21 September 2012


by Andy Weddington
Friday, 21 September 2012

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."

United States military deaths in Afghanistan since Mr. Obama took office number a handful shy of 1,500. Those Americans died fighting for and under the protection of our Constitution and our star-spangled banner - to which they voluntarily swore an oath of allegiance.

Last week Americans died while conducting combat operations in Afghanistan. And our Ambassador to Libya, one of his staff and a couple of Navy SEALs, on duty in Benghazi, were killed by al-Qaeda in a pre-planned attack to coincide with the 11th anniversary of 9/11. Those Americans died fighting for and under the protection of our Constitution and our star-spangled banner - to which they voluntarily swore an oath of allegiance.  

Not a week after the murders of our diplomats, the Obama camp went public with two variants desecrating our star-spangled banner - the blue field with stars replaced with the Obama logo. 

And remember the below desecration flying outside a Democratic Party headquarters in Florida back in the Spring of this year?

When Mr. Obama swore his oath of office, his allegiance, it was to the United States of America.

For the President of the United States to not immediately and publicly renounce these disgraceful images, legal or not, is blasphemous.

And, his silence is an insult of the highest order, from the highest office of our land, to those who have served in uniform and especially to those who have selflessly given their lives. 

An overreaction? Not hardly. Ask a veteran. Ask the family of a veteran. Ask a patriot. 

Our colors are under attack!

Is this not the behavior of a domestic enemy?

Who knows Mr. Obama's sentiments about the desecration of our colors. A word from him would end the nonsense. But his silence disconcerting, a sign of consent and another light-flashing, bell-ringing alarm.

Interestingly enough, earlier this week I received an email updating me on the continued efforts of an outfit fighting the repeal of homosexuals openly serving in our armed forces and stopping the push to force women into ground combat arms specialties; especially the infantry.

I don't recall exactly what it was but something in the material caused me to do some cursory research about the demographics of our military. The most recent official data I could find online was from 2010 - good enough for the comments that follow.

About 85% of our military is male - of which about 75% is white. And the majority of that 85% are between ages 17 - 26.

Generally speaking, most males drawn to the military are conservative - such is their upbringing. And most are drawn to service, especially to the Marine Corps, for a chance to prove themselves in an arena most shy away from - that last bastion of "manhood."

When hearings for the repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' (permitting homosexuals to openly serve) were underway, the majority serving in combat arms, when surveyed, were against repeal. Their real world battlefield concerns being derogatory impact on unit cohesion and combat readiness and effectiveness. Their voice(s) was given token consideration, if not ignored.

The ongoing left-wing agenda to push women into ground combat units, including infantry battalions, is even less popular among the combat arms communities. And the argument is simple. Women do not have the size, physical strength nor endurance required, and then there are the cultural values - all to the detriment of unit cohesion and combat readiness and effectiveness.  

Thinking about the continuing efforts from sundry outfits to exclude homosexuals from openly serving and restricting women from ground combat units, it dawned on me perhaps their approach is all wrong.

Just because repeal of DADT and pushing women into ground combat units is happening does not mean the perspective of those in uniform, at any rank, against such social experiments have changed their minds; compliance being under duress.

The power to influence rests in numbers. And with today's communication tools - where information can travel around the globe in seconds into the hands of hundreds of millions - numbers and actions supporting a cause can be amassed and carried out quickly. For example, look no further than the current anti-American upheaval in the Middle East, North Africa, and elsewhere.

Think about this, what would happen if that conservative cohort of male Americans between ages 17 - 26, or a significant portion thereof, decided, based on the social experiments going on in our military and the troubling behavior of the president, to not volunteer for military service?

That is, what if a note(s) went out on Twitter, or whatever message backbone, alerting to a serious, growing problem in America and all those young men considering military service decided not to do so?

How long before those bright, talented young men capable of doing whatever they wanted in life realize they would be sacrificing for ideologues - those who not only purposely avoid military service but loathe the military while diligently working to weaken the military and America?

It's quite possible the recruiting pool could dry up - instantly.

Then what?

What if those young American men stood their ground - we're not serving until some things change?

What alternatives would the government have?

Realistically, two - change or draft.

And either would be advantageous to the defense of America.

Otherwise, it's liberals, women, and the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender communities in uniform. Some force that would make.

From an objective vantage point and thinking asymmetrically, the conservatives trying to affect change, back to time-tested and validated tradition, in our military are going about it all wrong. Appeal to those with a propensity to serve - by pointing out what they believe they are serving is not reality.

But would such a strategy, a tactic, were it to happen put us all at risk?

Indeed it would.


Not really.

Frightening to consider?

Indeed it is.

But some things, like country, are worth fighting for. And a shot, from firearm, not necessarily need be fired.

In today's nonlinear world, anything is possible - especially the impossible.

God help us.

Post Script

Keep an eye on the young men in America - what they decide telling. 


1 comment:

Tom H. said...

This megalomaniac we have sitting in the White House is the most dangerous domestic threat to our freedoms and liberties in our history. The desecration of our Stars and Stripes is yet the latest example of his total disdain for the core values our nation was founded upon. He seems to envision himself as the "second coming" and that he is possessed of the charms, intellect, and vision of one Nicolae Carpathia of the "Left Behind" series. If he is not defeated on 6 Nov., we can prepare ourselves for a tranformation to the United Socialist States of America. And - I'll be leaving the country I grew up loving for another place to live out my remaining years.