Connect with us

Military

The military is not the place for social engineering

Published

on

Transgender Military

Recently, President Trump told the military to discontinue Barack Obama’s proposal allowing transgendered individuals to be recruited into the military. And, right on queue, came screams of bigotry and discrimination. Shocking.

My only concern regarding the transgender ban is that any obligations already made be honored. This is non-negotiable to me. If we make a promise to a servicemember, we must uphold it. period.

The politicians and media can fight over the specific rule and whether it is discrimination or not.

We the people will once again be the adults and have the necessary discussion – whether the military is strengthened or weakened by the integration or ban of transgendered service members.

The only thing that matters in the military is that our squads are the best they can possibly be.

A couple years ago, there was controversy over another military integration proposal. It was the question of whether women could be in combat roles.

As a man, putting women into combat roles makes me uneasy. It feels morally wrong to knowingly put a woman in harm’s way. Whether it is my toxic masculinity, my white privilege, my male privilege, or my cis privilege, something feels morally wrong.

But feelings alone aren’t enough to pass a judgment. Facts don’t care about my feelings, either. So let’s look at some facts.

There was a yearlong comparison between an all-male and mixed male and female units. It looked at varying situations that could occur in combat and assessed the effectiveness of both groups.

From NPR’s article summarizing the study, “all-male squads performed better than mixed groups in 69 percent of the tasks evaluated.” It also showed that men had more speed, more lethality, and were less prone to injuries.

The full study also stated that “all-male squads, teams and crews and gender-integrated squads, teams, and crews had a noticeable difference in their performance of the basic combat tasks of negotiating obstacles and evacuating casualties.”

They continue, “during casualty evacuation assessments, there were notable differences in execution times between all-male and gender-integrated groups” with the exception of “casualty evacuation as a one-Marine fireman’s carry of another (in which case it was most often a male Marine who “evacuated” the casualty).”

Feel free to look through the study yourself and see what you find.

While this is just one study, it doesn’t ease my concern. This study gives reason to doubt the effectiveness of gender-integrated combat units. I can only imagine the effectiveness of a gender-integrated combat unit where some of the men identify as women and women identify as men. How do you even study that?

How do you even study that? Are male-to-female transgenders counted as females and vice versa? If every female in the previous study was a male-to-female transgender, they would still have had the benefits of increased testosterone levels. It would be an absolute nightmare to figure out.

To pretend none of this matters, that the ends of equality justify the means, is objectively immoral. One small mistake and someone can die. If our combat units are slightly less efficient than they could be, more lives will be lost. One is too many.

Until a change in the makeup of our military services is shown to be as effective or more effective than an all-male squad, then I support prohibiting it. (Note: Defense Secretary Mattis has postponed the “transgender ban” pending studies for implementation.)

Call it discrimination, I don’t care. Call me a bigot, I don’t care. I’ll gladly trade being called names if it will save just one life.

This isn’t a matter of personal opinion on transgenderism or feminism. It is literal life and death.

The battlefield is not the place for social experimentation. The risks are too high and the reward of good feelings can never outweigh the risk of losing another American in war.

If we knowingly send out a sub par combat unit, then we are leaving Americans behind before they even see an enemy.

And we don’t leave anyone behind.

To all those who serve in our military, thank you.

Jake Gambino has endless passion for liberty, marketing, and good lulz. After just seven years, he received his business degree from a local Community College. He would call this a sign of being a prodigy. No one else would agree, but Jake doesn't care. He is guided by reason and driven by principles.

Military

Trump misses the whole point of big military parades

Published

on

Trump misses the whole point of big military parades

Many countries put a lot of effort and spend a lot of money polishing their missiles, repainting their vehicles, and transporting a big chunk of their military apparatus just to display them to the people in a parade. President Trump got the idea from a French parade. We see images all the time of North Korean and Iranian military parades.

There’s a reason these and other countries have these parades. It comes down to an old business adage, “fake it ’til you make it.”

The United States doesn’t have to fake it. That’s why it should be no big deal that President Trump’s vision of a big parade seem to be postponed at best.

How Trump’s big military parade evaporated into thin air

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/08/17/how-trumps-big-military-parade-evaporated-into-thin-air.htmlWashington already has quite a few parades, including some with military participation held on Memorial Day and July 4. There was even a 1991 victory parade following the Gulf War complete with 8,000 marching troops, an F-117 Stealth Fighter, some tanks and a Patriot Missile Launcher.

But even that grand display of military hardware from the Gulf War didn’t seem to be what Trump had in mind. He noted that France had represented uniforms and equipment from different wars and that the Bastille Day parade lasted a full two hours. Trump said he envisioned a similar military extravaganza next July 4 down Washington’s famed Pennsylvania Avenue, which connects the White House to Capitol Hill.

Nations often try to build confidence and raise nationalism through parades. In many countries, it’s the best opportunity for the people to get a glimpse of the men and equipment set to protect them. It’s a confidence builder.

Not many Americans would say our military is too small or lacks technological advancements. A parade is not necessary to build American confidence. It would simply be a waste of taxpayer dollars.

The President may not get the big parade he wanted, but at least he and the rest of us know our military is effective whether we put it on display or not.

Continue Reading

Foreign Affairs

Robert Wood Johnson on the failed Iran deal

Published

on

Robert Wood Johnson on the failed Iran deal

As ambassador to the United Kingdom, Robert Wood Johnson understands the situation in Iran. He’s acutely aware that sanctions against Iran are the only thing short of military intervention that can prevent them from producing nuclear weapons in the near future. The Iran deal, the alleged hallmark of President Obama’s and Secretary of State Kerry’s legacy, has been clearly demonstrated as an utter failure.

Iran has not backed down. They’ve only placated the world when absolutely necessary with lies on top of lies. The United States is fighting back by pulling out of the deal and laying sanctions on Iran, but they need more to join the fight. Johnson is calling on his host nation to follow suit.

“Far from becoming a more responsible member of the international community, as we had all hoped, Iran grew bolder.”

Source: The Hill

US ambassador urges UK to pull out of Iran nuclear deal

http://thehill.com/business-a-lobbying/401458-us-ambassador-urges-uk-to-pull-out-of-iran-nuclear-deal“It is clear that the danger from Iran did not diminish in the wake of the [2015 Iran] deal,” Johnson wrote. “Far from becoming a more responsible member of the international community, as we had all hoped, Iran grew bolder.”

“It is time to move on from the flawed 2015 deal,” he continued. “We are asking global Britain to use its considerable diplomatic power and influence and join us as we lead a concerted global effort toward a genuinely comprehensive agreement.”

Continue Reading

Military

Donald Trump on the proposed new branch of the US armed forces

Published

on

Donald Trump on the proposed new branch of the US armed forces

Nobody has ever accused President Trump of being eloquent. The way he’s handling the new “Space Force” concept is, well, very Trumpish.

His actual Tweet is something you can’t make up:

“Space Force all the way!”

Go team, go!

Pence unveils plan for Congress to create Space Force by 2020

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/09/pence-unveils-plan-for-congress-to-create-space-force-by-2020.htmlTrump first floated the Space Force idea as a part of his national security strategy March 13. On Thursday, he expressed his enthusiasm for the plan in a tweet shortly after Pence made the announcement, saying: “Space Force all the way!”

The president described in March how he had originally coined the term as a joke, while discussing U.S. government spending and private investment in space. Trump then directed the Pentagon in June to immediately begin the creation of the new branch.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily

Advertisement

Facebook

Twitter

Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Trending

Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.