I guess a few of you didn’t read this far
Any thoughts are appreciated, but if your thoughts are either “Trump is the messiah!!” Or “Trump is the antichrist”
Perhaps post elsewhere.
1 Like
What get me is the total “lack of forgiveness” present in just about everything everywhere these days. A person can “misbehave” and it doesn’t matter how much they clean up their life, they can only be known for their past. In my state, a politician was confronted about a “sexist statement”. But research showed he was a teenage boy in high school in 1998. “Sexist statements” are pretty much a given with teenage boys in high school. 
[quote=“BeerCaptain, post:19, topic:71609”] Beer Captain said it best.
“That applies to anyone who has to sit up there, not him specifically. Again, regardless how you feel about whatever nominee is up there they’re all get destroyed when it comes to anything they’ve ever done in their lives.”
Yeah, though some of the allegations against Hagseth are both serious and recent, and questions about those things are perfectly legitimate.
Of course none of that is really relevant to the issue raised here.
The point is, Hagseth as said often, and recently that he believes women do not belong on combat.
So asking exactly what he means is valid.
Does he want to go back to a pre '94 military?
If so that is a ~30% reduction in manpower across the military.
Does he have something else in mind?
If so exactly what?
When he said those things matters. He was a private citizen previously, but he’s now a nominated officer of executive government under the chief executive, Trump.
So his views can and should change to reflect the administration’s view, not his personal view.
I think he handled his senate confirmation well. Idiot dem senators carried on with schoolyard bully tactics and disgraced themselves to the watching world.
I reiterate my view that he probably accepts women in combat, but rejects them in the case of where there’s likelihood of face-to-face combat. Most people are of that view as I’ve stated back in this thread. Women can’t fight hand-to-hand with men and win.
1 Like
I never served with women at sea when I served. One problem that was starting to occur was women taking over shore berths once occupied by males who had served in a ship on an overseas station back in the day when such a posting meant a year away from family. 6 weeks leave per annum is not enough for a married male continuously at sea.
As for women in combat. It depends on their role. Combat aircraft and a modern warships come to mind. I’m definitely in agreement with you on the lack of suitability for infantry but history is replete with examples of women showing resilience and courage in the worst of circumstances.
I concur. But nowadays those shore billets for respite are taken by civilian contractors in the RAN. Sailors ashore work within the civilian contract for services to the base.
Again, I concur, but you don’t deliberately shove women to the front when men could do it better. I believe the Israeli army tried women in face-to-face units but reversed that policy for all the common sense reasons. We should heed their experience based as it is on continual readiness and existential fighting.
Any attempt to remove the stated 30% of females us the US armed forces would be stupid.
1 Like
It interesting how few people here have even attempted an intelligent or thoughtful answers to the questions raised.
Has anyone here actually read anything Hegseth published? The War On Warriors is a great book, controversial only in that his criticisms were centered on decisions that reduced battlefield effectiveness and not politics, which given the decline in the US military, still underscored that stupidity, greed and partisan politics were directly to blame, and names got named in both parties.
The book is explicit in his criticism of deployment of women in the combat arms; army infantry, speifically, and his assertions are 100% correct and completely uncontroversial except for within political context. The cost (and decline) in readiness, effectiveness and lethality is significant, with army infantry studies the most numerous.
Worth reading, though a bit depressing.
2 Likes
His appointment was the result of his views, views that are a perfect match for the new agenda. His latest “views” are carefully crafted “confirmation views” designed to make his appointment a little more palatable. The last few supreme court confirmations show us how effective that strategy can be.
4 Likes
Are you teaching me to suck eggs or is there an alternative universe where things always happen the way you want?
I’m wondering what would be considered “combat”. Would a female mess cook on a flattop be considered a “combatant”? Serious question.
In a discussion like this, there are so many ways things can go. There do not seem to be any “absolutes” where it can be said “This is right” or “This is wrong”.
1 Like
As a uniformed crewmember of a combat vehicle, certainly she is a combatant. The vehicle and its occupants are all targets.
1 Like
I have to disagree. It specifically does not apply to anyone. It specifically applies to a person with this sort of character who has admitted to five affairs while married to his first wife, and then while married to his second wife had a child with another woman.
His mom sent him an email during one of his divorce hearings that said: “You are an abuser of women – that is the ugly truth and I have no respect for any man that belittles, lies, cheats, sleeps around, and uses women for his own power and ego. You are that man (and have been for years) and as your mother it pains me and embarrasses me to say that, but it is the sad, sad truth … It’s time for a someone (I wish it was a strong man) to stand up to your abusive behavior and call it out, especially against women.” although she did apologize for the email more recently.
The military has an issue with sexual intimidation and sexual violence among its ranks. This is not new (remember Tailhook?), but at least the problem has become harder to ignore more recently. I sincerely hope that we are steadily approaching services that top to bottom will treat their members with consistency and respect. The last thing we need is a leader of these services that exemplifies the repulsive attitudes that often engender a serial philanderer.
Since he is a veteran and supposed “patriot”, he also should be very familiar with the honor and sanctity that should be shown the American flag AT ALL TIMES. Instead he quite publicly chooses to use it as a prop to get a reaction:
I think this is a truly twisted version of “patriotism” when the intentional misuse and desecration of a sacred national symbol somehow suggests you are more “patriotic” compared to those of us who would NEVER use the flag in such a disrespectful manner. Something tells me he’s never apologized for this act of poor taste and poor judgement. Again it’s a very bad example to set for the servicemembers he would otherwise be in charge of, who at times might be asked to die for that Flag and all that it symbolizes.
1 Like
Yeah, I think you’re missing the point of what I said and also the thread.
It is highly likely that the female cook would be allocated other tasks when the flat top is at battle stations such as first aid, fire fighting, or damage control. Otherwise she may be tasked with making sandwiches.
Everyone in a warship or indeed any ship in a hostile environment is on the front line.
There are a number of reasons why it is hard to recruit people in today’s world.
From Vietnam on people who served have been denigrated, the pay is poor and conditions have been eroded.
1 Like
It is interesting how many people here don’t seem to grasp that warships are in combat.
I gues they haven’t heard of Bad
al-Mandab
Strange forba sight dedicated to mariners.
1 Like
Honestly I would be quite interested in Konrad’s opinion here.
Read his Twitter.