The Australian Defence Minister, Stephen Smith, is getting a rough time from some former Generals who have come out in defence of the military against Smith's handling of an incident that occurred last year at the Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) and has come to be known as the 'Skype affair'.
Ex-Generals, Cosgrove, Leahy, Molan and Cantwell, have been most damning in articles written to newspapers and interviews on TV about Smith's handling of the Defence Ministry Portfolio he inherited after being displaced as Foreign Minister by ex-Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, when Rudd was diposed by Julia Gillard, now our current Prime Minister - and that is a story in itself which would require a far too long deviation from this topic.
Smith's role as Defence Minister has been to expedite affirmative action for female combat roles and ethnic enlistee's into the Australian Defence Force (ADF) as he believes there is not enough representation within the ADF of females or those from ethnic cultures from within our multicultural society. A question here, and one which I truly believe to be most relevant; On what military facts does Smith base his belief that females are needed as combat troops? And does Smith truly believe that a nation which practises multiculturalism, a practise which divides the population into cultural tribes that basically live as they did in their old countries, can produce Australian patriots from those cultures that have learned no Australian values nor can relate to what it is to be a patriotic Australian? I believe Smith's ideals of affirmative action and cultural equality are being promoted above the interests and welfare of the ADF which has been surprisingly resistant to political change that has been nipping at the edges of the 'warrior mentality' that inhabits the ADF, which radical leftwing idealists like Smith, have so much trouble in understanding.
Maybe if Smith spent some time with military personnel out on exercise or better still, in a combat zone, and learned to understand why it is so very important to maintain a strong military/warrior class that is prepared to defend the nation that gave them birth, he could gain a better understanding that what he is proposing with affirmative action and cultural equality will destroy the warrior mentality that is so vital in maintaining a strong defence force. Then again, maybe that is Smith's intention?
Smith's championing of the female officer cadet at the centre of the 'Skype Affair' speaks volumes to this author of where his sentimentalities lay. Without a proper briefing or evidence to support what he was saying, Smith launched into a tirade at the time, against the commandant of ADFA and cast personal slurs and accusations against his good name. A subsequent report, which Smith is refusing to release publicly, has cleared the commandant of any wrongdoing, but Smith has refused to apologize to the commandant for words uttered by him in his 'heat of the moment' address to the media. I believe this also shows Smith up as a person who cannot admit to his mistakes while his lack of apology for the wrong words uttered against a man who deserved far better, is a further indication of the estrangement now being felt between the ADF and Smith's position as Defence Minister. I also believe that this is partly due to Smith's ideological push into the Defence Forces of affirmative action and cultural equality which the military has been resisting, and Smith's own personal disconnect with the reality that is the Australian military and how it is meant to operate, not how Smith wishes it to.
If Smith had any shame at all he would immediately resign his ministry.
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Idiots in charge of the Military Part 2
There is current controversy within the Australian Defence Force (ADF) regarding sexist and racist attitudes, according to some, of ADF Army personnel (enlistees) and some inappropriate texting between soldiers of their personal opinions of the homosexual soldier, the enemy they fight, and female soldiers coming onto the front line in combat roles. I have stated my reasoning for why women should not be assigned to front line fighting roles in a previous post and stand by that reasoning. Last night I made the conscious decision to tune into the 730 Report (current affairs program ABC) to listen to the Chief of the Army, Lt.Gen. David Morrison, give his version of events and the steps he will take to lessen the controversy.
My first impression of the General was of a nervous man and one who would rather be somewhere else than on national television being grilled by the host of the program, Chris Ullmann. As the interview progressed and after listening to the General's responses to the questions asked, I formed the opinion this supposed leader of men was towing the PC line and appeared to be more interested in his next promotion than in the soldiers he may have to one day take into battle. In other words, as an ex-soldier myself, I was not impressed with the General's overall demeanor or his displayed pandering to the current socialist Labor Federal government, which has since gaining power, expedited the integration of the homosexual into military life and the female soldier into combat roles. I do believe that I am not alone in forming that opinion.
One of the General's answers regarding the integration process that has been ongoing for some time now was this ; ".... the army has a great history of inclusiveness..." Really? I was somewhat surprised by this assertion as the word inclusiveness is a PC word dreamed up to combat negative opinion on anything the PC lobby would like altered to suit their view of how things should be, and not how things are and should remain. The General's 'inclusiveness' must now extend to including divisive issues, such as the openly homosexual soldier within a system that requires high morale and esprit de corp to function properly, and a system where common sense also dictates there must be a commonality between ranks for an army to remain effective as a combat unit. Reading some of the text messages between serving soldiers regarding the homosexual soldier, I can certainly understand their frustration at being forced to accommodate the new political paradigm which has been issued from politicians who have no military experience and do not realize how divisive this issue will in future become. Those messages, some of which have gone viral, are really personal opinions between soldiers, and are simple and natural reactions to what has been imposed on them, and which their own common sense tells them won't work. Because they are personal opinions the army has no jurisdiction over what the soldier may wish to message to other soldiers while off duty outside of a non-strategic and national security context. That is unless of course the army wishes to become a fascist entity and takes to censoring what it may consider to be inappropriate comments.
I also caught the General referring to "Australian Muslims" as being under-represented within the ADF. Anyone who knows the pious Muslim will also know that they firstly identify as Muslim, not as Australian Muslim. The fact that any group of people are prepared to identify themselves by their religious beliefs, rather than as Australians, should set warning bells off in our recruitment centres that these are people whose religion is considered to come first over all other requirements, including that of a soldier within the ADF. These are not people who can be relied upon in a battle against other Muslims and as several incidents have shown, particularly within the American military, the Muslim soldier may become a concientious objector when ordered to deploy to a Muslim country where he may have to kill other Muslims.There has also been several incidents where the Muslim soldier has taken up arms against and killed his own infidel comrades. The General is not serving this nation's best interest in promoting Muslims into the ADF. He would be better respected by his troops if he stood up against those who are trying to have the Muslim soldier accepted under affirmative action guidelines, as an integral part of the ADF. This kind of inclusiveness will in future, become very divisive within the ADF, and extremely dangerous to our national security.
"I'm proud of my gay and lesbian soldiers, and what they do"; stated the General, when asked about any issues regarding homosexuality and its effect within the ADF. As an ex-cop, that answer would not have passed the lie test in a police interview. It was quite plain to me that the General did not believe what he was saying. In my opinion, it is plain that the General does not have the welfare of his troops at heart and is simply parrotting lines to placate his political masters. I do not like this General as he is not a good leader of men. A good leader would protest at the absudity of affirmative action, and its effect on the military!
Homosexuality has always been part of the military. Mostly it was well hidden as it was punishable under military law, and there is good reasoning for this as homosexuality was considered not only an aberration, which it is, but also un-hygienic, particularly in field conditions, which I believe is self explanatory. Then there is the inter-personal relationships that homosexuals can develop within a confined group which can have devastating consequences on morale and fighting ability within that group. Females will of course present the same problems in a gender mixed combat unit, but the progressives will never look past their own ideals to see this very plain fact of life. To have the homosexual paraded as a 'normal' part of ADF life is indeed to invite the very criticisms from soldiers that the politicians and ADF hierarchy are now at great pains to counter. The progressive and PC compliant will never admit that it is the policy that is causing the problems, rather, it is the 'small mindedness' of those who cannot accept the fly in your face stupidity of such a policy. Such is the idealism of the progressive, who, when one comes to think about it, is really a degenerative who is wittingly or unwittingly, eroding the very fabric of an entity that is designed to fight and kill, not rollover and thrill!
But the piece de resistance was the complaint that calling your enemy 'ragheads' was being racist! What? After I got over my fit of laughing about that one it was plain to see that those who do no fighting, and are prepared to send our young men off to war, are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to dictating what is right and what is wrong on the battlefield. While it is OK to kill people, according to the progressive and their PC compliant politicans, it is not OK to call them names! Only the truly stupid cannot see the gross contradiction and hypocrisy in that!
My first impression of the General was of a nervous man and one who would rather be somewhere else than on national television being grilled by the host of the program, Chris Ullmann. As the interview progressed and after listening to the General's responses to the questions asked, I formed the opinion this supposed leader of men was towing the PC line and appeared to be more interested in his next promotion than in the soldiers he may have to one day take into battle. In other words, as an ex-soldier myself, I was not impressed with the General's overall demeanor or his displayed pandering to the current socialist Labor Federal government, which has since gaining power, expedited the integration of the homosexual into military life and the female soldier into combat roles. I do believe that I am not alone in forming that opinion.
One of the General's answers regarding the integration process that has been ongoing for some time now was this ; ".... the army has a great history of inclusiveness..." Really? I was somewhat surprised by this assertion as the word inclusiveness is a PC word dreamed up to combat negative opinion on anything the PC lobby would like altered to suit their view of how things should be, and not how things are and should remain. The General's 'inclusiveness' must now extend to including divisive issues, such as the openly homosexual soldier within a system that requires high morale and esprit de corp to function properly, and a system where common sense also dictates there must be a commonality between ranks for an army to remain effective as a combat unit. Reading some of the text messages between serving soldiers regarding the homosexual soldier, I can certainly understand their frustration at being forced to accommodate the new political paradigm which has been issued from politicians who have no military experience and do not realize how divisive this issue will in future become. Those messages, some of which have gone viral, are really personal opinions between soldiers, and are simple and natural reactions to what has been imposed on them, and which their own common sense tells them won't work. Because they are personal opinions the army has no jurisdiction over what the soldier may wish to message to other soldiers while off duty outside of a non-strategic and national security context. That is unless of course the army wishes to become a fascist entity and takes to censoring what it may consider to be inappropriate comments.
I also caught the General referring to "Australian Muslims" as being under-represented within the ADF. Anyone who knows the pious Muslim will also know that they firstly identify as Muslim, not as Australian Muslim. The fact that any group of people are prepared to identify themselves by their religious beliefs, rather than as Australians, should set warning bells off in our recruitment centres that these are people whose religion is considered to come first over all other requirements, including that of a soldier within the ADF. These are not people who can be relied upon in a battle against other Muslims and as several incidents have shown, particularly within the American military, the Muslim soldier may become a concientious objector when ordered to deploy to a Muslim country where he may have to kill other Muslims.There has also been several incidents where the Muslim soldier has taken up arms against and killed his own infidel comrades. The General is not serving this nation's best interest in promoting Muslims into the ADF. He would be better respected by his troops if he stood up against those who are trying to have the Muslim soldier accepted under affirmative action guidelines, as an integral part of the ADF. This kind of inclusiveness will in future, become very divisive within the ADF, and extremely dangerous to our national security.
"I'm proud of my gay and lesbian soldiers, and what they do"; stated the General, when asked about any issues regarding homosexuality and its effect within the ADF. As an ex-cop, that answer would not have passed the lie test in a police interview. It was quite plain to me that the General did not believe what he was saying. In my opinion, it is plain that the General does not have the welfare of his troops at heart and is simply parrotting lines to placate his political masters. I do not like this General as he is not a good leader of men. A good leader would protest at the absudity of affirmative action, and its effect on the military!
Homosexuality has always been part of the military. Mostly it was well hidden as it was punishable under military law, and there is good reasoning for this as homosexuality was considered not only an aberration, which it is, but also un-hygienic, particularly in field conditions, which I believe is self explanatory. Then there is the inter-personal relationships that homosexuals can develop within a confined group which can have devastating consequences on morale and fighting ability within that group. Females will of course present the same problems in a gender mixed combat unit, but the progressives will never look past their own ideals to see this very plain fact of life. To have the homosexual paraded as a 'normal' part of ADF life is indeed to invite the very criticisms from soldiers that the politicians and ADF hierarchy are now at great pains to counter. The progressive and PC compliant will never admit that it is the policy that is causing the problems, rather, it is the 'small mindedness' of those who cannot accept the fly in your face stupidity of such a policy. Such is the idealism of the progressive, who, when one comes to think about it, is really a degenerative who is wittingly or unwittingly, eroding the very fabric of an entity that is designed to fight and kill, not rollover and thrill!
But the piece de resistance was the complaint that calling your enemy 'ragheads' was being racist! What? After I got over my fit of laughing about that one it was plain to see that those who do no fighting, and are prepared to send our young men off to war, are the biggest hypocrites when it comes to dictating what is right and what is wrong on the battlefield. While it is OK to kill people, according to the progressive and their PC compliant politicans, it is not OK to call them names! Only the truly stupid cannot see the gross contradiction and hypocrisy in that!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)