of weakness when confronted by a need to stand firm against Muslim interests that negatively affect our National Security Interests.

[Riskman]

SAS,

You're points seem to be getting more incoherent with each post. I understood the point you were trying to make in your o.p. and the subsequent observations from other readers about diluting your argument were constructive. You had a broadly sympathetic audience.

Your last post however, was a bit 'Mitt Romney', that is, ill-considered.

For example you wrote,
The fact there are unflattering aspects to Islam when compared to Western values and beliefs is not avoidable as they are real and true.

A Muslim could read your last post and declare that your views, and by association this forum, are anti-Islamic. Any subsequent protest that you had been misunderstood will be too late. And if you think your last post was a model of clarity, well, the Second Amendment is a much more succinct statement and has been the subject of debate since 1939.

The problem (for us) lies in Islam not being a centralized religion so there is no equivalent of the Vatican to control dogma. An Imam in Wolverhampton has as much authority as one in Qom and his authority stems from how widely respected he is as a scholar. The influence he wields depends on how he chooses to interpret and present religious teaching and on how bent he is on rabble rousing.
the radical Islamists who are engaged in carrying out attacks on our Military,

Please be more focused in your argument and if you're going to discuss Muslims specify the individuals or groups and not their religion or we could all end up as Salman Rushdies.

I hope you get some recognition and satisfaction from your letter to General Dempsey and, as ever, good luck to all the men and women who are in harm's way on our behalf.

R

[PTT]

So I took a look at Dooley's course materials - the slides are available online (http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/dangerroom/2012/05/dooley_counter_jihad_op_design_v11.pdf).

For those who can't be bothered to look at them, it starts with the title: "So what can we do?" A counter-Jihad Design Model. In other words, it starts with the assumption that Islam is the problem. Surely "A counter-terrorism design model" would be more appropriate, since despite the fact that many terrorists are muslim, not all of them are. Even if we decide to concentrate on the portion of terrorists who are muslim, the assumption is that it is Islam which is the cause of that particular subset of terrorism rather than anything else - in other words, it does not even attempt to link reasons for terrorism between Islamic and other terrorists. Anyway, he then goes on to make a false dilemma (either democratise or become Islamic despotisms) and conflates resources (comparing Soviet doctrinal documentation with books like the Quran).
To his credit, he does go on to state that the remainder of the course is for discussion purposes: it makes a number of assumptions which he states clearly, and accepts that this particular model may be found to be offensive. And to anyone who doesn't assume that the West, the US, or Christianity are "better" (as he says), it probably is. He does say that using nuclear weapons on civpop may be appropriate; he does suggest destruction of Islamic capital cities and Holy sites; he does qualify that the vast majority of Muslims would be considered the enemy. Should such things be taught to the military? Personally, I don't think so (at least, not in that manner - if it was an example then there are better ones to choose, and if it wasn't...), and neither did the senior management of that particular establishment. Preventing him from continuing to teach is, imo, perfectly reasonable, and I would expect the head of any school where a teacher was teaching non-curriculum material to suspend said teacher. Dooley hasn't been kicked out of the army, simply stopped from teaching when he was found to be doing so in an unauthorised manner. To bring this back to a military aviation perspective (shocking, I know!), if a pilot on a squadron was found to be flying in an unauthorised manner then I'd expect him to be grounded too.

One final point on SASless' last post:
The point is there are bad Muslims....some Muslims do bad acts....some Muslims are Terrorists and commit terroristic acts. You cannot paint them any other way and tell the truth.
Allow me to fix that (allowing for the grammar etc):
The point is there are bad people....some people do bad acts....some people are Terrorists and commit terroristic acts. You cannot paint them any other way and tell the truth.

[SASless]

PTT....part of grammar is context.

My comment was addressing acts of Terrorism by radical Islamists.

It did not address Irish Catholics, Italian Red Brigades, Tim McVeigh, or ANC members in South Africa.

I guess we could refight the Troubles if you care to....and point out how the British Government acted during those terrible years but that would only goad you to total distraction I am sure.

So...what say we stick to the discussion underway and not try to score some points by twisting the words of others.

Just who attacked our consulates and embassies....and what ethnicity, religion, and political persuasion where they? Your chance to answer very simple direct questions.

If you happen to say, Arab, Islamic, and Radical.....who's being politically incorrect?

[PTT]

I am amused that you ask me to stay on topic (which is about General Dempsey, is it not?) and then you move onto the subject of terrorism. In the interests of coherence (or what little of it there is left) I shall answer your "simple direct questions" on the other thread, since the question there is basically the same.

[SASless]

General Dempsey issued the order on this...did that linkage escape you?

[PTT]

:rolleyes:
Changing the courseware of a military course is not terrorism.

[SASless]

Replacing it with this kind of training sure ought to be!

Your government money at work!

Zombie Apocalypse Training: HALO Corp. To Train Military, Law Enforcement On Virus Outbreak (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/17/zombie-apocalypse-training-halo-corp_n_1889724.html)

[brickhistory]

Gen. Dempsey has seemed to step outside his lane regarding politics.

If he'd said nothing regarding the former SEAL but instructed the Pentagon's lawyers to pursue the apparent breaking of the NDA - Non-Disclosure Agreement - then I'd say he had a leg to stand on. But quietly. (One does wonder, having signed such a thing myself, if the press to test would fail in this case?)

His call to the loony pastor in Florida shocked me.

He didn't speak out against the retired flag officers who are supporting, publicly, either major candidate.

Yet he has been party, actively or passively, in granting a filmmaker intimate access with the particular SEAL team and planners for a movie on the raid. That sure seems to cut his point off at the knees.

One also wonders how the current Administration, including the current SECDEF and CJCS, can condemn the amateur movie being blamed for the latest round of loony Muslim protests (although the fact that it was a planned terrorist attack is being admitted as I type) yet have done nothing to stop this movie which will show Osama, a hero to many of the Muslims, being killed by American forces.

Surely, that's worth a bonfire or two?

Yet not a word stopping it and active participation in making it.

edited to add: I think the increasing public politicization of the US military is kicking at one of the last pillars of society.

[SASless]

Perhaps Dempsey may find himself defending his actions re LTC Dooley in a civilian court if Dooley's Lawyers file a civil action as a result of the adverse action taken by Dempsey.

The Adverse action flies in the face of the National Defense University policy regarding Scholastic Freedom and Standards maintained by the NDU.

This could get very interesting and very sticky for the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs if this winds up in a Federal Civil Court.


The link takes you to an article that references the NDU's policy statement which would be the cornerstone of Dooley's case against Dempsey.

Muslim Letter that Prompted the Pentagon to Purge Military Instruction (http://www.thomasmore.org/news/muslim-letter-prompted-the-pentagon-purge-military-instruction-offensive-islam)


From the NDU policy statement.....


“No subject or issue is considered taboo, and there are no approved “school solutions.” Students are encouraged—indeed expected—to look at issues from a new perspective , to take nothing for granted, and to question everything they read and hear, no matter how authoritative the source.10”
. .........
“Academic freedom is recognized by DOD Directive 5230.9, Clearance of DOD Information for Public Release. The directive requires that personnel in the school environment have the widest latitude to express their views, normally restricted only by security considerations.”
Page 4: Under sub heading “Political Intervention in Education”:
“The academy requires that inquiry and analysis be guided by evidence and ethics, unfettered by political intervention. A college or university must be sensitive to the conditions of society in which it exists, but it must also be free to determine how to be most responsive and responsible. Political interference in the affairs of an educational institution presents a threat to its freedom and effectiveness. Direct intervention by elected or appointed officials, political parties, or pressure groups in the selection of faculty, the determination of curricula, textbooks, course content, or in admissions or retention policies, inject factors which are often inimical to the fulfillment of an institution’s mission. In the matter of appointments, for example, political control at any level results in divided loyalty and weakened authority. To impose political considerations upon faculty selection and retention harms an institution intellectually and educationally, not only by reducing its options in the recruitment of talent, but also by creating pressures against dissent on important policy issues...14”

[PTT]

Interesting case, either way. Completely agree with the NDU policy statement, but there I have to assume there is (or should be) oversight by someone as to what is taught - otherwise it could be any old tripe, politically sensitive or not. If that is the case then it will rest on whether Dooley went outside the curriculum the school allowed, as I said before.

[SASless]

You missed the point completely.....twas not the "school" that had the problem with what was being taught....and had been taught before Dooley. It was Dempsey who took issue with what was being taught....acting on the direction of the President who seems overly supportive of things Muslim for some reason.

This issue ignores that some very true statements about Islam will be considered offensive by Islamists despite their being honest, well articulated, critiques of some positions held by Islamic Fundamentalists.

Just because they are offended...or could possibly be offended....should not be the criteria by which course content is judged. The critieria should remain as stated....and leave politics, political correctness concerns, and individual opinions out of it.

All we have to do is look to Fort Hood and Major Hassan's mass murder to see how political correctness and fear of repercussions from above can result in very bad consequences.

[PTT]

twas not the "school" that had the problem with what was being taught....and had been taught before Dooley. It was Dempsey who took issue with what was being taughtThat's one take on it. Here's another:
A class urging senior US military officers to wage “total war” on Islam wasn’t just the work of one misguided teacher. According to an inquiry ordered by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it was the result of “institutional failures in oversight and judgment” at one of the military’s top educational institutions.'Institutional Failures' Led Military to Teach War on Islam | Danger Room | Wired.com (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/failure-oversight-war-islam/?utm_source=Contextly&utm_medium=RelatedLinks&utm_campaign=MoreRecently)

Just because they are offended...or could possibly be offended....should not be the criteria by which course content is judged.I agree entirely. Nor should course content be the opinion of someone - that is not the way to create a thinking soldier (which I assume is what the US military wants at that level). Present the facts (not opinions) and encourage debate. As I said before, the course content started with unstated assumptions and made errors of logic before he came to state that the remaining content (which even he thought "might" be objectionable) was for the purpose of debate.

[SASless]

I reckon Dempsey buy rights of being the Number 1 Soldier in the USA....can say that with some authority.....but the issue of whether he is "right" still appears to be under challenge....and hopefully it shall wind up in Court where the good General will have to defend not only his actions...but his reasoning. That will be an interesting bit of testimony to listen to....and consider.

We will be able to learn exactly what the very Senior Commanders and Civilian Secretaries of the Army and Defense have to say about Radical Islam, Terrorism, and the US Army's teachings on the subjects.

[PTT]

Yep, like I said: interesting.

[Robert Cooper]

Unfortunately Dempsey is completely politicized. It's come to this. Even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff thinks that it if Muslims respond to something with butchery and murderous violence, it is up to the non-Muslims to change the way they behave so as to accommodate them. And so eleven years after 9/11, terrorism has well and truly won: now if any group wants anything, they know that all they have to do in order to get it is rampage and riot and kill.
This is no different than General Casey saying that as bad as the massacre at Ft. Hood was, it would be much worse if diversity were a casualty of that massacre. Not a word about the victims, his own soldiers, but concern that diversity may suffer!
Then we have Dempsey instituting Muslim sensitivity training in response to the Afghan trainee killings of US soldiers! He believes that the US soldiers killed by the Afghan soldiers they were training were at fault, not the Muslim murderers!
He still has a job. Sadly, these are the types of people who now populate the upper echelon of our once-proud military.

[Sunfish]

Lets apply the golden rule to SASless comment and see how it stacks up:

You missed the point completely.....twas not the "school" that had the problem with what was being taught....and had been taught before Dooley. It was Dempsey who took issue with what was being taught....acting on the direction of the President who seems overly supportive of things Jewish for some reason.

This issue ignores that some very true statements about Judaism will be considered offensive by Jews despite their being honest, well articulated, critiques of some positions held by Jewish Fundamentalists.

Just because they are offended...or could possibly be offended....should not be the criteria by which course content is judged. The critieria should remain as stated....and leave politics, political correctness concerns, and individual opinions out of it.

All we have to do is look to Gaza and the Jewish army's mass murder with White Phosphorous to see how political correctness and fear of repercussions from above can result in very bad consequences.

The application of the golden rule in this case demonstrates conclusively that the post by Sasless is uninformed racist ****e.

[SASless]

Sunfish,

Uninformed.....what basis do you have to decide that?

Somehow I think you think far more of your opinion than might be appropriate....as your post leaves out a bit of information by which we might figure out what you are trying to say.

Is it the "Golden Rule" to which you refer? Matter of fact....which "Golden Rule" do you mean to apply....the one about "He who has the Gold, Makes the Rules!"?

When was the last time Fundamentalist Jews committed Terror Attacks? There were some Zionists that did in a Hotel in Palestine many years ago before the State of Israel came into being...but I don't think their motive was religious but was more political in reality.

Now do tell me about this Mass Murder to which you refer.....Willy Pete is a Smoke Round....used for marking targets for attack by aircraft generally.


I find this to be a fairly straight forward and commonsense response to the continuous complaints and violence by our Radical Islamist friends.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCXHPKhRCVg

[SOSL]

"our Radical Islamist friends."

I can't believe you said that SAS.

Rgds SOS

[PTT]

When was the last time Fundamentalist Jews committed Terror Attacks?From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_religious_terrorism#After_the_creation_of_Israel):
- Gush Emunim Underground (1979–84): formed by members of the Israeli political movement Gush Emunim. This group is most well known for two actions. Firstly, for bomb attacks on the mayors of West Bank cities on June 2nd 1980, and secondly, an abandoned plot to blow up the Temple Mount mosques. The Israeli Judge Zvi Cohen, heading the sentencing panel at the group’s trial, stated that they had three motives, ‘not necessarily shared by all the defendants. The first motive, at the heart of the Temple Mount conspiracy, is religious.’
- Keshet (Kvutza Shelo Titpasher) (1981–1989): A Tel Aviv anti-Zionist haredi group focused on bombing property without loss of life.:101 Yigal Marcus, Tel Aviv District Police commander, said that he considered the group a gang of criminals, not a terrorist group.
- The "Bat Ayin Underground" or Bat Ayin group. In 2002, four people from Bat Ayin and Hebron were arrested outside of Abu Tor School, a Palestinian girls' school in East Jerusalem, with a trailer filled with explosives. Three of the men were convicted for the attempted bombing.
- Brit HaKanaim (Hebrew: בְּרִית הַקַנַאִים‎‎, lit. Covenant of the Zealots) was a radical religious Jewish underground organisation which operated in Israel between 1950 and 1953, against the widespread trend of secularisation in the country. The ultimate goal of the movement was to impose Jewish religious law in the State of Israel and establish a Halakhic state.
- The Kingdom of Israel group (Hebrew: מלכות ישראל‎, Malchut Yisrael), or Tzrifin Underground, were active in Israel in the 1950s. The group carried out attacks on the diplomatic facilities of the USSR and Czechoslovakia and occasionally shot at Jordanian troops stationed along the border in Jerusalem. Members of the group caught trying to bomb the Israeli Ministry of Education in May 1953, have been described as acting because of the secularisation of Jewish North African immigrants which they saw as 'a direct assault on the religious Jews' way of life and as an existential threat to the ultra-Orthodox community in Israel.'
US domestic terrorism (same source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States#Attacks_by_the_Jewis h_Defense_League)):
In 2004 congressional testimony, John S. Pistole, Executive Assistant Director for Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence for the Federal Bureau of Investigation described the JDL as "a known violent extremist Jewish Organization." FBI statistics show that, from 1980 through 1985, there were 18 terrorist attacks in the U.S. committed by Jews; 15 of those by members of the JDL. Mary Doran, an FBI agent, described the JDL in a 2004 Congressional testimony as "a proscribed terrorist group". Most recently, then-JDL Chairman Irv Rubin was jailed while awaiting trial on charges of conspiracy in planning bomb attacks against the King Fahd Mosque in Culver City, California, and on the office of Arab-American Congressman Darrell Issa.Further detail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Defense_League#Terrorism) on the JDL attacks.

From the FBI database you so disparage (source (http://www.loonwatch.com/2010/01/not-all-terrorists-are-muslims/)):
http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/piechart2-1024x1024.jpg
Apologies for the size.

Note that there are more Jewish extremist attacks than there are Islamic extremist attacks.

[PTT]

Now do tell me about this Mass Murder to which you refer.....Willy Pete is a Smoke Round....used for marking targets for attack by aircraft generally.

From here (http://www.hrw.org/node/81726/section/2):
During major military operations, from December 27, 2008 to January 18, 2009, Israel banned access to Gaza for all media and human rights monitors. Access via Rafah in Egypt was also blocked. Unable to enter Gaza, Human Rights Watch researchers spent time on the Israeli side of the 1948 armistice line with northern Gaza. On January 9, 10 and 15, they watched IDF artillery repeatedly fire air-burst white phosphorus above civilian areas, including what appeared to be Gaza City and Jabalya. Israeli forces fired these shells from a 155mm artillery battery east of Highway 232 in Israel. The distinctive burst, sending burning wedges down, was consistent with media photographs taken since the start of the ground invasion on January 3. Barred by Israel from entry into Gaza, the researchers were unable to determine precisely where the white phosphorus landed and what effect it had on the civilian population.

Human Rights Watch researchers entered Gaza via the Rafah border crossing with Egypt on January 21, three days after major military operations had ceased, and spent the next 10 days investigating many of the sites where white phosphorus had been used, and the resultant harm to civilians and civilian objects. During this time, Human Rights Watch researchers conducted 29 interviews with the victims and witnesses of white phosphorus use, as well as with ambulance drivers and doctors who treated people with burns. Interviews with doctors who treated burn patients, as well as with another witness of a white phosphorus attack, were conducted in Cairo, Egypt on February 9 and 10.
Please explain how air-burst white phos is used to mark targets.

[PTT]

but I don't think their motive was religious but was more political in reality.You're going to need to explain if and how this makes it any more acceptable.

[SASless]

A General lives large on the Taxpayers Dime.....gets hauled up on charges and Dempsey gives the guy a Pass.

What does General Ward know that bought off the Bosses?

Think maybe he knows something embarrassing about the Libyan situation?

Could it be that SecDef also commutes to his home in California on Military aircraft each weekend and thus is in a Conflict of Interest situation himself?

Or is it something else......like Race in a very Race conscious Administration?


Gen. Dempsey Opposes Gen. Ward's Demotion - Business Insider (http://www.businessinsider.com/dempsey-opposes-wards-demotion-2012-10)


Top military officer opposes General William Ward's demotion | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/04/top-military-officer-opposes-demotion-former-africa-command-general-accused/)


Looks like Dempsey and the Army are headed to Federal Court as Defendants....as the Sacked Instructor seeks to have his Negative OER removed and replaced with an appropriate one based upon his actual performance. and the violation of the University's Policy ahd Procedures.


Legal group comes to aid of Army instructor ousted over Muslim groups' complaints | Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/10/05/rising-career-us-army-officer-matthew-dooley-halted-for-teaching-soldiers-on/?intcmp=trending)

[MarkD]

SASless, clearly freedom of speech is limited even in the context of the First Amendment (see 249 US 47 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0249_0047_ZS.html) for example)... unless you're someone who doesn't know the Supreme Court's role in the governance of the United States (http://www.businessinsider.com/rand-paul-the-supreme-court-doesnt-get-to-decide-whats-constitutional-2012-6).

I also agree with those above who criticised your note's lack of focus - why would you conflate whether people can march in a parade with the dissemination of classified material? One of these things is not like the other (or at least until Romney fires Big Bird)

[SASless]

I know it is a queer notion to some that I see Dempsey and Panetta allowing Uniformed Military Personnel to march in a Gay Pride Parade to be participating in a Political Event.....something that is clearly forbidden to Non-Gay Personnel and Non-Gay Events.....but I then I also see it as being quite queer that some cannot see the position Dempsey taking in the SOF guys (who are not active duty or reserve personnel but who are private citizens) protests as being forbidden political conduct because they used to be prohibited from political activities while they were in uniform.

Every one of you who have protested have done so because of my nexus of Homosexuals and political activities.....which unfortunately for you is a very clear example of Political Correctness combining with a Political Agenda to subvert existing standards of conduct re political activities by Uniformed Personnel.

As I have said repeatedly....it is not the issue of Homosexuality and the military that is wrong....it is the actions of Dempsey and Panetta in kowtowing to Political Correctness and wrongfully making a political issue of former Miltitary personnel exercising their First Amendment Rights to protest government action.

For those of you who are so blinded by things "Homosexual" that you cannot see the contradiction of Dempsey and Paneeta's actions to long established and CURRENT DOD policy (which if you had read well enough....you would know that the Gay Pride Parade in San Francisco was to be a one time only exemption to the policy) and that by allowing this exemption made mock of the very policy they cite as being the reason they object to the SOFA guys protest.

If you think I have assaulted someone's sensitivities about things Homosexual....that is your problem....not mine....as that clearly is not the case. I am protesting Dempsey's forgetting what he is supposed to be defending and am pointing out why I think he has done so.

The Regulations apply to everyone equally....at least the last time I checked they did. When we start making exceptions to the Regulation without changing the Regulation we do away with the one thing the Miltiary depends upon....that being a uniform administration of policy. Otherwise.....Hypocrisy rules and resentment occurs....which in a Miltary organization is the recipe for disaster.

[SASless]

The RAF and British Army Helicopter units get praise by this guy along with the Canadians and Australian SpecOps guys....but it would appear he has some problems with the British Army non-aviation commanders.

He is especially critical of US Army Senior Leadership.


http://www.michaelyon-online.com/images/pdf/secarmy_redacted-redux.pdf

[baffman]

The RAF and British Army Helicopter units get praise by this guy along with the Canadians and Australian SpecOps guys....but it would appear he has some problems with the British Army non-aviation commanders.

He is especially critical of US Army Senior Leadership.

http://www.michaelyon-online.com/ima...cted-redux.pdf (http://www.michaelyon-online.com/images/pdf/secarmy_redacted-redux.pdf)Were you aware of your guy's interesting history?

Report blames lapses on Stryker commander - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/11/army-report-blames-lapses-on-stryker-commander-112711w/)

'Agressive' commander Colonel Harry D. Tunnell of U.S. army Afghanistan 'kill squad' cleared of responsibility for atrocities | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1373881/Agressive-commander-Colonel-Harry-D-Tunnell-U-S-army-Afghanistan-kill-squad-cleared-responsibility-atrocities.html)

In the Tunnell report, Brigadier General Frederick Hodges, then-director of operations in southern Afghanistan, said: 'Looking back on my relationship with him [Tunnell], I regret that I wasn’t more involved in his professional development during his tenure as a brigade commander.
'I should have specifically told him that MG Carter and I had lost confidence in his ability to command from his failure to follow instructions and intent.'

[Two's in]

Just reading Tunnel's letter tells you everything you need to know about his view of the command structure in place at the time. Self-serving, delusional, and myopic are the most charitable things you could say about his letter. Interesting to see the subsequent report identified these characteristics, but only after the damage had been done. He's just another Colonel who started to believe his own publicity and forgot that wars are fought by soldiers, but controlled by politicians.

[SASless]

Do you reckon the Senior Commanders are going to agree with the Colonel?:ugh:

What say we compare the Colonel's forecasts to current events shall we.....and at the same time compare it to the forecasts and promises of the Senior Commanders shall we.

Which version best fits where we are two years down the line from when the Good Colonel wrote that Letter?

The Taliban have infiltrated the Afghan units.

We can no longer do joint Patrols out of risk of more Blue on Green attacks.

The Taliban certainly do not seem to be going away and have more of a presence than two years ago.

Our Casualties are up both in rate and in gross numbers.

I suspect there is more truth than not in what he wrote and I bet there is absolutely no interest in the US or UK Army to honestly investigate and report on the situation as it would ruin some Careers and cause some folks to miss out on Promotions.

Has there been a Military in this World that has taken such a hard view of itself.....ever?

Remember Colin Powell and his cover up of My Lai?

Did the American Army ever reconsider its strategy during Vietnam?

I am sure the British Army has had ample opportunity to rethink some of its Wars but never did while the things were underway.

[baffman]

Col Harry D Hillman is clearly a highly educated, forceful and controversial guy, but there do seem to be two sides to the story, with alleged criticism from within his own brigade.

Stryker soldiers say commanders failed them - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/12/army_afghanistan_mixed_signals_122109w/)

[SASless]

I have a question for you guys.....especially the ones that are just back and those that are going again.

You are a Unit Commander in Afghanistan.....one of your Squaddies comes up to you and asks the following question of you.

"Sir, I am getting worried about what my mission is here....what is our Mission, our reason for being here, how will I know we have won this War....just what the Hell am I fighting for here....what are we accomplishing by what we do here every day?"

What do you tell him? Don't try to tell me this hasn't cropped up....and is not a valid issue.

If we cannot articulate our Mission, Strategy, and Reason for fighting the War to a Private Soldier.....and do so convincingly....should we be there?

[sitigeltfel]

What do you tell him?

"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
http://poetry.eserver.org/space.gif Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
http://poetry.eserver.org/space.gif Rode the six hundred.Or something like that :(

[SASless]

Or, the more applicable Version.....


If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier ~of~ the Queen!

[Robert Cooper]

Afghanistan has always been a difficult country to subdue.

On January 6, 1842, the British began their withdrawal from Kabul. Leaving the city were 4,500 British troops and 12,000 civilians who had followed the British Army to Kabul. The plan was to march to Jalalabad, about 90 miles away.
On the 13th of January, just seven days after the retreat commenced, one man, bloody and torn, mounted on a miserable pony, and pursued by horsemen, was seen riding furiously across the plains to Jalalabad. That was Dr. Brydon, a British Army surgeon, the sole survivor out of 16,500 people. It was believed the Afghans let him live so he could tell the grisly story.

Nothing seems to have changed.

Bob C

[SASless]

Dempsey is at it again.....Political Correctness is his Idol.

American Women can now be in Combat Arms....and tote rifles in the Infantry, serve in Artillery and Armor units. We were assured there would be no reduction in standards.

Of course we knew better based upon the Army's past actions re such matters. The Standards go down.....not up!

Well.....Sissy Pants Dempsey just made it public.

A Woman fails to meet a Standard....Commanders have to document the failure, then JUSTIFY the Standard.


So it Begins: Pentagon Considering Lowering Military Standards to Help Include More Women « Pat Dollard (http://patdollard.com/2013/01/so-it-begins-pentagon-considering-lowering-military-standards-to-help-include-more-women/)

All this Women in Combat sounds nice.....if one Marge wishes to enlist and be an Infantry Soldier or Marine.

You will notice they did not require Women to register for Conscription under the Selective Service Act which all Males have to do at age 18.

Since the only reason they have hot had to do so in the past is they were forbidden to be in Combat.

What is going to be the reaction of America's Women Folk when they have to register and forbid....get called up and find themselves in an Infantry unit in combat somewhere?

Political Correctness is going to destroy the Military.

[500N]

Amazing.

It MIGHT all go well for a few years until some really tough
conflict and then it all falls apart.

A team is only a strong as it's weakest link.

[baffman]

Importantly, though, if we do decide that a particular standard is so high that a woman couldn’t make it, the burden is now on the service to come back and explain to the secretary, why is it that high?

Did Gen Dempsey mean if a particular woman can't make the standard, or if any woman couldn't possibly make the standard?

[SASless]

Does it matter?

If an established standard is in place and has been arrived at over many years of experience....what magically changed it to being improper?

The argument is not about Women in Combat....lord knows enough of them have served and died already. The argument is about those women meeting established training standards just as every other Soldier has had to do and has to do.

Combat is not a place we wish to do social experimentation.

I am waiting for the outcry from the NOW Femi-Nazi's over the fact they are not subject to the Draft.....but I shan't hold my damn breath while I do.

Right there is a "Standard" Women need to meet now that they are Combat eligible.