Category Archives: defense policy

Sack Them

Posted on by
Reply

Now the USAF Academy has torn it apart.

A diversity and inclusion training by the United States Air Force Academy in Colorado instructs cadets to use words that “include all genders” and to refrain from saying things like “mom” and “dad.”

And

“Some families are headed by single parents, grandparents, foster parents, two moms, two dads, etc.: consider ‘parent or caregiver’ instead of ‘mom and dad,'” the presentation states. “Use words that include all genders​: ‘Folks’ or ‘Y’all’ instead of ‘guys’; ‘partner’ vs. ‘boyfriend or girlfriend.'”
“Not ‘Colorblind’ or ‘I don’t see color,’ but Color Conscious,” it adds. “We see Color/Patterns AND VALUE people for their uniqueness.”

This is openly racist and sexist spew, it’s unacceptable anywhere in our nation, it’s especially unacceptable in those institutions where we train our military leaders—and it’s deliberately designed to keep our military personnel segregated, in a number of senses of that term, one from another.

This has gone ‘way too far. It’s time to sack SecDef Lloyd Austin, CJCS General Mark Milley, and to reassign all of the Pentagon’s current military staff who are focused on academic “training” and the military Academies’ Command and Staff personnel, to the combatant commands—in theater, not to command headquarters. Send the associated civilians back to the private sector.

It’s time these worthies lived in the destruction they’re seeking to wreak.

Who’s in Charge of our Defense Policy?

Posted on by
Reply

And why have these obstructionists not been fired?

In a pre-taped interview shown Sunday, the interviewer asked President Joe Biden (D) whether the US would defend the Republic of China (the politically correct interviewer referred to “Taiwan”), and Biden said, “Yes.”

Yes, if in fact there was an unprecedented attack[.]

The interviewer pressed Biden.

Interviewer: So unlike Ukraine, to be clear, sir, US Forces, US men and women would defend Taiwan in the event of a Chinese invasion?
Biden: Yes.

When the interview aired, CBS

interrupted with a voiceover saying a White House official said after interview that “US policy has not changed” and the government will not officially say whether US troops would intervene in Taiwan[.]

This is the fourth time in just a few months that Biden’s subordinates have countermanded Biden’s open, direct remarks on matters of American foreign policy.

This is a clear illustration of the weakness of, and the division within, the Biden administration, and our enemies are taking advantage.

On Aid to Ukraine

Posted on by
Reply

Even in Reluctant Germany, the government’s loyal opposition and a number of incumbent officials are calling for Germany to get out of the way and send tanks to Ukraine so that nation can further, and more rapidly, exploit their current battlefield gains and continue driving the barbarian back out.

But. But, but, but.

“We are simply not going to be the first to send Western-made tanks…” a senior German government official said.

I’m reminded of two lines. One is by German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, as he channels Sallah: Russians. Very dangerous. You go first.

The other might be by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, sort of channeling Conan: Crush our enemies, see them driven before us, and listen to the lamentation of the women. Except that Zelenskyy is quite a bit more gentile than that, and he’d eschew the lamentation part. That’s what the barbarian from the east does. Zelenskyy, instead, would listen to the cheers of the women.

Russia is Not a State Sponsor of Terror

Posted on by
Reply

Or at least President Joe Biden (D) is too timid to say so out loud, or officially, which would bring a round of additional sanctions against Russia.

Biden, asked by a reporter on Monday if he would blacklist Russia as a terrorist state, said simply, “no,” after months of non-committal answers from senior officials.

Biden expanded on that the next day, through his Press Secretary, Karine Jean-Pierre:

She said the designation would hamper aid delivery to parts of war-ravaged Ukraine or prevent aid groups and companies from taking part in a deal brokered by the United Nations and Türkiye to ship badly needed grain from Ukraine’s blockaded ports.
“It would also undercut our unprecedented multilateral [coalition] that has been so effective to holding Putin accountable and could also undermine our ability to support Ukraine” in negotiations, she told reporters.

In other words, Biden is afraid of what Putin might do in response to such a designation. Or worse, Biden is afraid of his own imaginings of what Putin might do.

“Putin Will Adapt”

Posted on by
Reply

In Holman Jenkins’ opinion piece in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal concerning Russian President Vladimir Putin’s energy war against Europe (as a secondary front in his war against Ukraine), he offered this regarding Europe’s stick-to-it-iveness vs Putin’s:

Mr Putin will quickly adapt once it’s proven to him Europe’s governing parties can’t knuckle under to Russian blackmail and retain their democratic viability.

If Europe doesn’t surrender in the face of Putin’s energy war, it will be the Russian people who feel the resulting economic, and other, pain.

Jenkins is incredibly naive to think Putin cares about that. He’ll persist until he is militarily driven out of Ukraine. And he’ll persist elsewhere for as long as he’s in power. The situation is all about Putin and his angst over the “greatest geopolitical disaster of the 20th century” and his obsession with redressing that.

Europe needs to defeat Putin in his energy war, not only to save themselves (and Ukraine) in the near term, but also to greatly mitigate the costs of Putin’s aggressively pushed obsession in the longer term.