Where Are Our Admirals and Generals in Our Time of Need? Carter: Transgender Individuals Allowed
On Thursday, June 30, 2016, Secretary of Defense Ash Carter held a press conference and announced what may be the most controversial–and outlandish–change to military service perhaps in our nation’s history: transgender individuals will now be allowed to enlist and serve openly in our country’s armed forces–effective closest. In fact, they will be assisted in their medical requirements to change their sex by military medical personnel. The deadline for complete implementation is one year, July 2017. Hopefully, by then we will have a new and sensible president who quashes this abomination.
As is customary in Washington, D. C., this drastic pronouncement was made on the approach of the 4th of July weekend ensuring it would receive scant attention from not only the press but also the public, slithering quietly into effect with little or no basic response. That is how Washington politicians function, was a favorite technique of the Clinton presidency, and is often used by Hillary Clinton now.
This is just another of the final year of the Obama presidency’s extreme liberal agenda he is intent on implementing before he lapses into history, one more of the egregious changes he intends to ensure he leaves as part of his liberal legacy. There are more to come.
This far-left idea was announced a year ago when Carter pledged to end an “outdated” regulation prohibiting such service. Prior to this, you joined the military as either a male or female. The issue of gays serving had already been settled. Gays could serve openly and without prejudice as to their sexual arrangement. That policy change is nevertheless questionable as to the effects on military members, especially the lower-ranking fighters living in barracks or sharing fighting holes in combat.
Carter announced the new transgender policy after a year of contentious argue inside the Pentagon as some military leaders–why not all of them?–questioned the impact on readiness, an argument Carter rejected out-of-hand saying the change will ultimately enhance the quality of the force. How? He didn’t say other than, “We have to have access to 100 % of America’s population for our all-volunteer force to be able to recruit from among them the most highly qualified–and retain them. The policies we’re issuing today will allow us to access talent of transgender service members to strengthen accomplishment of our mission,” Carter said at a Pentagon press briefing. Then should we not recruit those disabled with AIDS, spina bifida, polio?
This new change is far more ill-advised, far more drastic, and far more unheard of than the gay controversy. In fact, it imposes considerably burdensome and unnecessary requirements on the already overextended resources of our fighting forces at a time when they are now stretched to the limit as a consequence of two decades of continued, repeated deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq, and other worldwide commitments.
According to a June 30, 2016, article in the Military Times, “The overall the cost of providing health care to treat gender dysphoria will probably run between $40,000 and $50,000 over the lifetime of an individual service members, defense official say.” Most likely grossly underestimated.
“The Defense Department must weigh those costs against the costs of training individual service members, which often runs upward of $200,000 depending on the career field. Losing the assistance of that hundreds of thousands of dollars in training, for the savings of $40,000 to $50,000 in lifetime cost, it doesn’t seem like a very good trade off to us,” said a senior defense official who asked not to be identified when speaking about the Pentagon’s internal deliberations. Illogical at best, ignorant of the complete scope of the military at worst. These politically inclined buffoons would sacrifice unit integrity, camaraderie, and all that goes with serving in close quarters for a few thousand individuals who believe they were born into the wrong body?
In a nutshell, Carter is instructing the already overburdened military health care system to treat the transgender issue like any other medical condition.
When announced one year ago, it was a foregone conclusion that the Secretary of Defense had by this time made his decision to go ahead with this plan with no concern as to the overall effects on the military. In fact, rank-and-file opinion was neither sought nor desired. Instead, a Pentagon spokesperson offered a declarative position on the issue at that time on behalf of Carter, “The secretary determined was that this was medical treatment and a medical issue and you’re not going to defer to the force as to whether or not we’re going to provide treatment. We are relying on our doctors very heavily throughout this course of action.”
That statement alone is as preposterous as it is erroneous. Are individuals born without limbs accepted into the military, and are the mentally ill, or clinically insane, qualified. How about those with a terminal illness? Why not allow them to join up for medical treatment? Such ludicrousness should be loudly proclaimed for what it is–a baseless catering to the liberal, vocal, far-from-the-mainstream minority–sexual deviants some would say–without concern for the effects on the military.
This ignoring any military input is precisely the tactic Carter used in the “women in combat” decision he forced upon the military a short time back. Although such experts as the then Commandant of the Marine Corps, Marine Corps General Joseph F. Dunford, Jr, and the head of the United States Army objected, and studies supported their recommendations not to proceed with this policy, Carter poo-pooed their individual military studies–truly declaring that of the Marine Corps as biased and flawed–and went ahead doing what he intended to do in the first place–implementing a policy undoubtedly pushed by Obama as another of his legacy issues. “Equality” outscored shared sense military opinion by those who know no matter the end consequence.
Women in combat units became an equality issue–as if military service was a shared civilian job only–instead of what was good for those rank-and-file grunts in those units. Equality method beans when confronting in close combat an enemy intent on killing you. The front line combat units of the Marines, United States Army infantry, Special Operations units such as the Green Berets and Navy Seals in addition as Marine Recon units, are no more the place for women than me in the maternity unit of my local hospital waiting to give birth.
Same with this transgender issue as it was for the gay open-service question. The President, and his lackey Secretary of Defense, have no concern for the effects such ridiculous policies have on the combat ability of our fighters. Their concern rests with the appeasement of the liberal left, the enactment of policies never imagined by anyone other than Obama and Carter.
A senior defense official presumably claimed, in the initial announcement a year ago, that “the chiefs of the Army, Air Force, and Navy have been briefed on the plan and are not opposed to lifting the ban.” I find that incredible at best. If true, I find it ridiculous and revealing as to the without of grit displayed by agreement to such preposterous a policy change.
The United States military–all branches–exist for one purpose and one purpose only: To defend, preserve, and protect our country against all enemies, foreign and domestic; any changes in its armament, composition, organization, regulations, rules, or structure should be the consequence of, foremost and chiefly, recommendations of those admirals and generals commanding those forces, not politicians intent on forcing cultural philosophies on our military. Such changes should be made with one purpose in mind: to make our military more combat efficient, ready, and specialized–and for no other reasons.
Neither Barack Obama nor an overwhelming preponderance of those in Congress have served a single day in our nation’s military. Nor has Ashton Carter, who is as ill-suited for the job of Secretary of Defense as any who has ever served, a political appointee by perhaps the most prolific abuser of such appointments as seen in our country’s history.
For the President–and, rest assured, that is the origin of such policies as gays openly serving, women in combat units, and now transgender qualification to serve–and any member of Congress, in addition as the Secretary of Defense, to now cater to an ultra-liberal minority seeking their approval as to military qualification is as comprehensively disturbing as it is incredibly contemptible and indisputably ignorant of the military as an institution. Such policy changes by politically motivated individuals, no matter their position, fail to consider the overall, residual effects of their actions.
At a time when our military is as heavily engaged as it has been for more than fifty years, at a time when individual troops are being ordered to repeated deployments to combat zones, now at a time of military uncertainty and commitment, is the wrong time for politicians to advocate for social engineering experiments and equality for the sake of equality–paralleling our fighting forces to the exact same rules and regulations as civilian companies such as a McDonald’s or any other such for-profit company under civil rights protection for workers. I don’t give a damned who cooks my burger, or builds my car–gay, transgender, or whomever can do it well. I do care about our military and the policies under which it operates.
To our politicians I say: Tinker with the civilian world if you must, but do not impose your liberal agenda on America’s military for the purpose of assuaging your base or vote gathering. You have now gone way over the line of decency and practicality, and your actions will have deleterious effects on our fighting men and women we depend on to go forth and fight for us wherever and whenever called upon to do so.
So I conclude with the question: Where are our admirals and generals responsible for overseeing their men and women in uniform. Where is the outcry of, “This is wrong and cannot be allowed?” Where is the courage we expect from you when politicians overstep their bounds–as in this and other instances? How long are you willing to stand there faint-hearted, sheepish, and silent while surrendering the trust we have placed in you?
And for you, Commandant of the Marine Corps, my alma mater for twenty plus years including the Vietnam War, what would “Chesty” say at a time like this? How about Generals Robert H. Barrow, Robert E. Cushman, John A. Lejeune, Lew Walt? Or, perhaps the greatest of them all, Louis H. Wilson, Jr.?
Where the hell are you–you wearing the stars on your collars–when we need you desperately?