Saturday, August 7, 2010

Rant On Military Political Correctness


I've got to stop reading that military.com stuff...since these articles are very bad for the blood pressure. Just deleted their latest email without reading and will soon unsubscribe. Fully expect to shortly see an announcement for a third-track U.S. Navy advancement system under a “Homosexual Awareness & Support Program.” Hell –– I say advance ‘em all on a promotional fast-track. You’ve got to get the homosexuals in khakis anyway, since its said they refuse wear white after Labor Day. Just read yesterday that the first contingent of female submariners has been selected, prospective boat supply officers in the first group I think. Probably safe –– can’t remember a single noteworthy event from any supply officer I ever sailed with –– except that patrol where we went to sea stocked with only steak in the meat locker (still don’t eat steak even to this day).





This female submarine sailor experiment, while so politically correct, is going to fun to watch. Green zone, yellow zone, red zone touching lectures will of course be held on a mandatory frequent basis. Standby for heavy rolls takes on a whole new defination. How do naval crews presently handle celebratory events where significant lines of latitude & longitude are crossed? I know the new-age CPO initiations have been cleaned-up to the point of being an essential non-event. These are, of course, trivial examples of the more evident issues relating to disciplined close-contact sailing. Ever wonder how truthful the Navy will be on disclosing personnel problems related to mixed-gender submariners –– you know –– sex, sexual harassment, pregnancy, boy-girl natural tensions, those predictable love-triangles, etc., and those POed spouses calling the XO or base chaplain when the very foreseeable boy-girl connections occur in isolated duty (can't even think about that boy-boy & girl-girl cluster thing). Been through this kind of thing in the late 70’s & early 80’s as a unit XO & CO -- and that's a hell-of-a-price for being stylish. Was the negative “Love Boat” press waffling from the USS Acadia (AD-42), USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69), et al –– just figments of the imagination? My gosh –– put relatively young men and women together in close quarters –– and in isolated duty on ships or stations –– and what should be obvious to naval leadership WILL happen. Sweep it under those green carpets –– don’t capture the data –– this morale damaging conduct shall be held secret –– military leadership can’t be held responsibe for an anomaly where they claim no statistical data is captured. Those three monkeys, hear no evil, see no evil & speak no evil come to mind. What can this present crop of politically correct U.S. Navy four-star admirals be thinking? Can they really think these “progressive changes” will make our American military more ready and more capable in a future fight? There has always been an honored place for Pride & Tradition in the U. S. Navy ... a point that today seems lost with current top naval leadership. Can that fourth star really be worth what you have predictably sired?

No question I’m a dinosaur submariner without new age gender-neutral social skills. And an unabashed advocate from the “Dirty Harry” school of hard knocks -- "If she wants to play lumberjack, she's gonna have to learn to handle her end of the log." But those 4-star Pentagon men might have unintentionally discovered the real truth for submarine manpower billeting. Perhaps there are too many men in those all male crews. Some serious number crunchers a whole lot smarter than our senior flag officers might better propose a reduced manpower plan aboard all our boats. Now such plans make better financial sense… and might actually increase skill, productivity, and safety coupled with reduced crew risk.

P.S. An old article worth re-reading:
Click here to view it.

P.P.S. Or the sadly humorous article & comments at:
click here for an informed smile.