Locator: 49288DOD.
Peggy Noonan had an opinion published in today's WSJ.
Her "theme": SecDef Hegseth was embarrassing. Her "word."
My initial reaction: the same.
My second reaction: Peggy Noonan was the embarrassing one.
Upon reflection: not so fast. Maybe I'll post some of own thoughts with regard to SecDef Hegseth but for now this is all I will write:
I've never been in combat, but I've been in combat zones and have the documentation to prove it.
Hegseth has been in combat.
Many of those to whom Hegspeth spoke have not been in combat. Like me, many / most may have served in combat zones but that doesn't mean they've served in combat.
Those in attendance need to be thankful that:
- they were sitting among some of the best Americans they could ever imagine;
- they are part of the best military in the world ... with lots of luxuries they can only imagine.
- one wonders what percent of general officers / flag officers are "dead wood"? The Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff knows what I'm talking about.
- everyone in that audience had their own thoughts / ideas / opinions
- they had an opportunity to reflect on Hegseth's words as well as their own thoughts
- in a combat zone / in a headquarters office general officers / admirals don't often have that luxury -- they're concentrating on other things
- they have a SecDef that has their best interests in mind and is interested in them and is watching out for them;
- he is not resting on any laurels; he has not yet compromised his principles (even if one does not accept all that he had to say);
- he is unlikely to have sold out to any lobbyists yet
Now, it's time to reflect on what Hegseth said.
Seriously, parse his speech and determine for yourself where he was wrong.
Women in combat? Two things:
- not all Americans are comfortable with that concept;
- in combat, one doesn't want standards lowered for any reason.
The word "combat": needs to be re-defined.
Just as "grade" and "rank" are equal but different, so is "Viking combat" and Star Wars combat."
"Old school combat delivered technologically" vs "new school technological combat."
I remember seeing squadrons of uniformed coders / cyber soldiers in fatigues, wondering why they need to be active duty; why can't they be contractors? Don't have to worry about US Army standards.
For pay purposes, promotion, leadership opportunities, VC and SWC need to be equal.
In a shooting war, VC and SWC require different skillsets.
In addition to "Combat" roles, there are "Combat Support" roles.
Both are equally important. "Combat Support" in this technological age may be more important than "Combat."
In fact, really, really good "Combat Support" may not only save "combat lives" but may also prevent direct combat action in the same place.
Does a sniper need to meet US Army standards? Maybe some "combat" roles need to be contracted outside the military.
Seek first to understand.
********************************
Drama Queens
Peggy Noonan agrees with me: the military does not need drama queens. LOL. "Nuclear official." Arrested three times for stealing luggage. Looking for nuclear codes?
And, this four-star admiral. Had Biden been re-elected, they would still be serving.
