Posted on 12/21/2003 4:52:37 PM PST by AndyObermann
America's Hero By: Andy Obermann
In today's culture, a true hero is hard to find. Our youth, my generation included, idolize the likes of Eminem, deeming his anti-establishment, disrespectful stance as heroic. Distortions such as this cause us to lose sight of what a true hero is.
A true hero is one who makes a noble decision in the face of whatever consequences that decision may entail. They do whatever is necessary to protect the lives of others. They both recognize and accept the penalties of their actions with no complaints or regrets. They understand that those actions may cause personal strife and great sacrifice, but they deem it necessary for the welfare of others who depend on them. Recently, a new hero has emerged in America--Lieutenant Colonel Allen West.
In case you've been living under a rock, Col. West's situation is as follows. On Aug. 16, West learned of a plot among Iraqi militants and Saddam loyalists to assassinate both the Colonel and his men. He discovered that among the planners of this ambush was a member of the Iraqi police. On Aug. 20, this policeman was arrested and brought to base for interrogation. Interrogators were unable to force the man to talk, so West, in order to protect the lives of his men, took matters into his own hands. West fired his pistol twice into a barrel, threatening to kill the detained policeman should he continue to stonewall. Naturally, the petrified collaborator spilled his guts--tragedy averted.
West, having recognized that his actions were in violation of the military code of conduct, immediately reported the incident to his commanding officer, Major General Ray Ordierno (commander of the 4th infantry division in Iraq). West was brought up on assault charges and faced a possible court martial and dishonorable discharge from the Army, including the loss of his pension and insurance. Public pressure, however, forced the Army to waver and West's punishment was reduced to what amounted to a $5000 fine and loss of command. The 20-year vet subsequently retired from the military with his hard-earned benefits intact.
Now, I wanted to write on this subject several weeks ago. I wanted to express my support and admiration for the bravery of Col. West, but I couldn't. I had to wait. I had to see how he reacted to his punishment. Did West feel that his actions were necessary? Moreover, did he feel he did the right thing? I wanted to know if West truly fit my definition of a hero.
On Dec. 18, the Washington Post reported that, under the same circumstances, West would not hesitate to make this sacrifice again. He was quoted as saying, "As a commander, you have a responsibility, a moral obligation to protect your soldiers and I went outside the lines. I understand that, and that was a choice I made and I had to accept those consequences." He continued, "I have no regrets…and no malice [for the Army] whatsoever. [The Army] has made me what I am today."
West understood that what he did was against the rules of warfare. He understood that his decision would lead to a great sacrifice on his part. He understood all of this, but he still determined that his duty was to protect the lives of his men, no matter the personal cost. This is the kind of honor and loyalty that our military should expect from its commanders. Valor such as this should be awarded and praised.
Today in America, we need heroes with such honor. They set an important example for our youth. Col. West is truly one such example.
I've known some who would have made the opposite choice.
He is a hero.
Well sort of but not really: West never expected that someone within his unit would report his actions, but when he realized the two female interrogators were upset after he was successful in getting the information he needed in minutes after they had failed to get the information during hours of interrogation, he knew they'd b**ch to their girlfriend officer in JAG, so he reported his actions preemptively to mitigate any potential punishment. This case is a tragic example of how career feminist in the military are weakening and destroying our fighting forces. I'll never forget how this feminist officer in JAG did the work of our enemy for them by taking out West over this trivial incident that pales in comparison to other interrogations that are occurring daily without a word being said. She's a louse who should be kicked out of the military because we have lost a great soldier with excellent credentials for nothing because of her petty-emotional attack on West . I want to know more about this female captain's credentials. I'd like to compare her credentials to those of West to see what is motivating this enemy from within.
I'd like to differentiate between females and feminists. There are jobs in the military that are well suited for females: traditional jobs in which females have always served. However there are problems with career women feminist in the military: their political agenda and personal ambitions supersede the military's mission of putting the best fighting force together to accomplish its objectives. You end up with a military that kowtows to the feminist's whims at the expense of military readiness and effectiveness.
The military has been an easy target of feminists because of its command structure: soldiers can not openly question any command order, so you end up with a military that is severely feminized and weakened but no one from within is able to raise the red flag at what is happening. The underlying problem is very basic: men and women CAN'T work well together in this environmental setting because men and women begin acting like men and women -this is not the desired social setting for creating a fierce, focused fighting force IMHO.
She will be commended for prosecuting West and rapidly promoted.
That's how far we've fallen victim to feminazism in the military.
That's how far we've fallen victim to feminazism in the military.
Below is a truncated chronology of decisions to expand opportunities for women in the military at the expense of military readiness and effectiveness. Not one of these decisions was made with the intent of making the military stronger or more effective. As a result of these decisions, the Army has gone from about 2% female to nearly 20% female, and women are now serving in all kinds of specialties in which they are unfit to perform.
1951 - The Secretary of Defense established the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) to interpret the role of women in the services to the public and to promote acceptance of military service as a career for women.
l966 - Department of Defense (DoD) Inter-Service Working Group, Study on Utilization of Women in the Armed Services, 31 August 1966, recommended that the services expand their women's components between 38 and 73 percent over existing forces...and that women continue to be concentrated in administrative, communications, and medical care fields, but that the services explore their utilization in other fields.
1967 - President Lyndon B. Johnson signed Public Law 90-130, 8 November 1967, which eliminated restrictions on women's promotion (including flag rank) and retirement and the two percent limitation on their numbers
1972 - The Department of the Army Affirmative Action Plan expanded opportunities for women (June 1972). The percentage of occupations that could utilize women expanded from forty to ninety... Women began entering the Army's ROTC program. This source of officers quickly replaced the direct commission as the principal source of women officers. WACs received approval to command any unit in the Army expect one that had a combat mission.
1974 - Opportunities for women expanded. Women became eligible to serve in 430 of the Army's 467 military occupational specialties and only combat-related specialties remained closed
1975 - The Army discontinued its policy of involuntarily separating pregnant soldiers, replacing it with a new policy that permitted up to four weeks prenatal leave and six weeks postpartum leave. Immediate hardship discharges for sole parents, male or female, and married enlisted women when there was a conflict in performing one's military tasks and providing adequate child care were authorized (June 1975). The service academies became open to women (7 October 1975).
1977 - Women officers were serving in all branches except infantry, armor, field artillery and air defense artillery. Of the 377 enlisted military occupational specialties, 348, or 92 percent, were open to Women. The Army approved a new Basic Initial Entry Training program to provide female trainees with similar basic training as men. Female soldiers participated in annual REFORGER (Return of Forces to Germany) exercises for the first time as the Army studied the effect of Women on unit mission during deployment and operations under extended field conditions.
1978 - Women's Army Corps disestablished (28 April 1978). Major General Mary E. Clarke, commander of the U.S. Army Military Police School/Training Center and Fort McClellan, Alabama, became the first female major general in the Army's history (November 1978). The Army also began integrating male and female recruits in Basic Initial Entry Training at Fort Jackson, South Carolina.
1979 - An analysis of integrated basic training programs by Army physical therapists led to changes in equipment need by Women and a reduction in their training injuries. The high female injury rate during basic training was reduced from ten percent to less than three percent.
1980 - The Army expressed its concern over sexual harassment, The Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff in a joint message sent to the field on 4 January 1980, reaffirmed the Army's full commitment to a policy that upholds the human dignity of all military and civilian personnel. The Chief of Staff directed the Inspector General to investigate allegations of sexual harassment and mistreatment or Women. The Army's policy made it clear that improper sexual treatment should be dealt with swiftly and fairly. Commanders were responsible for educating and informing their soldiers and for enforcing Army policy.
1982 - The Secretary of Defense directed the military services to �aggressively break down those remaining barriers that prevent us from making the fullest use of the capabilities of Women in providing for our national defense� (January 1982). Women were authorized to serve in 92 percent of all Army officer, warrant officer, and enlisted specialties. Women could be assigned to all units expect battalion and smaller-sized units of infantry, armor, cannon field artillery, low-altitude air defense artillery, combat engineers, and certain aviation units. The Army discontinued coeducational basic training because men were not being challenged enough physically in integrated training companies. As part of the Army-wide effort to combat sexual harassment, special training programs for military and civilian personnel, both male and female, were begun.
1983 - The Army adopted the Direct Combat Probability Coding System (DCPCS).
1985 - Under the DCPCS female soldiers were authorized to serve in 86 percent of all military occupational specialties. Women composed 10.5 percent of active Army's strength.
1988 - The Department of Defense adopted a Risk Rule to help standardize the services' assignment of Women deploying to hostile areas.
1990-1991 - The Army expanded opportunities open to Women, opening ninety percent of military occupational specialties to them.
1993 - The Secretary of Defense directed the services to open more specialties and assignment opportunities to Women. Career opportunities expanded when more than 9,000 previously closed positions in combat aviation opened to the assignment of Women.
1994 - The Secretary of Defense announced a new assignment rule for Women based on direct ground combat. The Army applied the rule and opened more than 32,000 positions to the assignment of Women. The Army also implemented gender-integrated training at Fort Leonard Wood, Missouri, and at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. Women composed 13 percent of the active Army by the end of the year. 1998 - Women accounted for 14.9 percent of the Total Army.
2001 - Women currently account for 15.9 percent of the total Army.
Are you saying that not a single female you met during your time in the military was worthy of serving with you?
She certainly didn't. There have quite likely been other LTC West-type incidents in this conflict--all known to male commanders, senior NCOs, and JAGs in a position to press formal action. These have remained unreported. Men will exercise discretion and not press such issues. Feminazis, feminized males, and duplicitous creatures of both sexes looking for personal notoriety and promotion will.
This was not a My Lai-type incident. There was no actual physical harm to the guilty-as-he** Iraqi scum (apart from his being lightly roughed-up at the request of other interrogators--which was not charged). If LTC West had physically harmed or killed the Iraqi, I would support his prosecution. All LTC West did was frighten the man, which caused him to dump a pantload and disclose some imminent deathtraps that had been set for LTC West's soldiers.
After suffering the Iraqi to play patty-cake, hopscotch, and jacks with feckless and worthless female interrogators for several hours, LTC West took charge and with remarkable economy of effort, took action, saved lives, while leaving the Iraqi in the same physical condition as he found him.
Men such as LTC West win wars despite the best efforts of women and feminized men to lose them.
A JAG queen cruising for recognition and likely lusting for a position on Empress Hillary's staff pushed the issue--destroying a fine commander. Despicable.
Puller might have made it, but only because the Marines have largely resisted the femino-political correctness that infects the other branches.
I think you are absolutely correct and that's why this trumped up case against West was so important. Anybody who knows the military knows UCMJ can be used against service members on a whim if someone is out to get them: it's like how a police officer can always find a reason to pull someone over on a traffic violation if the officer follows someone long enough. I'd like to know the name and rank of those female "interrogators" and the connection they have to that female officer who filed the charges against West. I think there needs to be an investigation of them to determine their true motives for creating this debilitating crisis over nothing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.