This is germane to "transgender men" (i.e. biological women pretending to be men) in the military:
http://rockingwithhawking.blogspot.com/2017/07/delta-delta-delta-force-can-i-help-ya.html
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Military. Show all posts
Thursday, July 27, 2017
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
"Kristin" Beck
A retired Navy SEAL Team 6 hero who is transgender had a message for President Donald Trump after he announced the US military would bar transgender people from serving."Let's meet face to face and you tell me I'm not worthy," Kristin Beck, a 20-year veteran of the Navy SEALs, told Business Insider on Wednesday. "Transgender doesn't matter. Do your service."Beck is not just your average service member. Born Christopher Beck, she served for 20 years in the Navy with SEAL Teams 1, 5, and, eventually, the elite 6. She deployed 13 times over two decades, including stints in Bosnia, Iraq, and Afghanistan. She received the Bronze Star award for valor and the Purple Heart for wounds suffered in combat.
i) To begin with, a "transgender woman" is a biological male. But the logic of trangenderism is that "transgender men" (i.e. biological females) should be able to serve in elite forces. However, the fact that a "transgender woman" (i.e.. biological male) can be an effective Navy SEAL hardly means a "transgender man" can pull it off. Men and women have dramatically different physical and psychological aptitudes. For instance:
ii) In addition, I assume Beck wasn't on hormone therapy during his time as a Navy SEAL. But if, to be a "transgender woman," he must undergo hormone therapy, that will impair his speed, strength, and stamina. He'll no longer perform at peak ability, compared to his normal, untransitioned self.
By the same token, would Beck have been a successful Navy SEAL if his parents put him on puberty blockers during adolescence?
Same problem with the Bruce Jenner comparison. Think "Caitlyn" could still win the decathlon if he underwent hormone therapy? Not to mention hormone blockers as an adolescent boy.
"Being transgender doesn't affect anyone else"
Tell that to the biological girls and women who are now getting creamed in competitive sports by "transgender females".
Wednesday, July 05, 2017
His day is marching on
Recently, on the eve of Independence Day, I was thinking about patriotic songs. My favorite is the Battle Hymn of the Republic. And I was casting about for good performances, I remembered a fine performance at the national prayer service right after 9/11. I originally saw the live broadcast. That took place just three days after the 9/11 attacks. So it was striking to see it again 16 years later with the benefit of hindsight.
Politics is so ephemeral. So many dignitaries at that event are dead or retired. Faces I happen to recognize in the crowd include Betty Ford, Bush 41, Barbara Bush, Bush 43, Laura Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Scowcroft, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Tom DeLay, Hastert, Gephardt, Daschle, Paul O'Neill, Ted Olson, John Edwards, (Jesse Helms?), Dick Armey, Jimmy Carter, Trent Lott, Bob Dole, Charlie Rangel, Kweisi Mfume, and Anthony Williams.
Unfortunately, Chuck Schumer and Terry McAuliffe are still active in politics. But there's such a turnover in our system. So many power players from a few years ago are now out of power.
On a different note, I wonder what become of the Marine flag-bearer with the stoic expression and close-cropped hair. Presumably, he ended up doing several tours of duty in Afghanistan and Iraq. Is he still live? Was he killed or maimed in action? Is he still a member of the Marine Corps, or did he retire? Did he make a successful transition to civilian life, or commit suicide like some vets? It's a pity the news media doesn't do follow-up stories.
Years ago I read David Lipsky's Absolutely American: Four Years At West Point (Houghton Mifflin 2003). I'm curious about what became of the cadets he wrote about.
The service began with "O God, Our Help in Ages Past". That's a very suitable hymn for the occasion. A paraphrase of Ps 90 by Isaac Watts, set to a tune by organist William Croft. Ps 90 deals with human frailty. Our fleeting existence and utter dependence on divine providence.
The service had a stirring rendition of the Lord's Prayer by Denyce Graves, looking very glamorous. Her expansive high notes at the end were especially effective in the resonant acoustic.
But the musical highpoint of the service was the Battle Hymn of the Republic. The reverberant sanctuary magnifies the sound of the congregation and choir.
It's more meaningful when sung by members of the armed services, since they're the ones who put everything on the line.
In addition to the rousing melody (from an old Methodist tune), the song derives its power from the lyrics. Considering the fact that Julia Ward Howe was politically and theologically radical, the lyrics are surprisingly orthodox. The power of the lyrics derive from the vivid biblical imagery. Evidently, Howe was steeped in the language of the King James Bible.
The hymn was originally an anti-Confederate war song. But the language and imagery are too generic to single out or side with any particular conflict. Therein lies the enduring appeal of the song. Despite her intentions, anyone can sing it regardless of their politician sympathies–unless you're a pacifist!
1. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord:
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword:
His truth is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
The "grapes of wrath" symbolize bloodshed. The primary text is Isa 63:1-6. It has other OT parallels (Joel 3:13). And that motif is picked up in Revelation (Rev 14:9-10,18-20; 19:15).
God's judicial sword draws from passages like Deut 32:41, Isa 66:16, and Ezk 21:3-4, while the "fearful lightning" has its background in storm theophanies (e.g. Pss 18:14; 144:6
2. I have seen Him in the watch-fires of a hundred circling camps,
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps:
His day is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
The first stanza is based on civil war encampments. The second stanza is reminiscent of OT stone memorials. And God's "righteous sentence"is a stock biblical motif.
3. I have read a fiery gospel writ in burnished rows of steel:
“As ye deal with my contemners, so with you my grace shall deal;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with his heel,
Since God is marching on.”
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
An explicit allusion to the Protevangelium (Gen 3:15).
4. He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment-seat:
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet!
Our God is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
The apocalyptic trumpet of eschatological judgment is a stock Biblical motif (e.g. Zeph 1:14-16; Mt 24:30; 1 Cor 15:52; 1 Thes 4:16).
5. In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us die to make men free,
While God is marching on.
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
Glory, glory, hallelujah!
His truth is marching on.
There is a venerable theological tradition that construes Jesus as the "Lily of the Vally" (Cant 2:1). From an American reference frame, "born across the sea" may mean oceans separate the United States from Palestine. Passages like 2 Cor 3:18 and 1 Jn 3:2-3 speak to the transfigural power of Christ.
I wonder if C. S. Lewis was influenced by the first stanza. In Voyage of the Dawn Treader, Aslan's Country lies beyond the "Lily Lake" or "Silver Sea".
Tuesday, July 04, 2017
God and country
Every year, around Independence Day, you have Christian pundits who bemoan Freedom Sunday services. This raises some genuine issues.
On the one hand, Christians are supposed to be a thankful people. So why not give thanks for our country, as well as those who defend our life and liberty? In addition, churches should be supportive of military families.
On the other hand, ostentatious displays of patriotism in a church service can be a cheap substitute for military service. Years ago, Joe Carter did a piece about churchgoers who love the military but hate military recruiters. Waving flags and belting out valorous anthems is easy and self-gratifying–compared to the harrowing hazard of battle. Heroic virtue-signaling has all the advantages of courage without the sacrifice.
I think the best we can do is to strike a balance. Express gratitude for what we have, and honor the men who voluntarily risk life and limb to protect us. But avoid pretentious and self-flattering displays of patriotism–especially in the case of civilians who have nothing to lose.
Monday, July 03, 2017
Saturday, July 01, 2017
Military service
i) On the face of it, military service seems to be morally problematic. Take volunteers. When you enlist, you sign a blank check. You don't know in advance what the foreign policy will be from one year to the next. You may disapprove of what you're ordered to do. Is it ethical to make an open-ended commitment like that? Especially given the moral stakes of warfare? The snap judgments. And so on.
ii) However, that must be counterbalanced by another consideration. The justification for national defense is that national defense is a logical and necessary extension of self-defense. Sometimes we lack the individual resources to protect ourselves or our dependents. Say, if we're outnumbered or outgunned. Therefore, self-defense may necessitate pooling our collective resources to mount a common defense. That confers a general benefit.
Assuming that we have a duty to protect our dependents, and in some cases our neighbors, or even strangers, military service is an unavoidable–although not a universal obligation.
iii) Hence, military service generates moral dilemmas. Conflicting duties or competing goods. Given the dilemma, I think men who find themselves in that predicament are in a situation of diminished moral responsibility. What would ordinarily be wrong is mitigated or exculpated by the moral dilemma.
That's not carte blanche to follow just any order. It doesn't excuse atrocities. Some actions are intrinsically wrong. But there's greater moral flexibility in that situation than situations where you have one unimpeded duty.
Tuesday, June 20, 2017
Friday, December 02, 2016
Wars of liberation
The American military exists to protect American lives, not foreigners. As a rule, an American president has no moral warrant to sacrifice American troops to save the lives of foreigners.
Although humanitarian wars are idealistic, I think they're generally unethical. The justification for having a military is national defense. And the justification of national defense is an extension of self-defense.
I have a duty to protect my dependents. I have a duty to take a bullet for my family. I don't have a prima facie duty to take a bullet for a stranger, or even a neighbor.
However, self-defense sometimes requires a common defense, where we pool our collective resources. An individual can't do it alone. And that's the rationale for some military alliances. Say my country and your country share a common enemy. My country can't defeat the enemy singlehandedly, and your country can't defeat the enemy singlehandedly, but if we combine forces, then our combined forces can defeat our common enemy. So we're doing each other a favor.
The principle in that case is that I'm prepared to take a bullet for you if you're prepared to take a bullet for me. I will defend your family if you defend my family. So that's predicated on mutual risk and reciprocity.
Humanitarian wars violate that principle. It is wrong to get our soldiers killed to prevent foreigners from getting killed. That's because there's no reciprocity. The foreigners don't return the favor.
It's morally wrong to treat American lives as less valuable than foreign lives. It's morally wrong for a president to send an American soldier to his death, thereby depriving his own relatives, &c., to save a stranger. For his own relatives have a prior claim on his presence in their lives.
From a surfeit of altruism, you can voluntarily risk your life to save a stranger, but that's not obligatory. And you may have prior obligations to friends and family. Social duties are concentric.
The justification for foreign wars is to defend vital American interests. Admittedly, that justification can be easily abused by stretching what counts as a vital American interest.
Monday, February 22, 2016
Skin in the game
i) There's a debate brewing about whether women should be required to register for the draft. I think some conservatives are taking an understandable, but morally untenable position on this issue.
I oppose women in combat. For that matter, I oppose the coed military.
But I also oppose letting identity politicians get away with conferring both equal rights and special rights or super rights on their protected classes.
ii) Presumably, most conservatives don't believe in banning women from the military in toto. We don't object to women as doctors, nurses, tech support, or military intelligence (to cite a few examples) At least I don't.
iii) The line is often drawn in reference to "combat". But that's ambiguous. I think "women in combat" is often used as a synonym for women in Spec Ops. The elite fighting units.
In one sense, that's a clear-cut demarcation. But most soldiers are potential combatants. Most draftees in WWII and Vietnam weren't Spec Ops.
To take another comparison, if a woman is a sailor whose destroyer is embroiled in a naval battle, isn't everyone on board, including the cooks, combatants in that situation?
iv) It's difficult to untangle female combatants from the coed military. To be consistent, you have to challenge the coed military. Otherwise, it is arbitrary, both in principle and practice, to draw the line with "women in combat".
v) Rep. Duncan Hunter, a Marine veteran, has introduced a bill requiring women, just like men, to register for the draft. That's not because he actually supports the policy. Rather, it's a wedge tactic.
Are Democrat lawmakers, and Democrat voters, really seriously about equal rights for women? This is an attempt to call their bluff.
Women are a key voting block in the Democrat coalition. But will they balk at draft registration? Will this split a key voting block?
Female Democrats may love the idea of equality, but if they actually have skin in the game, will they blink? Will they backpedal? It's designed to create a dilemma for feministic identity politics. Make them admit that men and women are physically and psychologically different in ways that make women unsuitable for certain occupations, and vice versa.
Predictably, some conservatives have recoiled at this tactic. However, there's a problem with that reaction. Conservatives often complain that Republic politicians fight with one hand tied behind their back. Democrat politicians can say whatever they like, while Republicans walk on egg shells.
But when Republicans like Hunter fight with both hands, some conservatives say, "No! No! You must retie one hand behind your back!"
I agree with Hunter's approach. Liberals make headway in part because they don't have skin in the game. The ruling class makes the underclass bear the brunt of liberal policies. The ruling class doesn't suffer the consequences of its own oppressive policies.
We need to make Democrat politicians and their constituents pay a political price for their initiatives. Are Democrat politicians prepared to alienate a key voting block?
vi) But there's more at issue than tactics. There's a point of principle.
It is unjust for women to have equal access to all the plume positions in the military while men take all the risks. It is unjust for women to assume command positions while men assume all the risks. Where female officers can order men into battle, but avoid action themselves. Conservative mustn't dishonor our men in uniform by defending that kind of egregious double standard. That betrays our men.
Likewise, it's a euphemistic lie to call someone a soldier who isn't even potentially a combatant. If women are exempt from combat units, then they should be excluded from any soldierly position. If they aren't combatants even in principle, then they aren't real soldiers.
vii) In addition, there's a difference between head knowledge and know-how. You can graduate first in your class from Annapolis or West Point, but that's no substitute for hands-on experience. Not only is experience on the battlefield an important supplement and complement to a formal military education, but it has a winnowing effect. The only way of finding out who's a natural leader, who has the adaptive talent and native tactical sense, is to put the aspirant in a situation that will test their mettle.
You can't seriously have women generals and admirals who have no combat experience. Their competence has never been put to the test where it counts.
The choice is either to allow women in combat or disallow women as officers. Do one or the other.
viii) Furthermore, shared risk is essential to respect. Solders respect commanders who don't order a subordinate to do anything the commander won't do.
ix) Finally, this isn't just my armchair analysis. See how some real soldiers weigh in:
Sorry rainmaker, but here is where i disagree with you. IF women want to serve in combat arms, and get true equality, then they damn well should also have to sign up with the Select Service, just like guys do.
http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/9562-Bush-Rubio-Christie-Women-should-be-eligible-for-Selective-Service
I believe the question was (paraphrased) "Since they can fill combat roles, should they be required to register for the draft?" It only makes sense that the answer to this question be yes. Now, if the question was "Do you think women should be in combat roles?" then I might expect some differing answers, but that wasn't the question. If they said that women should be in combat roles but NOT have to register for selective service, then they would be idiots.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is discrimination. And that's not always a bad thing.So discrimination is ok if the women are the one benefiting? That sounds like how you are saying it.
Now you know how I feel when I see men screaming at the top of their lungs about how they feel women should have to register for the selective service too.While i feel the same way when i see people scream that we 'need to treat women equal, but not equal'. I have and always will say, IF they want equality, then that should also include RESPONSIBILITY. Part of that responsibility is the signing up for selective service. Part of the 'equality' that goes with that is being in combat arms. If they don't want combat arms, then they don't need to worry about selective service.
BUT since they Do seem to want to be in the combat arms orgs, then they bloody well should be required to sign up.
Put yourself in this situation: you have a daughter in her mid 20's. She's married, and has two children. All of a sudden, your daughter's number comes up. She's drafted, handed a rifle, and is sent into combat half way across the world... all while your son in law is living large in the comfort of that three bedroom house in the suburbs. While your daughter is doing the fighting.I see that as no different from 'your son is married and has 2 kids, and your son has to go off and fight a war which he may not come back from'. Or are you saying men's lives are not as important as women's lives?
Really, do things HAVE to be equal? Whatever happened to feeling that, as men, we have responsibilities... namely, the ones that we're more physically and emotionally equipped to handle, so that women won't have to?I've said this many times, and I'll say it again: too many men are hiding behind feminism, because they feel that feminism frees them from their responsibilities as men. Feminism has men handing their balls over to women.
So what 'responsibilities' are exclusively men?
http://forums.militarytimes.com/showthread.php/9562-Bush-Rubio-Christie-Women-should-be-eligible-for-Selective-Service?p=362100#post362100
Friday, May 08, 2015
Trust in God, and keep your powder dry
"Nigel Biggar on Nuclear Deterrence" by Prof. James Anderson.
Friday, January 23, 2015
The ethics of American Sniper
There are critics of American Sniper who evaluate Chris Kyle and the film based on their views of the Iraq War. My post is going to comment on that approach.
By way of disclaimers, I haven't seen the film. I've only read reviews. I don't plan to see the film.
I haven't done in-depth research on the life of Chris Kyle. I have limited interest in that topic.
i) Even when films are based on a "true story," we expect directors/screenwriters to exercise artistic license. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that American Sniper is factually inaccurate to some degree, it's not a documentary. In the first instance, whether a film is good or bad is an artistic judgment, not a historical judgment. Does the film work on its own terms? Does it exemplify cinematic values?
Take the 1993 Tombstone film. That's based on a true story. The gunfight at O.K Corral. But if would be off-base to pan the film if it took some artistic liberties.
That doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong to compare a historical film with what really happened. But as a rule, that isn't the only or even primary criterion for judging a film.
The Kyle of film is a movie character, played by an actor.
ii) From what I've read, American Sniper is an accurate depiction of Kyle's career as a soldier. When critics impugn his credibility, they cite incidents outside the war theater. But that's an exercise in misdirection:
Likewise, from what I've read, some of their allegations are dubious:
iii) Some historical films are subversive. The director rewrites history, not for dramatic reasons, but ideological reasons. He wants to change how people view a historical event. Indeed, he wants to change how people remember the past.
That is certainly more open to criticism. Even in that case, you'd still need to distinguish between rating the film as a film and rating the film as a historical record.
For instance, Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will is an artistic masterpiece, even though it's a classic propaganda film. And not merely propagandistic, but propaganda in the service of a deeply evil cause. But from what I've read, Eastwood is not a war apologist:
iv) From what I've read, Kyle joined the military in 1999. That was well before the Iraq war. He didn't sign up to fight in Iraq.
As a rule, when you join the military, you are expected to obey lawful orders and go wherever you are deployed. Soldiers don't choose where they serve. It would be impossible to have an effective military if soldiers were free to choose where to deploy or what orders to follow. So, unless you're a pacifist, you can't fault Kyle for ending up in a theater you disapprove of.
v) Ultimately, foreign policy is the expression of voters, through their duly elected representatives in Congress and the White House. That's the democratic process. The US military is under civilian control.
Unless critics of American Sniper think they have a superior alternative, it's unclear why they are blaming soldiers for executing the policies which–rightly or wrongly–reflect the will of the electorate. The Iraq War resolution passed with bipartisan support. And the Iraq war was initially popular. For better or worse, that's popular sovereignty in action.
vi) Some critics go so far as to say military snipers are "cowards" because it wasn't a "fair fight" between the sniper and the target. However, that treats war like a sport, in which you're supposed to have an equal number of players on each team, same equipment, same rules, to give each side an equitable chance at winning.
But there are people who are not entitled to have an equitable chance at winning. For instance, do you have a moral obligation to give a murderer a fair opportunity to kill you? Even if you can protect your life with a gun, should you lay that aside to make this an even match?
Critics who raise that objection are morally frivolous. They disqualify themselves.
Part of the problem is that only a fraction of American males have been in a combat situation. If they found themselves in a life and death situation, their attitude would instantly change. But as it stands, they can be contemptuous of soldiers. I'm not suggesting we should have universal conscription or anything like that. Just that, for many people, unless something happens to them, unless they experience it personally, it just isn't real to them.
Like Congressmen who cast free votes. They know their votes will be outvoted, so it doesn't cost them anything. By the same token, we have critics of the film who indulge in moral grandstanding. They don't really believe what they say. If they were actually in a situation where they had to save their own skin, it would be a completely different story. But these are safe abstractions.
vii) I will conclude with this article on military snipers:
Tuesday, January 20, 2015
Sunday, August 24, 2014
Middle East Forum
Several good (including two old) articles from the Middle East Forum:
"How Dissimulation about Islam is Fuelling Genocide in the Middle East" (2014)
"Beheading in the Name of Islam" (2005)
"Why Arabs Lose Wars" (1999)
Monday, June 09, 2014
Monday, April 01, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)