Female Seals?

We need women on the front line. We need women in the Navy Seals, Special Forces, and Army Rangers. Right?

Needs and requirements drive supply in a sane society. A change in policy is normally made because some form of deficiency exists. Pushing for equal rights in our Special Forces is similar to 'Billy' feeling left out because he can't work as a waitress at Hooters (circa 2009). The only 'minor' difference is (and as ridiculous as it may be), a male Hooters waiter serving drinks will not cost American lives. 

It may be painful for some to hear, but the military is designed to kill - especially in reference to Seal Teams, Special Operations Forces (SOF), & Rangers. What you've seen on TV regarding the training of these elite men is only 50% truth - at best. Fact is, the training is much more intense than you'll ever know. Once 'training' and acceptance into these exclusive organizations is complete - the upgrade has only just begun. Injuries, mental anguish, and at times - doubts are mixed with pride, honor, loyalty and selfless service - all of which heavily outweigh the latter. I'm sorry I mentioned the word 'elite', that doesn't sound fair. For women this injustice of not joining the ranks of these men have clearly held women down for far too long.......I mean, this injustice of not joining the ranks of these men have clearly made us weaker as a military fighting force. Both statements are equally ludicrous. 

It is clear that our special forces are not meeting standards. Time and time again I read about other countries rolling over our special operations units. Wait, what? We're the best in the world. What exactly is the need for change based on? Our leaders are clearly willing to risk American lives for either political gain or to..........forget it, I cannot think of another reason. There can simply be no other explanation for this change. Is the risk worth the reward?

When leaders like Former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta use the military fighting force as a social experiment there are no winners. It's impossible to say that there is a benefit to such a move. That is, if you truly understand what, when, how, and why these men deploy. 

Do you want to know the scarcest word in the American language today? The word 'No'. I yearn for the days when leaders would respond to situations like these with a strong dose of common sense and the word 'no'. I beg of someone to stand up and say 'no' while honorably doing the right thing. I beg for a mom with her screaming kid in the grocery store to firmly say 'no' without fear of judgment. All those fancy terms thrown around in every basic military training and officer candidate school across this great nation really do mean something.

I think a real-world story is in order. While I was deployed to Afghanistan in 2009, I was providing overwatch for a team of Special Operations Forces in my F-15E. On this night, the objective was atop a large mountain - about a 4000' ascent from the basecamp down below. While scanning the team and surrounding terrain for enemy forces, it was clear the team was taking much longer than normal. I've watched in awe on many occasions the incredible physical shape of these men ascend terrain that a mountain goat would struggle with; all while carrying heavy equipment, ammunition, and weaponry. It was clear on this night, that one person continually required help because of falling back from the group. After nearly two hours, we handed the ground forces off to another flight to provide overwatch once they reached the objective at the top of the mountain. The advantage of flying out of the same base as the ground troops is that you on occasion get to catch up with ground party team leads over dinner at the chow hall. A couple nights later, I saw the team lead and sat down to chat. I asked him what the hell took so long that night. The frustration in his voice was apparent that night on the radio. I learned that they 'got stuck' with a female medic not attached to the Special Forces. This was because leadership determined that they needed more medics on this mission. The female could not hang with the team-especially because of the high terrain and physical demand of the mission and equipment required. "We would have lost someone had we taken fire during that ascent"..........."we would have had to provide care and feeding for her while trying to suppress fire" were the words he left me with.

You see, that's the American way. To protect someone on a mission will always be a priority to an American soldier. Forget the anguish this girl was causing. Forget the fact that not only should she have not been there - they didn't want, nor need her on this mission and they knew it could cost the team dearly.

All those years of anguish for so many thousands of women who dreamed of becoming a Navy Seal may finally come to an end. Selective discrimination based on requirements sure isn't fair; especially in the military. It never has been fair, it was never meant to be fair, and it should never be fair......with specific regard to demanding career fields with special requirements. Put the requirements aside, and you have many, many intangibles that are rarely discussed.

Will there be a difference when a couple team members are captured and they're torturing the American prisoners - male and female. And by torture, I mean rape. Our enemy would never use the female to their advantage to gain information from the soldiers would they? That against the Code of Conduct! Remember that 'American way' that I spoke of? This too will bring any American male to his knees. The dynamic of females in this environment and the implications of numerous contingencies that arise during a mission cannot be understated. If she is weaker, how much extra attention will she require during combat? Can she carry her 200lb male team member out if he's injured? Intangibles.

Many times, these social feel-good programs with no clear goal other than appeasement towards a very small minority have dramatically damaging side-effects. Want to read a fantastic double-entendre? "The order Panetta and Dempsey signed prohibits physical standards from being lowered simply to allow women to qualify for jobs closer to the battlefront. But the services are methodically reviewing and revising the standards for many jobs, including strength and stamina, in order to set minimum requirements for troops to meet regardless of their sex." From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/military-has-schedule-for-women-to-move-into-combat-jobs-including-seals-other-commandos/2013/06/17/610007f4-d7af-11e2-b418-9dfa095e125d_story_1.html

In 1997, Hooters agreed to pay $3.75 million to settle a sexual discrimination lawsuit filed by a group of men. The judicial system is an entirely different problem, but paying $3.75 million so you can continue to run your business in which it was designed (and succeeds), is a travesty in itself. There will be no payment large enough for this colossal mistake and failure in leadership.

If someone could so kindly list out the advantages of this decision for me; that would be great Remember, the pros should - without question - outweigh the cons for such an important decision..........right?

Anomalous Analysis

Sedition

What do Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning, Daniel Ellsburg & Nidal Malik Hasan have in common?

I mix these four names into one bucket, with 4 cups sedition, 4 tablespoons mutiny, and 4 teaspoons of treason, and out pours a thick mixture of public approval? Say that again please--approval? 

I'd like to cover a few facts, if I may. 

First and foremost, this is not the transparency in government you're looking for. If you think that releasing classified documents, strategies, or operations is a good thing, you're colossally misinformed. If you feel that you 'deserve' to know what's going on behind that black curtain of military operations, your incredibly naive. In this case, you being misinformed is not only a good thing--it's required for national security. You need to be misinformed. You should take joy in the fact that you are misinformed. If you know, 'they' know; and if 'they' know, we as a nation are at risk. The government - and specifically the military go to great lengths to keep our tactics and technologies out of enemy hands. Let's take the recent NSA leaker, Mr. Snowden as an example. What is the difference now? Why the outrage? That's right - only one thing: You know more. Congratulations, so do our enemies. The Patriot Act has been around since 2001. In reality, the act is called the USA PATRIOT Act that stands for Uniting (and) Strengthening America (by) Providing Appropriate Tools Required (to) Intercept (and) Obstruct Terrorism Act. Key words here, 'Strengthening', 'Intercept', and 'Terrorism'.

I'm reminded of a television program glorifying individuals camped out at Groom Lake--widely known as Area-51--trying to get the scoop on what exactly the government is 'trying to hide', or get a picture of the latest special project flying machine. My mind explodes wondering if these people know why that area exists in such a remote area of America with signs that read: "Use of deadly force authorized". The amount of aircraft, special projects, and programs that were developed there have saved more American casualties, deterred more wars - and in short order have won just as many..........actual statistics will never be know You see, this word known as deterrence is a tough one to sell. It shouldn't be, but it is. With mistrust in the government comes inquisitive minds. At some level, we must maintain a certain level of trust in the U.S. Government - especially military operations. I never seen a politician on the battlefield, and it's for good reason. The men wearing rucksacks carrying .50 cals, driving MRAP's, and flying F-15E's aren't running for a second-term. They're in a foreign land doing the best job they can to protect American values. What about the Marines urinating on dead Taliban soldiers? If you read the previous two sentences and immediately either thought of those Marines or a similar story published about soldiers acting with less than optimum honor--I'd like to point out how broke your CPU is. If you're conditioned to start each argument with "Yeah but", rethink your gameplan. Let's stick to the law of majorities here and come back to reality.....please. 

Society is changing, and not for the better. Like most social feel-good programs, they look great on paper but those who sit back with a bit of skepticism realize that said program will be out of control soon after the induction ceremony. One thing you will not see on websites cheering for these men is any talk to implications on national security. Those that are cheering 'free speech', 'bill of rights' etc, may be partially correct but there is a difference here. We're not talking about calling out your manager at McDonalds for taking home 6 hamburgers after his shift.

Mr. Ellsburg you ask? In 2006 he was awarded the Right Livelihood Award for his release of classified information in 1971. The documents became known as the "Pentagon Papers". Don't think society is changing? Why wait 35 years to give a treasonous award to Mr. Ellsburg? Times are changing. What I fear most is this statement (in-part) from the Right Livelihood Award to Mr. Ellsburg: "...for putting peace and truth first, at considerable personal risk, and dedicating his life to inspiring others to follow his example." Yes, you read that correctly, inspiring others to follow his example. To the enemies of the United States: Standby, we have more information coming your way. How quickly we forget Sept 11, 2001.

Mr Manning had the audacity to pass classified national defense information to an unauthorized source while aiding the enemy and working for the US Army in a combat zone. Let that sink in for a second. Manning held his right hand high and swore to an oath, signed many legal documents before working with classified information, and what is not written on paper........promised to go back-to-back with any of his fellow soldiers and protect each other at all cost. The military is not a job, and each branch of the services are not an organization. Mr. Manning's selfish act more than likely cost the lives of many more Americans and could easily be argued that the effects are still lingering today. 

How does Mr. Hasan fit into this recipe for disaster you ask? Failure in leadership. Like all examples above, there is a direct link to lack of self restraint and leadership. Problem with Mr. Hasan is there was not only (clearly) a lack of self-restraint/leadership but a lack of leadership across the board at Ft. Hood, TX. 

I'll keep it short, let's review:

1) Colleagues and superiors were deeply concerned about his inappropriate behavior and comments

2) (Hasan) seemed....socially isolated and stressed

3) Two days before the shooting, he gave away many of his belongings to a neighbor

4) Emails with Anwar al-Awlaki - senior talent recruiter and motivator who was involved in planning terrorist operations for the Islamist militant group al-Qaeda. After the shootings, al-Awlaki was quoted as saying "Nidal Hassan is a hero".

5) Heard shouting Allahu Akbar during shootings

6) Kills 13, injures 29 of his fellow soldiers

Lack of leadership, restraint, and discretion--across the board.

For all for individuals, there were other options. Chain-of-Command, Inspector General, Whistleblower laws (used with discretion), Congressional or House oversight committees. With regards to Whistleblower laws and the word "discretion"..........www.whistleblowers.gov/‎ is an interesting read, I recommend (as always) to look up some facts regarding each subject here at Anomalous Analysis.

There can be no other way to describe the actions of each man above other than selfish. With no thought to the repercussions to innocent lives, they came forward in full-force to voice their opinion with zero discretion while violating each oath and legal document they swore to defend.

Although some are proponents of the above actions of each individual, it should be clear that there is a bigger picture - other American lives--both military and civilian. The line in the sand of discretion for how one comes forward with what is thought to be illegal or questionable actions lies in both the classification level of information being released as well as the livelihood of others. I would attest that these acts were selfish, unthoughtful, and without self-restraint. Each of those decisions put each of us at greater risk. Would I trade a little restraint from each of these men for increased protection of this great nation? Yes. 

Transparency in government does not lie here - move on.

Anomalous Analysis

*As a side-note, Bradley and Nidal will never have their former military rank in front of their name - they gave that up when they gave up on America.