Reload­ing U.S. mil­i­tary cred­i­bil­ity

Trump can take steps im­me­di­ately to re­store morale

The Washington Times Weekly - - Commentary Securing The Navy - By James A. Lyons

As has been seen over the last eight years, diplo­macy that re­sults in ca­pit­u­la­tion is not very ef­fec­tive. The key un­der­ly­ing fac­tor for suc­cess­ful diplo­macy is not just hav­ing a clear un­der­stand­ing of our vi­tal strate­gic ob­jec­tives, but also the mil­i­tary cred­i­bil­ity to achieve those ob­jec­tives as nec­es­sary.

As a first or­der of business, we need to re­view and re­de­fine our strate­gic ob­jec­tives and what is vi­tal to our na­tional in­ter­est. For ex­am­ple, does our cur­rent in­volve­ment in Afghanistan make any sense as it re­lates to our vi­tal strate­gic in­ter­ests? Of course not. So why do we con­tinue to ex­pend our na­tional trea­sure to sus­tain a cor­rupt tribal so­ci­ety?

Con­cur­rently, in or­der to re­store our world lead­er­ship cre­den­tials we must re­verse the de­cline of our mil­i­tary ca­pa­bil­i­ties. There is no ques­tion that se­ques­tra­tion has dec­i­mated our mil­i­tary forces. It will take sev­eral years to re­build the force struc­ture to lev­els that are re­quired for what we de­fine as a “ready re­sponse” force. How­ever, there are ac­tions and pro­grams that can be en­acted now that will im­me­di­ately raise morale and the readi­ness of our ex­ist­ing forces.

Since we are still in­volved in com­bat op­er­a­tions in the Mid­dle East, any re­main­ing re­stricted rules of en­gage­ment must be re­moved. That does not mean we will be in­dis­crim­i­nate on how we con­duct com­bat op­er­a­tions. None­the­less, no longer will our air­craft be re­turn­ing from a strike mis­sion with only 20 per­cent, or even none, of their ord­nance ex­pended.

The next step that must be taken is to re­store the moral un­der­pin­nings of our mil­i­tary forces by can­celling, as a mat­ter of pri­or­ity, the so­cial en­gi­neer­ing man­dates of the Obama ad­min­is­tra­tion. This in­cludes the sec­re­tary of de­fense’s lat­est man­date to force our mil­i­tary to ac­cept trans­gen­der per­son­nel. As Paul McHugh, for­mer head psy­chol­o­gist at Johns Hop­kins Univer­sity Hos­pi­tal has stated, trans­gen­derism is not a phys­i­cal is­sue, it is a men­tal dis­or­der that needs un­der­stand­ing and treat­ment. It is not a civil rights is­sue and should never be forced on our mil­i­tary.

In try­ing to sub­stan­ti­ate his de­ci­sion to in­cor­po­rate trans­gen­der per­son­nel into the mil­i­tary, Sec­re­tary Ash­ton Carter’s as­ser­tion that the re­moval of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” has been a re­sound­ing suc­cess is more than an over­state­ment. The last known pub­lished fig­ures were in 2014. In that year there were more than 10,000 male-on-male un­wanted ad­vances. Re­mem­ber, this is just the re­ported num­bers. If this is suc­cess, I would hate to see what the sec­re­tary of de­fense thinks fail­ure would look like. In my view, the LGBT agenda is ac­tu­ally a slow slide into pa­gan­ism.

The sec­re­tary of de­fense has dis­re­garded a plethora of well-doc­u­mented stud­ies, in­clud­ing a re­cently com­pleted, nine-month study by the U.S. Marine Corps — all of which show com­bat ef­fec­tive­ness is de­graded for a va­ri­ety of well-founded rea­sons when women are placed in com­bat roles. His de­ci­sion to open up all com­bat roles to women must be over­turned. There are many vi­able roles for women in the mil­i­tary — com­bat is not one of them!

Separately, the sec­re­tary of the Navy has re­cently is­sued a di­rec­tive to change all tra­di­tional en­listed rat­ing names to make them gen­der neu­tral. This makes ab­so­lutely no sense un­less it is to de­stroy more than 240 years of Navy cus­toms and tra­di­tions. In fact, the en­tire so­cial en­gi­neer­ing pro­gram that has been forced on our mil­i­tary does not im­prove readi­ness or ca­pa­bil­ity, so why is it be­ing done? Is it be­ing done to de­stroy mil­i­tary cus­toms and tra­di­tions, as well as our war­rior men­tal­ity?

An­other ad­min­is­tra­tive de­ci­sion that needs to be re­moved is the stigma of po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness. The most de­spi­ca­ble ex­am­ple of this is the fail­ure to prop­erly iden­tify the en­emy and its doc­trine. The en­emy is not “vi­o­lent ex­trem­ism.” In fact, it is not “rad­i­cal Is­lam.” The en­emy was best de­scribed by Pres­i­dent Re­cep Tayyip Er­do­gan of Turkey when he was prime min­is­ter. He stated, “Is­lam is Is­lam — there are no mod­i­fiers. Democ­racy is the train we ride to achieve our ul­ti­mate ob­jec­tive, which is make Is­lam the dom­i­nant re­li­gion through­out the world.” Clearly, Is­lam is a to­tal­i­tar­ian ide­ol­ogy bent on world dom­i­na­tion, mas­querad­ing as a re­li­gion. The goal is to re­place our Con­sti­tu­tion with the sev­enth-cen­tury dra­co­nian Shariah law. It should be noted that Mus­lims do not con­sider Is­lam a re­li­gion but a “way of life.” Un­til Is­lam is un­der­stood to be the main threat to our Con­sti­tu­tion and the free­doms we en­joy, we will not be suc­cess­ful in de­feat­ing this en­emy.

Of course, the Mus­lim Broth­er­hood and its var­i­ous front or­ga­ni­za­tions, Coun­cil on Amer­i­can-Is­lamic Re­la­tions (CAIR), Is­lamic So­ci­ety of North Amer­ica (ISNA), et al., with their ef­fec­tive pen­e­tra­tion of all our gov­ern­ment agen­cies, in­clud­ing the White House, will make a ma­jor ef­fort to pre­vent the Amer­i­can pub­lic from un­der­stand­ing the Is­lamic threat and the global ji­had move­ment. How­ever, we can counter their an­tic­i­pated ef­forts by not only purg­ing them from our gov­ern­ment agen­cies, but by also re­open­ing the 2008 Holy Land Foun­da­tion Trial. This would re­vive the le­gal pros­e­cu­tion of CAIR, ISNA and their many front or­ga­ni­za­tions.

It would also have a ma­jor im­pact on many of the more than 2,700 mosques and their rad­i­cal imams in the United States who preach sedi­tion. A plan needs to be de­vel­oped to close those mosques that preach sedi­tion, and de­port or pros­e­cute their imams.

All of these ac­tions could be im­ple­mented in the first 100 days of the Trump ad­min­is­tra­tion and would be a pos­i­tive step in restor­ing our cred­i­bil­ity and ca­pa­bil­i­ties. James A. Lyons, a U.S. Navy re­tired ad­mi­ral, was com­man­der-in-chief of the U.S. Pa­cific Fleet and se­nior U.S. mil­i­tary rep­re­sen­ta­tive to the United Na­tions.

IL­LUS­TRA­TION BY GREG GROESCH/THE WASH­ING­TON TIMES

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.