The Gender Confusion Challenge to Army Recruitment

One thing that you can say for ISIS, the Middle-East terrorist army, is that it doesn’t have a recruitment problem. Young men are streaming to Syria and Iraq from all over the world to join the cause. And they come not just from the Muslim world, but also from England, France, Sweden, Australia, and the U.S.

Perhaps hoping to put a dent in the appeal of ISIS, some Western newspapers have made much of the expensive stolen watch visible on the wrist of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi during his first public appearance at the Grand Mosque in Mosul. According to several articles, this proved that al-Baghdadi was a hypocrite because such a show of stolen worldly possessions is contrary to the spiritual nature of Islam.

As usual, the mainstream media is all wrong about Islam. In FrontPage Magazine, Daniel Greenfield points out that “looting was the core of Muhammad’s conquests.” And it came with Allah’s seal of approval. Numerous passages in the Koran and in the biography of Muhammad attest to the legitimacy of booty as the proper reward of fighting. Islam has no trouble with looting, says Greenfield, because it is “innately a gang religion”:

The gang … finds meaning in the ethos of the fight and in the comradeship of fellow gang members. That is why jihad is so central to Islam … Jihad is the gang culture of Islam. Its bonding rituals are central to Islam, whose original elements derive mainly from the raids of Mohammed and his companions…

Young men don’t join gangs just for the booty, but also for the sense of brotherhood the gang confers, and, perhaps primarily, for proof of masculinity. Psychologists and sociologists have known for a long time that gangs are particularly appealing to fatherless boys because boys who lack the guidance of fathers are most likely to feel insecure about their masculine identity, and thus most likely to seek confirmation of it in the ultra-masculine activities of gangs. Social scientists were hardly the first to discover this basic fact of male psychology. From the earliest times, almost all societies developed special rites of initiation for males to assist them in the passage from boyhood to manhood, and to channel them away from anti-social activities.

When boys grow up in communities without the guidance of fathers and elders and without established rites of initiation and confirmation, they tend to create their own initiation groups and rituals of passage. This is why modern urban areas with high concentrations of fatherless boys are the places where gang formation is highest.

The epidemic of fatherless boys is a worldwide phenomenon and it spells more recruits for the Islamic jihad. The reason the jihad doesn’t have a recruitment problem is that it appeals to basic masculine psychology. It promises action, male bonding, legitimate looting, a cause to fight for, subservient females in this world, and dozens more in the next. It’s the reason Muslims have been extremely successful in recruiting prisoners to Islam both in Europe and America. As I noted in Christianity, Islam, and Atheism:

In the United States, roughly 80 percent of inmates who find faith during their incarceration choose Islam. Many of these men are in prison in the first place because they were attracted to the masculine world of gangs. Now they’re being offered the chance to join the biggest, most powerful “gang” in the world. We’re seeing the beginning of a trend in the West: fatherless boys joining gangs, then ending up in prison, then coming out of prison as converts to Islam and the jihad. (p. 169)

There seems to be no shortage of young men willing to join up with the warrior culture of Islamic jihad. How about our own warrior culture—the U.S. military? The military still produces warriors, but the military culture is changing in ways that may make it less attractive to potential future warriors. Traditionally, the military has served, among other things, as an initiation into manhood. Past Marine recruiting campaigns, for example, were built around themes such as “The Marines Make Men” or “A Few Good Men.”

Exactly what today’s young male recruit is being initiated into is a little more difficult to say. In 2011, Brigadier General Loretta Reynolds was put in charge of Parris Island, the base where approximately half of U.S. Marines receive their basic training. By all accounts, she’s a competent person. As a fellow officer put it, “take the female part out of it, she’s an outstanding officer.” Take the female part out of it? But how do you do that? As General Reynolds admitted in an interview, it’s confusing for some of the men who “stumble on occasion and address her as ‘sir’ instead of ‘ma’am.’” Well, yes, it can be a bit confusing when the person in charge of manhood training is a woman. It’s not a question of competency, it’s a question of gender roles. Perhaps the Marine Corps can get away with putting a woman behind the top desk at Parris Island, but how would it work if the drill sergeants were women? Boot camp is a process of maturation through challenge and identification. The drill instructor is the supervisor of a male initiation rite. If he’s doing his job right, he offers himself as a model of masculine excellence. But how can a woman be a model of masculinity and how can a man identify with her as such?

Confusion about gender seems to be the order of the day in the Army. When Private Bradley Manning was tried for his part in the WikiLeaks intelligence leak, his lawyers argued that the transgender soldier suffered from “gender identity confusion.” While the Army can survive one or two gender-confused soldiers, here and there, what happens when the top command itself is confused about matters of sex role, sexual identity, and sexual orientation? Here are some not untypical headlines:

The matter becomes even more complicated when you add mission confusion to gender confusion. The main mission of the Army is to win wars, but it hasn’t been allowed to do that in quite a long while. Moreover, at one time it was thought a good idea to name your enemy and, for the sake of morale, you could even poke fun at him. Nowadays, enemies are identified only vaguely (as in “violent extremists”), and name-calling is not allowed. A manual for U.S. troops in Afghanistan cautions them to avoid “making derogatory comments about the Taliban.” The Army’s mission also has something to do with instilling a sense of the values you are fighting for. General Eisenhower spoke of the war against the Nazis as a “Crusade in Europe.” Woodrow Wilson said that our participation in World War I was to “make the world safe for democracy.” Now that the military has become a lifestyle laboratory, it’s a bit more difficult to discern the mission. Here’s a 2011 headline from the LA Times:

  • “Air Force Academy adapts to pagans, druids, witches, and wiccans: Officials say an $80,000 Stonehenge-like worship center underscores a commitment to embrace all religions”

We may not think very highly of the ISIS soldiers, but at least they’re clear about their mission—fighting for the sake of Allah and the rewards that come of it. But what’s the mission of our troops? To make the world safe for wizardry? Affirmative action for transgender school teachers?

The administration and the Pentagon may deny it, but the feminization and gaying of the military, together with the blurring of the Army’s mission, is bound to have an effect on the attractiveness of the military for young men. It’s not a question of whether gays can fight or whether women make good warriors, it’s a question of what kind of culture is being created. Right now the U.S. military is in the process of creating the kind of culture that is a guaranteed turn-off for many potential enlistees. And it’s not as though they have an abundance of qualified candidates from which to choose. At a time when 71 percent of American youth would fail to qualify for military service because of obesity, tattoos, prescription drug use, felony convictions, and educational level, the Pentagon can ill-afford to gamble that their unprecedented social experiments will work out for the best.

By all appearances, ISIS doesn’t face an obesity crisis among its pool of potential recruits. Men who, for religious reasons, are willing to fast till evening every day for the month of Ramadan are already used to the kind of sacrifices that the warrior life requires. Moreover, ISIS and other similar groups can count on the gender-confused West to churn out even more recruits for Islam. The breakdown of the idea that men have a special role to play as protectors and providers has led to a widespread collapse of the family. And that in turn has resulted in an epidemic of fatherless children.

There are armies of teens in the West who are looking for an army to join. It doesn’t have to be a real army. A gang will do—so long as it provides male bonding, a warrior ethos, and the “reputation” that goes along with gang membership.

If you’re a young man without a father around, you’ll be looking, naturally, for the biggest, toughest brotherhood on the block. Increasingly, that looks like militant Islam. It promises everything that a wannabe warrior could ask for, and it commands far more respect than your average street gang ever will.

Our own military should take note. When the armies of Islam are drawing young men from around the world to join the jihad, it might not be the best time for the U.S. Army to emphasize its feminine side.

Editor’s note: Pictured in the image above is ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi wearing his much-discussed wrist watch. (Photo credit: Associated Press)

William Kilpatrick


William Kilpatrick taught for many years at Boston College. He is the author of several books about cultural and religious issues, including Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong; and Christianity, Islam and Atheism: The Struggle for the Soul of the West and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Jihad. His articles have appeared in numerous publications, including Catholic World Report, National Catholic Register, Aleteia, Saint Austin Review, Investor’s Business Daily, and First Things. His work is supported in part by the Shillman Foundation. For more on his work and writings, visit his website,

  • Cincinnatus1775

    “The administration and the Pentagon may deny it, but the feminization and gaying of the military, together with the blurring of the Army’s mission, is bound to have an effect on the attractiveness of the military for young men. It’s not a question of whether gays can fight or whether women make good warriors, it’s a question of what kind of culture is being created.”

    Spot on, William. The trouble is, the Obama Administration is deliberately and maliciously changing the culture as part of their drive to reduce America’s stature in the world. Those in uniform, rightly subordinate to civilian authority, can do nothing about it. When faced with an order with which he disagrees, an officer of the US military may register that disagreement, but once that’s done he must either obey or resign. I don’t think we’d want our military to operate any other way, but it highlights the supreme importance of citizens being very careful about who they elect to lead the country.

    And for the record, I know Lori Reynolds. She’s an exceptional officer, period. Her duties include managing recruiting and recruit training east of the Mississippi. Marine Corps recruit training remains segrgated by sex, with male and female drill instructors servjng as the primary role models for recruits. Recruits rarely even see, let alone interact with, officers above the rank of captain.

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      I agree, of course, with your comments about BG Reynolds. It really makes no practical difference whether a base commander is male or female, since recruits will never see him or her, not even at graduation. However, I was at Parris for the graduation of two of my sons from USMC boot camp last year, and I was surprised at the candor with which career Marines spoke about what is happening to the military. And it wasn’t just NCOs who viewed things as “going to hell.” I spoke with a major whose view was that the entire Corps was going to be phased out. They felt that once the politicians were finished with their work of destruction in the Army, they would turn all their guns on the Marines. (And I resigned my military commission for exactly the reasons you point out.)

      • JP

        Dr Williams,

        I don’t hold it against you for not realizing the significance of this Marine Corps Assignment. General Reynolds assignment was a signal that Marines intend to promote Reynolds to command the 2nd Division. And from there, she would be on the short list to become the first female Marine Commandant. Usually an officer given the command of Parris Island is considered prime material to command one of the few Marine Corps combat divisions.

        The USAF recently promoted a female to command PACAF. This is a theater level command (4 stars). She is obviously being groomed to perhaps take over as USAF Chief of Staff someday.

        Neither promotions and assignments guarantee further promotion; however, the DOD has gotten the word out. The President and the Beltway demand high level women commanders. The generals are complying.

        • DE-173

          The USAF recently promoted a female to command PACAF. This is a theater level command (4 stars). She is obviously being groomed to perhaps take over as USAF Chief of Staff someday.

          What a wonderful world. Now war will be a old woman’s game fought by young men.
          The breakdown in this occurs when you realize that the greatest practitioner of sexual discrimination is the feral government, which tells males they must register for “selective service”, while insisting that females are merely smaller men who can’t do pushups or pullups.

          • publiusnj

            The discrimination in the Selective Service law will continue to be ignored unless a test case is set up now that women can serve in the combat arms (that distinction–no women in the combat arms–was the justification for the discrimination in the last court case on the draft registrration requirement). Maybe a few cases could be combined to tie the judges up in their own insanity. Maybe one plaintiff can be a male who considers himself a woman?

          • ForChristAlone

            Men recoil at the prospect of being “managed” by a woman. All men know that ultimately they never attain manhood if they are still under the control of mother (aka woman). Even Jesus put Mary in her place, as beloved as she was to him. “Do you not know that I have to be about my Father’s work?”

            • Holy smokes

              Men also recoil at the prospect of being managed by unmanly men. The US military is filled with psuedo effeminate supervisors who lack moral courage. I was ostracized my entire career for trying to live, speak, and support the true moral values, especially in the light of ever increasing sensitivity training (catch all training for effeminate propaganda). A real man does not insult, harass or discriminate against anyone and does not need the a new social education from the US military.

      • lifeknight

        My son has exactly three months and twenty days until he fulfills his commitment. He is counting the moments…….

        • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

          I’m afraid I hear that a lot these days, and not just from my own sons.

    • lifeknight

      Good for Ms. Reynolds. It is not that women are incompetent to deal with military issues, however the role of wife and mother must be accentuated. The full time commitment of the military can interfere with family life (and emasculate our troops.)

      • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

        Well… I hate to bring it up, but a high percentage of career military women are not interested in any commitment to family life. It used to be the case that some women would join the military because that’s where all the good men were. It is now my impression (and it is only that: an impression) that a great many of the women serving in the military joined up because that’s where the women are.

        • DE-173

          “Well… I hate to bring it up, but a high percentage of career military women are not interested in any commitment to family life.”

          There is a certain arrogance to committing yourself to becoming aged and infirm with nobody with any natural affections that would cause them to be concerned for your welfare if and when you are no longer capable of looking out for yourself.

          Of course they can take comfort in the promises of good care and service delivered by the VA.

      • DE-173

        “however the role of wife and mother must be accentuated. ”


        • lifeknight

          Guilty as charged!

  • publiusnj

    This article rests on what the political elite of this nation would consider to be an outdated concept of male and female roles. This country now “believes” that manhood and womanhood are not matters of nature but of nurture and choice. Manhood doesn’t depend on or require any warrior code; no more than womanhood requires one. Manhood doesn’t require courage or even a penis. A man can have either a penis or vagina and a “boy” (if that is what he or she chooses as an identity) can like guns or dolls. It is no more manly or masculine to fight and die for one’s nation or family than it is to be a hairstylist.

    Why should anyone choose to die for his country anymore, anyway? This country has a single-minded obsession with what it calls “equality.” Equality, per the faddists, means women have as much “right” to join the combat arms as someone who identifies as a man does, and competency tests measuring things like upper body strength will have to be changed to forward the goal of gender integration into the combat arms. So one isn’t a “man” for fighting for “his” country. Rather, one is just a military careerist looking for the best way to move up the promotions ladder, and if that means combat arms, well so be it. Is that going to be a good enough reason to shed blood in defense of the nation or should one just Bergdahl out when the combat going gets tough?

    Even the idea of a “nation” is kinda out-of-date since “nation” stems from the Latin for “birth”, and we know now that we are no more Americans than the latest illegal from the other side of the border, who is, as Nancy Pelosi recently said, as much of an American as we are.

    • slainte

      Our leadership is in revolt against reason and truth…only subjective opinion counts.

      • DE-173

        We don’t have “leadership”, we have rulers. Leadership is the velvet glove of suasion that covers an iron fist coercion, confusion, exhaustion.

        • Holy smokes

          We don’t even have rulers with a decent moral compass. Contemporary leadership is more about communication skills than about moral courage. I had commander that actually considered communication ability to be the most important atttribute of leadership. What about fortitude? We need an Abraham Lincoln, but accept Bozo the Clown.

          • DE-173

            Rulers never have decent moral compasses. Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.

            • Holy smokes

              Please cite your quotes. Lord Acton (and many others) don’t appreciate the thievery. By the way, since there are some rulers who are canonized saints, the Church refutes your argument (hypothesis).

              • DE-173

                Reasonably literate people recognize the quote as Acton’s. If Lord Acton doesn’t appreciate my use of his quote, he doesn’t appreciate you appointing yourself as his agent.

                By the way very first Saint was a thief, and that doesn’t change the character of thieves.

                • Holy smokes

                  “Reasonably literate” is not what it once was, so to make such an assumption is bit haughty. Give Acton and anyone else you quote or paraphrase his due. Let’s try to keep these blogs accurate and professional.

                  Everyone is a thief in some way but only a few are humble enough to recognize and admit it (like the holy proclamation made on the cross by the man crucified with Christ). Actually, understanding that thieves or any type of hardened sinner can be saved has converted numerous souls. That is the wonderment of the reality of a metanoia.

                  I don’t think you can say for sure that Lincoln is damned but to suggest he was a ruler without a moral compass is a tough one to prove. There are a whole host of past leaders that are canonized saints, but being “reasonably literate” that is already known to you.

                  • DE-173

                    “I don’t think you can say for sure that Lincoln is damned but to suggest he was a ruler without a moral compass is a tough one to prove.”

                    I said he’s not a Saint. I didn’t say he was damned.

                    Let’s try to keep these blogs accurate and professional.

                    • Holy smokes

                      For the sake of integrity, I am Acton´s agent as is anyone who defends the words of others. As for your point on whether he appreciates it or not is irrelevant as integrity does not rely on moral sentiment. As to my knowledge, the words that you used for your argument are his words and we may use them if we acknowledge the source. Calling you a thief was a bit too strong but you refuse to acknowledge the unintentional plagiarism and that is unacceptable.

                      To challenge your original argument, I would say, once again, that throughout history there have been many leaders or rulers who were good and just and some of them have been canonised. To bring this discussion back in line with the purpose of this e-journal/article, the original post was a discussion on gender confusion as promulgated by the current leadership in our military/nation (and the further ramifications). You made a sweeping generalisation using Acton´s argument. You have yet to prove it. I countered with Lincoln but there are other examples that could be used.

                      I don´t know if Lincoln is damned or saved. If he is not in Heaven, then he is awaiting final purification to enter into the full glory of Heaven with all the rest of the saints, or he is damned. I´m pretty sure he was baptised. Likewise, he led a noteworthy moral life (Honest Abe) by all accounts. He demonstrated quite a bit of fortitude and wisdom in his work before his life was cut shot by murder. I think a good argument could be made for his salvation. You said Lincoln was not a Saint. By capitalising the word, you state that he not canonised which is obvious, but beside this you are unclear in your argument about him. In rereading your comments it appears that you are trying to convey that Lincoln was not perfectly virtuous and spiritual. I never made that claim. I just implied that he had a decent moral compass and provided strong leadership at a critical time in American history. We are, likewise at a similar moral crisis in national policy (like chattel slavery) but have no one of the moral stature of Lincoln to lead the country. You have not refuted that point. Please try to do it without the sarcasm.

                    • DE-173

                      Calling you a thief was a bit too strong but you refuse to acknowledge the unintentional plagiarism and that is unacceptable.

                      Unless you are so scrupulant that you have never called acetylsalicylic acid “Aspirin” then this is hypocrisy and a waste of time. If you want to beat a 17 day old dead horse, have at it, I’m done here.

                    • Holy smokes

                      I live in a real world of family responsibilities, work, and God given tasks. I respond when I have the luxury of time. I’m not on your timeline and neither is the truth. Admit your errors and we can bring about a peaceful end to this discussion. The moral wrong of Plagiarism and the official chemical name for any daily used item is a faulty analogy. Your should be a litlle more careful in your use of other peoples ideas.

                      You still have not proven your first argument. If you have no time or willingness to carry on a challenging discussion than why do you waste your time and mine by making any comments at all? By the way, before the onslaught of electronic communication, men of letters would argue for years by written word. 17 days is nothing. I argue with you in hope of actually learning why you think that all those in power are morally corrupt rather than a Acton quote. Don’t you get that? Pax – Will

  • lifeknight

    Fascinating perspective! The societal disintegration of the traditional family has such far-reaching effects. Bring back Ward and June Cleaver, and a military of manly men.

    • fredx2

      Right after September 11, everyone was suddenly glad that we still had some men around. How quickly we forget. Now we are back at square one.

  • FernieV

    Your article offers an interesting insight on the psychologoly of a fatherless child devoid of a role model and may explain the strength and growth of Boko Haram in Northern Nigeria: there are many abandoned married women in the North of Nigeria since a married Muslim man can easily get rid of his wife without problems following the teachings of Islam. Once they are on the street their kids become street kids, without father, education or values to rely on. Easy prey for the Islamic terrorists who offer them a “future” as “Islam heroes”.

  • Watosh

    Mr. Kilpatrick makes some very good points regarding the basic differences between male and female. Our craven new world seems to ignore these differences and it does so to its peril. Gangs are strong in our inner cities, and you have these militias in the wild west.

    One observation I would like to make is that our generals and admirals charged with defending this country, have embraced these liberal programs of admitting women and homosexuals into the military. I am not aware of any senior military man who protested against this. It seems like their careerism and desire for advancement was stronger than their convictions.

    There have been many instances of sexual assault in the military up to now. In some cases, maybe more than a few, sexual assault charges have been ignored or the woman making them even has suffered. so in response they will tilt the playing field so that a woman’s charge of sexual assault will end up ruining some soldier. Now, I don’t condone sexual assault, but I ask, has a woman ever falsely claimed sexual assault to blacken some man she has a grievance against? Now an officer must be very careful he does not treat his women soldiers with kid gloves to avoid being accused of sexual discrimination or assault. It is obvious the effect this will have on discipline. There will be lots of problems, yet the generals and admirals jumped on the liberal bandwagon.

    Finally I found one statement by Mr. Kilpatrick that I question. He says. “The main mission of the Army is to win wars, BUT IT HASN’T BEEN ALLOWED TO DO THAT IN A LONG TIME {my emphasis}. This is a myth that generals use to cover up their inability to defeat enemies. this was a favorite refrain of the German Generals after WWI, They claimed the German Army was betrayed by the civilian leaders when they asked for an armistice. Whenever things don’t go well for a general, he can request more troops, and more troops until they tell him he can’t have more troops. He then can say “You didn’t let me win” thus keeping his reputation and that of the Army’s intact. Now I will admit if we killed everyone of our enemies we sure could have claimed VICTORY, and perhaps our magnificent killing devices would have enabled us to do this, but….

    • Marc L

      Your assertion of “myth” is an interesting one. However, the lack of an ability to muster troops is one thing. It’s another altogether for the civilian leadership to futz with RsOE (as can be seen in every American war since at least Korea) that amount to an impairment of our ability to effective fight.

    • ET92118

      “I am not aware of any senior military man who protested against this. It seems like their careerism and desire for advancement was stronger than their convictions.” When Clinton tried to change the DoD homosexual exclusion policy, the Service Chiefs stood their ground because they knew that the policy had NOTHING to do with orientation and EVERYTHING to do with behavior. The caliber of military leaders changed because, as you said, they were more interested in their careers and thereby allowed Obama to perpetuate the LIE that homosexuals were being unjustly separated merely because of their sexual orientation. However, 1,167 retired generals and admirals argued against the change because they knew the truth and also knew that a change in the policy would result in more heterosexuals being abused and propositioned by homosexuals. Statistics showing a marked increase in abuse against heterosexual males since the DoD policy was changed has confirmed their concerns.

  • Ford Oxaal

    Very disturbing. National suicide in slow motion. Up until now, our army has been on the side of the citizens. That is changing (by the design of the dumbest of the dumb, the ‘progressives’), and we in America may live to see firsthand why standing armies can be a society’s worst nightmare.

  • Trish Browning

    EXCELLENT observations in this article. I am in the unusual position of being a married Catholic grandmother who is also a former Army officer…albeit from decades ago. The military, and especially the service academies, have become a failed social experiment that ruins the chances of having a prepared and healthy force ready to fight at a moment’s notice. I have a son in uniform, and if not for the special nature and atitude of medical personnel within the branches, he would leave all this “BS” behind him. May I add to your fine writing the fact that the number of single mothers in uniform is staggering, and a huge disservice to readiness…and the child.

    • Blanche

      The military is not the place for social experiment.

  • clintoncps

    “the feminization and gaying of the military, together with the blurring of the Army’s mission, is bound to have an effect on the attractiveness of the military for young men.”

    I would actually call it the de-humanization for the military — the first step in turning out widget soldiers who have neither maleness nor femaleness as points of reference in their lives.

    Women and men are not equal — i.e. not interchangeable — in terms of human nature; rather, they are partners in human fruitfulness (as biology itself makes clear) and in the building of stable family life. However, in our trans-humanist 21st Century, technology is rendering a new version of the human person that is, in fact, not human at all: a proto-type for an artificial life form similar to Star Trek’s “Borg” race. Like feminism, LGB/transgenderism is yet another manifestation of humans morphing into an indefinable, “virtual-reality” being.

    It may be, then, that the Lord is allowing the terrible scourge of Militant Islam to be raised up against Western Civilization at a time of large-scale apostasy and technological hubris. Many of our faithful brethren are already suffering terribly under this scourge and dying horrible deaths, but can effete and disoriented western armies possibly be effective is resisting the jihadist tide?

    We may be sure that nothing good will come out of the psycho-political derangement at the helm of our “advanced” nations these days. Truly, our hope is not in this world, especially on its present course. But if there is a change of heart — and of leadership — that disgorges the errors of transhumanism, then Western Civilization may have a future and a reason for self-respect, confidence, and hope.

    God’s will be done. The Peace of Christ be with all!

    • publiusnj

      The problem with the theory that “the Lord is allowing the terrible scourge of Militant Islam to be raised up against Western Civilization at a time of large-scale apostasy and technological hubris” is that the Jihad against Christendom antedates today’s apostasy/hubris by some 1370 years (even more if one is counting by the Muslims’ Lunar Calendar).

      The fault lies not in the Heavens but ourselves. The politicians running this country found a new demographic to whom they could pander and so they are pandering. The World looks on and sees a country that can be rolled.

      • DE-173

        “The politicians running this country found a new demographic to whom they could pander”.

        Beyond that, they are running an old, old strategy. Divide et Impera. A little over a decade ago, I worked in a place that employed significant numbers of Muslims, imported from Bosnia. I found out they came here during the Clinton administration, and their entry was subsidized.

        Heterogeneity benefits the state, because it can control the populace better, when they are balkanized and fractured.

        • publiusnj

          I agree. They become “client populations” that can be manipulated by the State fairly cheaply.

          • DE-173

            Plus you only have to manipulate at the margins.

  • cestusdei

    The military is heading to the point where Christians and conservatives will not be permitted to serve. We are going to be in big trouble. If WWII was going on right now we would lose. When I was in we had a mixed unit for basic training, every female either failed or dropped back when held to the same requirements at the men physically.

    • Blanche

      You are so right in your assessment. I was a female DS and I had mixed platoons & It was a mess. It would depend on the individual. Females will use their wiles to get over instead of making an effort. Saw it to many times.

    • Personally, I don’t mind women being SEALs or any other role, but they have to be held to the same standards as the men. If they aren’t, it endangers them, their comrades, and their country.

  • BlueMoonOdom

    ”What’s the mission of our troops?” No one really seems to know. But it’s becoming apparent that the reasons have more to do with spreading the American empire, promoting the neocons along with their military industrial complex, and securing natural resources than they do with spreading democracy and fighting terrorism. Is it any wonder that youths are turning their backs on the US and it’s satellites? At least the jihadists aren’t lying to them about some phony noble cause.

    • John Doman

      Really. What provinces and territories does our “neocon empire” have?

      • BlueMoonOdom

        How about Iraq for starters? Do you honestly believe that becoming a dominant player in the world isn’t a significant factor in our ”foreign entanglements”?

        • Augustus

          When was the last time you read the newspaper? Our troops left Iraq years ago–with the exception of a few hundred recently deploy as a response to ISIS, which controls a third of the country. Iran has more influence over the Southern third than we do and the Kurds govern their own territory autonomously from Baghdad. We don’t even benefit from Iraqi oil. And our embassy personnel is being reduced. You call that empire? The British imperialists would laugh at us.

          • BlueMoonOdom

            Sure, Iraq was in many respects a failure. Regardless, it exemplifies the military adventurism that defines our insane bipartisan foreign policy. We became involved in Iraq under the false pretense that Saddam Hussein was connected to Al Queda and that Iraq had wmd’s. All lies. We’ve established military outposts throughout the world mostly because we can. The rationale of just war disappeared after Pearl Harbor and most Americans blindly support every foolish war we get into because of misplaced patriotism.

            Have you ever seen a military action that the US was involved in that you didn’t root for like a high school cheerleader?

            • DE-173

              Have you ever seen a military action that the US was involved in that you didn’t criticize with pseudo-Marxist bloviate?

              • BlueMoonOdom

                Haha! Nice one DE-173–a typical rant from from a non-thinking ideologue. By the way, for future reference ”bloviate” is a verb, not a noun. You’re welcome. Now go ask Rush Limbaugh what you should write next.

                • DE-173

                  Never heard of a gerund, have you? You’re welcome.

                  But then again you pepper your drivel with all sorts of vacant neologisms (neocon empire) and then complain about other’s liberties with the strictest rules of grammar.

                  “Have you ever seen a military action that the US was involved in that you didn’t bloviate with pseudo-Marxist blither?”

                  The problem with the Rush Limbaugh charge is that it’s projection. It’s the secular statist left that is constantly looking for leaders and making men into gods.

                  It was only seven years ago you guys were making Obama into a god. Maybe you can tell him the proper number of states in the “neocon empire”.

                  • BlueMoonOdom

                    Your hypocrisy is amusing. On the one hand you decry my ”projection” and then you project your silly charges upon me. Double standard much? Anyway, your neoclown game was tiresome when G.W. Bush was babbling along Pennsylvania Avenue. Try a new racket.

                    The American empire is mostly an empire that uses finance to gain control of other nations. In essence we bribe nations jinto not challenging our hegemony.

                    There’s nothing novel about this position. Recently Pat Buchanan wrote the following,

                    ”America is something new in the way of world powers. We not only provide the legbions to protect ”allies”, but provide the tribute in the form of foreign aid, IMF and World Bank loans, and bailout billions.”


                    • DE-173

                      Perhaps you should have the courage of your convictions. Bye, bye.

                      I’m not part of anything, conspiracy loon.

                      Twilight Zone music…

                    • BlueMoonOdom

                      OK genius. Why don’t you have the guts make some kind of a substantial statement or argument that is more than adolescent name calling and picayune punctuation corrections? Show me you’re not a dullard, because so far that’s all you’ve proving to be.

                    • DE-173

                      You set the table, now don’t complain about the dishes.
                      Doo-doo-doo, doo-doo, doo-doo-doo.

                    • BlueMoonOdom

                      Sorry, you’re wrong again. You initiated our exchange by making an ignorant comment about me being a Marxist. I admit that I reacted with similar inflamatory polemics. Now I’m trying to direct the discussion into a more productive exchange. My sense is you’re fairly intelligent and may just lack the chutzpah to take a real stand. Stop sitting on the sidelines and just tossing grenades. Take a stand. Get some skin in the game. Otherwise your posturing gets old fast. I’m thinking you have some valuable insights.

                      What about America tells you that we’re not a super power with a primary objective of expanding our reach and influence?

                    • DE-173

                      “You initiated our exchange by making an ignorant comment about me being a Marxist. ”

                      Direct quote:

                      “Have you ever seen a military action that the US was involved in that you didn’t criticize with pseudo-Marxist bloviate?”

                      I didn’t call YOU a Marxist. Can’t you read?

                      And you were the one that starting the linguistic nitpicking, then complained when I pointed out your misspelling.

                      Go jam somewhere else. You are really bad at this sort of thing.

                    • Dann

                      Why do you choose to live here in USA?

                  • ForChristAlone

                    Do you think that he knows that gerunds are preceded by the possessive case?

                    • BlueMoonOdom

                      Dann, Yes I live in the US. Thanks for asking. I live here because it’s my country. Since when did citizenship imply forfeiture of free expression? Stop watching Faux news, it’s obviously clouded your judgement.

                      Nice sanctimonious handle, ForChristAlone.

                      No wonder nobody takes Crisis Magazine seriously anymore. When Deal Hudson ran it there was a genuine opportunity for a provocative exchange of ideas. I don’t pay much attention any more, but if these commenters are any indication it’s even more boring than I imagined.

                    • Objectivetruth

                      And yet… you are…..

                    • BlueMoonOdom

                      Oh good, another loser from the echo chamber….. “‘Objectivetruth”–LOL! That’s rich–must make you feel good while you sit in your mother’s basement all day.

                    • Objectivetruth


                      And yet……here you STILL are……

  • Perhaps the author needs testosterone shots.

    The notion that successful, strong women cannot produce successful, strong soldiers (male and female) is preposterous. Israel is exhibit “A” where men and women fight together without distinction. Gays too.

    • publiusnj

      “Without distinction”? Bosh. See:

      In fact, while a woaman-led combat battalion has been formed, women can’t serve in elite battalions such as the paratroopers and “most women opt for secretarial positions.”

      So, if Israel is Ex. A, the commentor’s case is hardly proven.

    • Guest

      Try again

    • Dr. Timothy J. Williams

      I suggest you know less than nothing about the situation. There is an enormous difference between compulsory military service for females (and only in the event of a dire emergency and for a tiny country like Israel) and a globally engaged military like our own. Attempting to train women for special forces operations, or any type of maneuver combat, symmetrical or asymmetrical would be a farcical failure. Israel does not do this. That does not mean our politicians and Pentagon careerists won’t be stupid enough to force it on our new PC military.

      • Blanche

        Excellent reply,
        And they are just that, stupid, pandering politicians beating the drum for so called rights because some nit-wit thinks it’s appropriate to be all inclusive; well not in a combat zone it’s not. .
        My wish would be that every one who even contemplates getting into politics serves in the military. Maybe the mind set would be different.

    • Objectivetruth

      Take it first hand from a female Marine, women should not be in combat:

      • Blanche

        I too read the Marine Corp times. The only reason that the Corp is allowing women to go through the IOC training is because of pandering politicians.
        I went to the link posted in your comment. Excellent and to the point. This social experiment is a detriment to the military no matter which branch.

        • Objectivetruth


    • Objectivetruth

      You just toss stuff out there without really thinking about it, don’t you?

    • DE-173

      “Perhaps the author needs testosterone shots.”

      Wow, that’s rich, coming from you.

    • ForChristAlone

      precisely what’s wrong with homosexualism – you’ve tried (but it won’t work) to eliminate the differences between men and women….but then again few of us here would ever believe that you would get it.

    • Blanche


      When was the last time you were out in a combat field exercise. We do have successful strong female soldiers. They just are not physically strong enough to pack a 100 lb ruck-sack and then carry a wounded 180 lb male out of a combat zone and that’s the life of a 11B soldier. It’s a detriment plain & simple. The males would be more concerned about the females safety than that of the unit on patrol. NO, NO, NO.

      Here is an article. Another commenter posted this link. Exceptional in it’s wisdom & insight.

      MSG B

  • I wonder what would happen if that passage of the Koran was translated more correctly, and they found out all the Koran really promises is 72 white raisins for martyrs, not 72 virgins as it is often mistranslated?

    • I’ve often pointed out that you supposedly get 72 virgins, but you don’t actually know what they will look like. Could be 72 virgins over the age of 60. Or really ugly virgins.

      Who wants to die for 72 old maids?

  • Thomas J. Hennigan

    The fact is, and Obama and his minnions cannot change nature and human psychology, men are made for takingth einitiative and for sacificing themselves by protecting women and children. Recall how many men in the Titanic stayed behing fiving precedence to women and children. This is and alsways was the natural thing to do. They cannot change human anture and this is going to have disastrous consequences. The jihadis are going to be ever more active the wold over includng the U.S., Europe and Australia. They may not kill the women soldiers they capture, but they will convert them into sex slaves, and that is what Mahommad did and allows, plus he his the perfect model of human conduct.

  • Blanche

    The military’s social experiment is and will have a disastrous impact on being mission capable. As a former drill sergeant/senior NCO there should be no and I mean no compromise on training standards. If a female thinks that she can master a full on combat MOS, for example delta force training, hair cut to the scalp, carry a 100 pound rucksack, pick up a wounded buddy then give it try, but don’t whine when Jill can’t meet the physical demands. If a female is a liability to the unit then absolutely not. For most it’s all about getting through the next gate to promotion. NO COMPROMISES in the quality of training to accommodate an experiment.
    First & foremost the mission is to protect the United States. Social experiment be damned.

  • DaCoachK

    The article makes some great points, but the author misses the point: everything must be done to make the queers feel normal, or their self-esteem might be damaged, and America simply can’t have that because they are the most important 1.7% (per CDC information) of the entire population.

  • Jim

    As a US Marine I understand my Mohammedan enemy better than much of my own leadership. When I first enlisted we were inculcated with decorum. Now, all we have is barbarism on one side and a club for spineless hedonists on the other.

  • Dagnabbit_42


    Are we at a point, in fact, where faithful Catholics ought not enlist or serve in the armed forces of the United States?

  • phindrup

    According to the comments, the world is going to hell because boys cannot join a mans army and go out and kill.

    Something very wrong with anybody who cannot grow into their own identity, and be who they are without the approval/support of others to define that identity.

    Then too, the idea that in todays army women cannot do as well as men. They can certainly fly aircraft, push a button and release bombs, go out in an armoured personnel carrier, swathed in armour, to the extent that pne couldn’t tell whether they were male or female, and slaughter the unarmed, or poorly armed ‘others’.

    The Israeli army for example. Tanks against stones, and they blubber when one of theirs is killed.

    Or the arrant cowards who sit at a screen, safely in the states, slaughtering — well, anybody who takes their fancy. I am sure that this must really develop ‘manly’ attributes. That all associated with the program ought be hanged as war criminals is beside the point.

    The really amusing part is the horror evinced when a person is beheaded and the video distributed. That anybody would kill where they had the smell the stink of blood, see the death occur as opposed to seeing mere blots on a screen — why, how inhuman, or unhuman!

  • Pittbull

    Gee, let the men all wear dresses and marry each other along with bringing a few more deserters home and treat them as heroes…..that will certainly help recruitment!- a 26yr. vet.