Connect with us


The military is not the place for social engineering



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 view 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 transgender 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 just feels 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 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.
Leave no man behind

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Foreign Affairs

Did North Korea pull a con job on President Trump?



Did North Korea pull a con job on President Trump

For most of 2018, President Trump has been tooting his horn as the great negotiator who forced Kim Jong un and North Korea to the table. He has showered praise on the dictator, a sharp contrast to the Twitter wars they had in the past. Now, it seems that negotiations may be falling apart.

On top of that, it now appears North Korea has continued to work on their nuclear and missile programs the whole time.

Undeclared North Korea: The Sakkanmol Missile Operating Base within the Tactical Belt in North Hwanghae province, 85 km north of the DMZ and 135 km northwest of Seoul, the capital of South Korea, is the Sakkanmol missile operating base (38.584698° 126.107945°).1 Although occasionally and incorrectly referred to as an “underground missile storage” facility, it is a forward Hwasong-5/-6 missile operating base subordinate to the Strategic Force of the Korean People’s Army (KPA), which is responsible for all ballistic missile units.2 The base is located near the point where the three counties of Pongsan, Sohung, and Yontan in North Hwanghae province meet. Disambiguation of references to reported missile bases in these counties indicates that they are actually referring to the Sakkanmol missile operating base. This is likely true for references to a missile base at Togol, 9.5 km to the northeast, and may also be true for a reported ballistic missile unit in the Sariwon area, 31 km to the west.3

According to former CIA station chief Daniel Hoffman, North Korea is just trying to wait us out. They are trying to wiggle out of sanctions while simultaneously breaking them through secret deals with countries like Russia and China.

Was this all just a big con job? Did the North Koreans take advantage of President Trump’s desire for a foreign relations win? Are these latest revelations signs that they will not negotiate in good faith? It seems so.

Continue Reading


Of course the military must be sent to the border



Of course the military must be sent to the border

The most irresponsible move any president could make is to know up to 10,000 people were heading to the border with intent of breaching it and NOT send the military. The migrant caravan heading towards us from Mexico, which is reportedly comprised of 85% adult males, poses a threat regardless of their stated intentions.

Let’s be clear. Even if you believe the vast majority of people in the caravan are simply looking for a better life, you cannot ignore the risk from the few who have other intentions. If you believe there aren’t many people in the caravan with dangerous intentions, you’ve already bought into the leftist media message and Democratic Party talking points. There’s no way the truth is going to convince you otherwise.

Nevertheless, critics are already calling it the wrong move to send 5,000 troops to the border to support border patrol agents.

Military to Deploy 5,000 Troops to Southern Border U.S. military plans to deploy 5,000 troops to the southwest U.S. border in anticipation of a caravan of would-be asylum seekers and migrants currently moving northward in Mexico, U.S. officials said Monday.

The new figure is a major increase from initial estimates of 800 troops and would represent a military force equal to about one-third the number of customs officials currently working at the border. The military sent about 2,000 National Guard troops to the area earlier this year.

The military will be there for support, intimidation, and to stop an invasion if the group turns out to be militant. Chances of the latter are slim, but again we’re talking about thousands of young, able-bodied men. We cannot assume they are not armed and ready to breach the border by force. Making that assumption, no matter how slim the chances, would be a huge mistake.

Assuming they’re not all armed with AK-47s and rocket launchers, the military’s role there will be to assist border patrol in spotting illegal border crossings. They will almost certainly not participate in apprehending them unless the force is so great that true military action is required.

Leftists will argue that this is an attempt at intimidating members of the caravan. They’re absolutely right. What they get wrong is believing there’s no need to intimidate them. If this is going to be an orderly and safe experience for people on both sides of the border, including the caravan itself, then intimidation is necessary. Otherwise, we may see something similar to what Mexico saw today.

Watch this video of a 2nd migrant caravan trying to breach the Mexican border’ve been saying for weeks that if the large migrant caravan that’s heading towards the United States border is allowed to enter, it would spark new caravans to form weekly. What we didn’t anticipate was that they’d be sparked by the first caravan’s ability to breach the Mexican border first.

In other words, it seems they believed it would be harder to get into Mexico than to get into America.

Mexico repelled an attempted invasion by the second caravan. During the attempted breach, a Honduran migrant was shot and killed, though Mexican officials deny the shots were fired by them. That should worry us all.

Even if most in the caravan have peaceful, positive intentions, a military presence is necessary to keep things from getting out of hand. Critics of the move need to back off. They have no clear argument against deploying troops to the border.

Continue Reading


Pentagon is looking for a cheap solution to friendly fire



Pentagon is looking for a cheap solution to friendly fire

It’s bad enough when the enemy is attacking you. It’s even worse when you have to watch your back for friendly fire. In the convoluted war zones the United States often finds itself in, there are challenges distinguishing between friends and foes.

The Pentagon wants to fix this problem and they’re asking for solutions. They’ve commissioned a call for personal identification technology that will allow friendly soldiers and their vehicles to be easily identified from a distance while not making them easier targets for the enemy.

The Pentagon Wants To Stop U.S. Troops From Shooting Our Allies I of the project will be a feasibility study to determine what current technology is capable of providing. Phase II will call for a prototype Partner Force Identification Friend or Foe device. SOCOM says there could be spin-off applications for U.S. law enforcement, border patrol and search and rescue teams.

Unfortunately, this project may only solve part of the problem, as shown by a recent incident in which a U.S. general was wounded by an Afghan government soldier who apparently was a Taliban sympathizer. This device may protect allied troops from American fire, but it won’t protect American soldiers from the fire of their “allies.”

It isn’t just about cost-savings. Arguably more important is the technology’s ability to be implemented quickly with a low level of technical understanding. Some of our allies are not accustomed to having identifying technology on them.

As noted in the story, we will have an easier time with technology that helps us identify friends than generating solutions to allow friends to identify us. One problem at a time, I suppose.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report




Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report