Webb's rebel roots: An affinity for Confederacy

Politico ^ | 6/10/08 | David Mark

[Non-Sequitur]

However, you may put down in the category that supports complete and strict compliance with public law which precludes assignment of any female military member to a direct ground combat organization or to a combat, or combat support, organization wherein there is a reasonable expectation that she could be regularly and routinely exposed to normally expected enemy action.

And are you contending that is not currently the case?

Additionally, you may put down in the category that supports separate training for females and males for all services similar to what the Marine Corps does currently.

Wouldn't that preclude females at any of the service academies?

Moreover, you may also put down in the category that backs the principle just because an individual serves (women) there has to be no guarantee of opportunity to get promoted. Promotion should be based upon the needs of service and the experience/training/demonstrated competency of the individual to be promoted. If combat service is considered a prerequisite for promotion and women are barred from such by public law, then so be it.

I have no arguement with that, though I'm not aware of any case where combat is a prerequisite for promotion. Or where it should be.

Finally, you may put down in the category that maintains the purpose of the military is to fulfill the US Constitution’s requirement to provide for the common defense. In recognition of responsibility to the taxpayers who foot the bill for such defense, it should be provided as effectively and efficiently as can possibly be the case. It is not the purpose of the military to engage in some social engineering experiment.

The military in many ways has been on the cutting edge of social engineering. From the Civil War where blacks were first allowed in combat to post-World War II where units were integrated to the current day when women are allowed into combat related specialties, the military has been in the forefront. And during all that, the military has been able to carry out its mission when called upon.

For the record I started by military carrer in the 1970s in ROTC. I served on active duty into the 80s and then in the reserves until the end. I was recalled for about a year for the first gulf war. So I started when women weren't allowed at sea, was on active duty when they first began being assigned to auxiliaries, and finished when women were as integrated into the military as they ever are going to be. I've worked with women, for women, and had women reporting up to me. And my considered opinion is that the percentage of sub-standard women officers I've met is about the same as the ratio of sub-standard male officers. That the number of outstanding women officers is about the same ratio as outstanding male officers. In short, women do the job. They do it well. They do it on the same level with the same dedication and the same professionalism as their male counterparts. And that Webb's remarks have been shown to be false. But that's just me.

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

You make it sound like the 17th sprang full-blown from the head of Woodrow Wilson, and that there was no reason behind it at the time, when both are far from the truth. The election of senators by the state legislatures had been contentious since before the Civil War, and even moreso after the war. No less than nine cases of senators bribing their legislatures were brought up in the senate. Deadlocks meant that some states went months without naming a senator. Delaware, in fact, went four years without being able to agree on a senator. The senate was seen as hopelessly corrupt and in the pocket of special interests at the state level.

Finally, many states simply went to some form of direct election of senators on their own, well before the 17th was passed--29 of them, in fact. And it was the senators thus elected who provided the swing votes for the 17th, which had been proposed as far back as 1826 and brought up in the House every year since at least 1893.

[cowboyway]

How do you even figure?

Read something about Lincoln besides the pubic screwl dribble that you've been fed and get back with me.

[Lucky Dog]

And are you contending that [public law … precludes assignment of any female military member to a direct ground combat organization or to a combat, or combat support, organization…] is not currently the case?

Yes… Read the newspapers. Additionally, recall a certain individual in Iraq whose convoy got lost, then got ambushed, followed by her capture and her subsequent special forces rescue from an Iraqi hospital. Let’s see… a female assigned to a combat support unit in a place where she could expect to be routinely exposed to enemy combat action… ring any bells?

Wouldn't that [ separate training for females and males for all services ] preclude females at any of the service academies?

Not necessarily. However, it would require separate facilities and training programs. If Congress determined that such facilities and programs were not a fiscally responsible use of taxpayer funds, then your supposition would be the case.

I have no argument with that, though I'm not aware of any case where combat is a prerequisite for promotion. Or where it should be.

It is widely perceived that promotion to most senior field grade and flag billets requires experience in combat units, if not actual combat. The argument goes thusly: Assignments to combat units provide command opportunities for the assigned officer to demonstrate distinguishing performance in way that those not so assigned are denied.

The military in many ways has been on the cutting edge of social engineering.

Except for the period immediately following WWII, such was never intentionally done arguably, purely for the sake of social engineering. Any action that could be perceived as such was done for other reasons (usually strategic military concerns) rather than attempting to change civilian society.

From the Civil War where blacks were first allowed in combat …

You are mistaken. Check your history and you will find that blacks have fought in every national conflict beginning with the Revolutionary War (a black was one of the first casualties). Although not a combat assignment, there was even a black man accompanying Lewis and Clark. It is true that there were black units of enlisted men in the Civil War officered by white men. It is also true that there were black military units in the Western campaigns again officered by whites, i.e., “buffalo soldiers.” However, not even in these cases was the purpose of the these units an attempt to influence civilian society (except perhaps to incite a slave revolt in the Confederacy during the Civil War).

… to the current day when women are allowed into combat related specialties, the military has been in the forefront.

I suppose that the current protests in academia, San Franciso, etc., surrounding ROTC concerning permitting homosexual practitioners to openly serve in the military is in the forefront?

And during all that, the military has been able to carry out its mission when called upon.

I invite you to consider the “recent unpleasantness” in Southeast Asia some 40 plus years ago. Could there be a better example of the opposite of your assertion that the military has been able to carry out its mission when called upon? Alternately, could this be a near perfect example of where the military was prevented from carrying out its mission by the bungling interference of politicians in that mission? In deed, what is so-called “social engineering” in the military but the bungling interference of politicians in the mission?

For the record, as you say, I started my military career in the mid 60s and served on active duty into the mid 90s. Beyond the Southeast Asian conflict, I, also, served in the first gulf war… as a unit commander with women assigned. As you did, I started when women weren't allowed in combat units, was on active duty when they first began being assigned, and finished when women were as integrated into the military as they ever are going to be.

Unfortunately, my experience with women in the military does not match yours. While I, too, have seen both sub-standard women officers and outstanding women officers, this discussion was never about that topic. Again, you have completely missed the point.

In short, women do the job. They do it well. They do it on the same level with the same dedication and the same professionalism as their male counterparts. And that Webb's remarks have been shown to be false. But that's just me.

Webb’s remarks were about the impact that internally assigned women have on a military combat unit. Stay on point. I can tell you, as a commander, I was forced to issue disciplinary actions to men that wrecked their military careers in my unit in Gulf War I because of the presence of women. I can also tell you that I was forced to intervene with an allied forces commander to prevent the execution of one of his troops because of something one of my female military members did. These problems were with men, but they would never have existed without the presence of women assigned to my unit. I could go into a number of other situations but I think the point is made: my personal military experience confirms Webb’s observations that the presence of women is detrimental to the combat effectiveness of military units.

[thefrankbaum]

I didn't attend public schools, but thanks for checking on me. Now, if you would like to direct me towards some reputable scholarship on the matter, I'm always willing to learn.

[cowboyway]

What I want to know is how they will bury this: James Webb: Women Can't Fight

They won't have to; he's a democrat.

They'll come up with some dribble about in the past and need to move on and then there will be a lame public apology and badda bing, badda bang, a non-issue!

[cowboyway]

Having a sense of humor over the War of Southern Rebellion is not the cowboy way.

And my sense of humor fades more each day that the yankee, B. Hussein Obama, comes closer to the White House.

[cowboyway]

Methinks you confuse negativism with realism

I guess I am confused.......... I thought this was a 'conservative' forum............

[Non-Sequitur]

And my sense of humor fades more each day that the yankee, B. Hussein Obama, comes closer to the White House.

I can see where you Southron types might be upset with Obama. Can't own him. Can't control him. What good is he?

And besides, we survived 16 years of good ol' Southern boys like Clinton and Bush, plus 4 years of Carter and 5 of LBJ. Haven't we more than paid for Sherman's stroll to the sea by now?

[Non-Sequitur]

Now, if you would like to direct me towards some reputable scholarship on the matter, I'm always willing to learn.

What passes for Southron scholarship can be found in the works of Tommy DiLorenzo, the Kennedy brothers, Chuckie Adams, people like that.

[Lucky Dog]

I guess I am confused.......... I thought this was a 'conservative' forum............

I agree you are confused, although not about this forum. Recall that the origin of our discussion was about the effectiveness of the Tenth Amendment. Further recall that I stated that the net effect of the Tenth had been overcome by the judicial interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment.

I never said I supported such, merely that is was reality. Resolutions passed by the Oklahoma, or any other state, legislature are powerless to change that reality. I merely pointed out such... not that I necessarily agreed with it. IMHO, real conservatism is about actions such as conservative judicial appointments and passing Constitutional amendments, that restore rights and freedoms, not just words.

[thefrankbaum]

And my sense of humor fades more each day that the yankee, B. Hussein Obama, comes closer to the White House.

Yeah. Just like that damnyankee Ronald Reagan. Thank goodness for great Southern Presidents like LBJ, Carter, and Clinton!

[thefrankbaum]

Did not see this post before I posted #72. GMTA and all that...

[x]

Good research. James L. Sundquist's Constitutional Reform and Effective Government says:

[W]hen early in this century agitation grew for adoption of direct election in all the states, no one even called attention to the fact that the states would be giving up what the framers had conceived as the ultimate guarantee of their place in the federal system. Either the states no longer saw the Senate as their guardian against federal intrusion or they had ceased to feel the need for such protection.

Of course "nobody" and "never" are words one uses at one's risk, but Senators had ceased to be representatives of state governments, rather than of the people of their state, well before 1913.

[NFHale]

Thanks for the set-straight.

Didn’t mean to imply that Wilson was solely behind it; simply that under his watch, we started the slide we’re on now.

[cowboyway]

I can see where you Southron types might be upset with Obama. Can't own him. Can't control him. What good is he?

That's a real POS comment. That's low, even for your standards.

FWIW, my 83 year old dad (veteran of WWII including Omaha Beach) told me a few months ago that he would vote for Rice if she ran for president. He was born and raised in the South and his daddy's farm had blacks working on it that were children slaves. But you go ahead and stay with your small mindedness, NS. We don't expect any better from you.

You don't have a clue, NS. You've got your stereotypes about Southerners just as you probably have stereotypes about blacks.

[cowboyway]

Resolutions passed by the Oklahoma, or any other state, legislature are powerless to change that reality.

That's it. I don't want you on my team when the SHTF.

IMHO, real conservatism is about actions such as conservative judicial appointments and passing Constitutional amendments, that restore rights and freedoms, not just words.

The restoration of rights and freedom would be better served by the repeal of certain amendments instead of adding more 'words' that would be left open for activist judges to interpret, don't you think? That would be a conservative approach.

[Non-Sequitur]

We don't expect any better from you.

Ditto.

[cowboyway]

Yeah. Just like that damnyankee Ronald Reagan. Thank goodness for great Southern Presidents like LBJ, Carter, and Clinton!

Southern presidents:

George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
James Madison
James Monroe
Andrew Jackson
William Henry Harrison
John Tyler
James Polk
Zachary Taylor
Andrew Johnson
Woodrow Wilson
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
Lyndon Johnson
Jimmy Carter
Bill Clinton
BW Bush

All in all, I'd say that we have a damn good track record.

[Lucky Dog]

That's it. I don't want you on my team when the SHTF.

That's OK. I am already on a team: mine.

The restoration of rights and freedom would be better served by the repeal of certain amendments...

I don't disagree with you. I'd start with the Sixteenth. However, I would definitely add some: term limits would be at the top followed by civil service reform to limit the "professional bureaucrat class." Additionally, I'd add something to curb the current judicial tyranny and time-limit executive orders.