Said Trump, just now.
Here's the NYT story.
Mr. Trump made the surprise declaration in a series of posts on Twitter, saying he had come to the decision after consulting with generals and military experts, whom he did not name.
July 26, 2017
"After consultation with my Generals and military experts, please be advised that the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military."
"Our military must be focused on decisive and overwhelming victory and cannot be burdened with the tremendous medical costs and disruption that transgender in the military would entail. Thank you."
Said Trump, just now.
Here's the NYT story.
Said Trump, just now.
Here's the NYT story.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
455 comments:
1 – 200 of 455 Newer› Newest»Shorter Chelsea manning - really - enough of you.
You're in the military to serve, not to get free gender re-assignment.
Buck up.
We had a training session on tranny applicants in June and nobody was happy about it.
This is a good decision but there will lots of noise from the usual suspects.
The ones who think of the Boy Scouts as "Hitler Youth."
Otherwise, the military becomes a government subsidized freak show
Winning. Don't listen to the whiners.
The Media are the real Brown Shirts.
That was easy.
Good for him. This is a ridiculous situation and does not need to play out in the military, which has a lot more important things to worry about. It's time we began to focus again on the true purpose of the military-preventing or winning wars.
That magnificent Orange Bastard!!!
I for one am not yet tired of the winning!
This sounds sensible. The military has a mission. Your personal problems can't get in the way of the mission. Sorry - that's the truth.
America! Fuck yeah!
Coincidentally, the Texas Senate just passed the Texas Privacy Act overnight.
While NPR is minimizing the federal costs to turn Bradley fighting men into Chelseas, Texas progressives have approached projected tranny costs, particularly in the form of extortionate business legislative guidance - legislate as we tell you, Texas, or we will punish you financially - as received gospel.
Oddly, their worship of corporate opinion seems to be confined solely to this topic.
Smart decision. Stupid to broadcast it. Ugh.
The military is not the place for progressive social experiments, or the mentally ill.
Trump is a jackass
I'm glad he did it, and glad he broadcast it. Why should Progressives be handed a win by relegating all resistance to their insanity as secret, as if it's shameful to object to them?
During the training session, we were told there are "thousands" of transexuals in the military at present.
I'm sure there are some but this was pure extrapolation based on the usual inflated numbers all advocates use.
Guessing the Althouse reaction is difficult. How close is it to various hot buttons, is the question.
Transgender is sort of gay, and gays can love anybody they want, is a hot button.
Althouse doesn't mind the gay mafia as far as I can tell, so the hot button is not overcome by common sense. It's a "we are all beset by unchosen sexual ambitions" thing without much thought for what makes society stable.
So screw the military, is the best guess.
"My Generals and military experts..."?
For some reason, that strikes me as the weirdest part of all of this. There is something 'royal' about Trump. And I mean 'royal' in the ugliest, most pompous, most un-American, most authoritarian sense of that word.
By the way, I'm fine with the restated/amended policy. I'm not fine with announcing via a Tweet.
I'm sure Hollywood will make a remake of "A Few Good Men" with a transgender as the victim.
"Did you order the Code Red on Chuck...I mean Chelsea?"
Leaving aside the issue of rather or not being transsexual is a "thing" where you are any "gender" you say you are, regardless of the state of your "naughty bits," having people who claimed to be women, while sporting a penis simply wouldn't have worked. And vice versa. For numerous physiological reasons. Never mind the complete breakdown of good order and discipline that would have resulted.
There is no right to serve in the military. Plenty of people are not allowed to enlist because of their height and weight. Blind people are not allowed to enlist, and color blind people are not allowed in all specialties. You have to pass the ASVAB so a minimum mental acumen is required. Depending on how badly the services need recruits you can be denied enlistment because of past legal troubles. When the services are looking to reduce in size something as minor as one speeding ticket may require a waiver. I knew a guy who broke his ankle pretty badly while he was in the army and after he healed up he was medically discharged because he could no longer do the physical aspects of the job. People get training discharges during basic for inability to adapt to military life, with no bad repercussions. Because that's one of the reasons that basic exists, to weed out people who aren't cut out for the military.
Chuck, Trump is the Commander in Chief. Look it up.
The first criteria in hiring and retaining people is whether they can do the job. The second is whether they will help the organization achieve its mission or disrupt it from doing so.
I have no doubt trans people can do most if not all jobs in the military. But to do so they would need to suppress the part of them which is focused on their transformation to do so. They cannot wear the uniform of their chosen gender, are are not always going to have hormones available, and the military should not be subsidizing elective surgery, to note just a few examples.
Gay people served before and during "DADT" - and performed heroically and outstandingly in many cases, I would add - so transgender people can and will still serve. They just can't openly serve in a capacity where their transgender status becomes disruptive to the needs of the organization they chose to join.
'Please be advised...'? Is that the normal construction used to open such policy announcements in federalspeak? Mr Trump is certainly not a 'normal' president, I guess.
The policy is necessary because of the pronoun thing.
Good for them all; an excellent display of chain of command.
During the training session, we were told there are "thousands" of transexuals in the military at present.
Even if that is true, so what? Its still a miniscule minority that is requiring drastic changes that are going to drive hundreds of thousands of people out of the military for no discernable advantage to anyone but the transsexuals.
As President, Trump is the Commander of his Generals. Ask Emperor MacArthur how his ordering Truman around worked out.
The policy is necessary because of the pronoun thing.
Transitioning is a time consuming, medically intensive thing. This is not compatible with a mission-ready fighting force.
"My Generals and military experts..."?
Did he not pick Mattis? Could he not have picked someone else who would recommend a different policy?
Generals and military experts are not a monolithic group. Obama's Generals and military experts purged the service of many people who did not agree with his policies. We lost a lot of lethal talent because of Obama's Generals and military experts.
The point he's making is that this is a choice. We can chose to have a military focused on killing or on "promoting social justice". And that choice may be reversed in subsequent administrations, just as it has been when Trump took over from Obama.
And when it is reversed, it will be with the support of someone else's Generals and military experts.
"Transgender individuals serving in the military are more patriotic than dodging Trump will ever be."
~ Steve Levine
Good news for Corporal Klinger..... Finally!
If you're not really sure what sex you should or will be 12 months from now how can you be sure you'll want to be in the military 12 months from now?
'Please be advised...'? Is that the normal construction used to open such policy announcements in federalspeak? Mr Trump is certainly not a 'normal' president, I guess.
In Trump's military, Xe is a chemical symbol, not a pronoun.
By "my" do you mean for the poll to surmise what Althouse thinks or share what your readers think? I read it, then voted, as trying to gauge your (Althouse) reaction.
"Guessing the Althouse reaction is difficult. How close is it to various hot buttons, is the question."
I believe in freedom of expression, and doing things that read as gender are within the realm of the individual's free expression. Freedom of expression includes a freedom not to speak, and I also believe in the importance of gender privacy for anyone who wants to be private about how the feel and what they think they are — essentially, biologically, spiritually, playfully... whatever.
But when you need other people to participate along with you, there are some big conflicts, and the military is a unique situation, where the interests of individuals are often subordinated to greater goals. Defending the country is not the realm of the individual. Government must act here, so it's hard to delineate what is left for the individual in this area. It's beyond my expertise, but I don't see why you'd eliminate transgender people from every military job, as Trump seems to be doing.
Outstanding. And good for Trump for providing cover from the very top.
Just yesterday, Mattis also took the first steps in undoing all the retarded non-mission-focus mandatory powerpoint/computer-based-training that was larding up unit training schedules and squeezing out field time and actual training needed to shoot, move, communicate and support the fight on the battlefield.
Added to the appointment of Gorsuch to the SCOTUS, these three items alone fully justify my vote for Trump, even if he gets nothing else done.
Still hoping for a meaningful rollback of the ACA stupidity but expect to be disappointed.
Our military is about delivering national policy. Violently.
It is not about social work, and self-actualization.
Even less is it about full medical benefits to 0.0000001% of the population as it enacts its little gender drama.
This really isn't so complicated.
By the way, I'm fine with the restated/amended policy. I'm not fine with announcing via a Tweet.
And yet you took the time to find the one word in the Tweet you disagreed with and made it the subject of your comment.
Fascinating.
Why shouldn't Trump use an unfiltered Tweet to announce this. He got the word out immediately, unfiltered by any self-righteous MSM type. To me this is the appropriate use of Twitter in the "modern presidency". Why be held captive to the NYT interpretation of an action. By using Twitter Trump is running a whole news cycle ahead of the jackasses in the MSM.
And Chuck, get real! Who's Generals are they if they are not Trump's? How would you have phrased the announcement ? "After consultation with some generals and a few military advisors....". Real strong words: "some" and "few" Almost as good as "anonymous sources". Hell maybe that's what he could have said: "After consultation with anonymous sources and unnamed high administration officials ....." The MSM would have had a wonderful time with that!
Chuck said...
"My Generals and military experts..."?
Of course you object to this. Sensible policy clearly stated, so let's nitpick the language like little bitches!
At whose pleasure do these generals serve?
I'm not fine with announcing via a Tweet.
Neither am I. This was unprofessional.
Every day, Chuck seems to disgrace himself more and more.
Objection to saying "MY generals"? UnderArticle II, Section 2, Clause 1, he is their Commander in Chief.
Serving in the military is not a right. And service requires a commitment. If you can't even commit to staying the sex you are today how can you commit to anything for the next 2, 4 or 20 years?
Why would it be unprofessional? By what standard? It's simple and direct, and so short that the lying press can't distort the message.
The left want to turn everything into participation trophy theater.
Not on the military's dime is a short-hand argument that won't get one far in a debate with people who don't care about money in those circumstances.
The better argument is that the stress of the military can be debilitating to people not weighed down by such a personal struggle. Transgenders have a suicide problem and so does the military. Putting the two together is a recipe to personal disaster.
There's official ways to state policy; Twitter isn't one of them. If he wants to tweet, tweet a link to a signed memo or executive action or whatever, then he can add his commentary.
"Trump and his administration are using transgender service members as political pawns. Beyond disgusting and shameful."
~ Chad Griffin
I suppose it's possible to be transgendered and to be balanced and reasonable in all other aspects of life, but Chelsea Manning is not such an example. The fact that transgender advocates consider Manning as some kind of exemplar does not strengthen their case.
The way the U.S. Army has fought wars in the last 20 years, they couldn't do any worse if they enlisted fags and shemales.
They all die the same in their stupid forts in the desert.
It's beyond my expertise, but I don't see why you'd eliminate transgender people from every military job, as Trump seems to be doing.
Because serving in the military is not a required act, a civil right, nor - any longer - a compulsion. To sort out the pronouns, uniforms, bathrooms, berthing spaces, and medial issues requires a great deal of time, thought, and experimentation - in every service, and at every level - to get right.
The military has determined that it can function without that particularly small segment of society, and it would rather use its scarce resources to defeat ISIS, contain Iran, and preparing to defeat North Korea without inciting a greater war with China.
So it will be a condition, among MANY others (some pointed out above), whether physical or psychological, that get you classified as 4F.
I still can't believe he did this. What a tool.
Vicki from Pasadena
"...my generals." It may read at first like a unilateral claim --MY generals, my creatures, my possessions-- but I would argue it is bilateral. By binding himself to these men, he binds himself to the military ethos and culture. He has taken their advice; and now he says unequivocally that he has their back. They are his; and he is theirs.
It runs both ways. Very strong statement there.
@Ann A sweeping refusal to accept Transgenders in the military is as appropriate as the height/weight/IQ requirements now in place-as Ron Winkleheimer points out. The time, money and energy used to deal with transgender issues in the military can be much better spent on training and equipping the force.
I'm curious what why people are offended by tweeting announcements? It seems a bit luddite.
Were the same sorts of people offended with FDR's fireside chats?
Twitter is a direct communication service that allows for succinct messages to be presented without accompanying commentary.
The press are free to report about it in any way they want, but they're no longer required to be the delivery service for everyone. The press got it into their heads they're both the ones who analyze and who decide what the President can tell the people. A press-release has at least one too many middlemen between the President and the people. We don't need the press to hand messages along like they're Western Union telegraph operators. Technology has allowed us to bypass those steps. But I guess given how long the press has controlled information, it seems out of order to those who like things the way they've always been done because that's the way that it's always been done.
Seems like it's a win-win, though it's still possible to criticize phrasing.
"Trump and his administration are using transgender service members as political pawns. Beyond disgusting and shameful."
~ Chad Griffin
Oh please. If anyone was using transgender service members as pawns, it was the SJWs. The old "the military makes it work, so your small business can too" trope was just removed from the board.
Knight takes pawn.
"You don't know anything about service. Shame on you."
~ Vets Against Trump
Perhaps Trump has noticed that tweeting gets him more attention from the national media than his speeches do.
I can't tell you how often I get a CNN breaking news alert about a Trump tweet.
Veterans die waiting for lifesaving procedures at the VA hospitals but military transgender prospects get exotic selective surgery.
The world Obama built may never be undone.
The military is not the place for individual freedom of expression. It is about conformity, uniformity and goal-directed discipline.
I'm curious what why people are offended by tweeting announcements? It seems a bit luddite.
Were the same sorts of people offended with FDR's fireside chats?
Presidents should be on the back of a railroad car, not flying through the air into my radio!
(Shakes angry fist)
I will always be sympathetic with individuals experiencing transgender issues, but in many ways especially concerning women (no offense men), I felt we need real boundaries.
I still hold the line to an extent women and gays shouldn't have specific positions not because they are not capable , rather I think that is affects cohesiveness of the unit of personal relationships occur within .
I'm far from convinced that transgenderism is a real thing. (Yeah, I know, you're one and want to be the other or something in between. So what? We're all something we don't want to be.) As far as I can tell, transgenderism is a great big bag of special needs that may or may not be driven by a mental disorder. It is not, at this time at least, compatible with our national defense needs.
Me too, tim maguire.
sunsong said...
"Trump and his administration are using transgender service members as political pawns. Beyond disgusting and shameful."
~ Chad Griffin
Unlike Obama's, which used the mentally ill traitor Chelsea Manning as a pawn. That was different! By the way, who is Chad to lecture us about tolerance for LGBTQ? Because I can tell you the G's can't stand the T's either, and never get along with L's very well. The L's certainty hate the T's, trying to horn in on their gender and consider them weird. The ones who are straight and just like dressing up, well now because of people like you they have nowhere to go. No one cares for the cross-dressers (unless they are G then they can be on that side but not the T side)! So I think crybaby Chad needs to work on relations among and between his constituencies before he berates Trump and the wider world.
Ask not what your country can do for you , ask what you can do for your country.
--CIC JFK
Good. It's a very sensible decision. The military is not a social laboratory regardless of what the former administration and the left think. The training manuals being developed to accommodate transexuals bordered on the absurd.
I do wish the announcement hadn't come by way of presidential Tweet, though. His Tweets tend to lend an air of unseriousness to otherwise weighty matters. In fact, I wish Mattis had made the announcement.
I've reached my monthly limit at the NYT. Does the story say what's to become of the transexuals already serving?
"You don't know anything about service. Shame on you."
~ Vets Against Trump
Mattis seems to know quite a bit.
-- Other vets who don't say stupid stuff
It is interesting to me that transgender rights are a big huge thing right now.
But when we talk about health care policy, and the number of people who are hurt by the Obamacare exchanges, we hear that is only a couple million and thus not really a big problem. How many transgender people want to serve in the military? Is it, by healthcare debate standards, enough to care about?
We all shared bathrooms and locker rooms with gays and transgenders, unknowing and mostly uncaring. Most of us knew that was the case, back in the day. Those people could be good at sports or military pursuits.
That was pretty much the DADT concept: if it's not a concern, don't make it your concern.
Both Trump and the extreme left are wrong on this. It's stupid for Trump to say no trannies allowed. You're gonna have trannies; they just won't admit it, because they'll get discharged.
It's also stupid to say all trannies allowed, and we'll pay for your surgeries!. The military is not a welfare system. Well, sometimes it is, but that's not its primary job.
Our esteemed hostess said:
"Defending the country is not the realm of the individual. Government must act here, so it's hard to delineate what is left for the individual in this area. It's beyond my expertise, but I don't see why you'd eliminate transgender people from every military job, as Trump seems to be doing."
I am in the military. The bottom line question that must be answered affirmatively is "does transgenderism contribute to the good order, discipline and effectiveness of the military to complete its mission?" The briefing I received before the policy change put that servicemember in limbo for a year during their medically proscribed treatment. That is a year where a person is not focused on the mission or the troops around them.
The transgender issue right now is a contrived political football. The military has no reason at this point to be the forefront of this issue. It needs to simmer in general society for a bit and a later president, or even Trump himself, can change the policy if a positive or neutral impact on the military can be foreseen.
I'd be interested to read a detailed, unbiased explanation of the pros and cons of this, if such a thing existed (and I doubt that it does). I don't believe that I, or most people outside of the military, have anywhere near enough information to have an informed opinion on it.
That tweet doesn't sound like Trump's voice at all. Though tweeting it is inherently and extremely Trumpian thing to do.
Paddy O said...
I'm curious what why people are offended by tweeting announcements? It seems a bit luddite.
Yep. Like he's the only President who will do this! This is a glimpse at the future, Folks. Why kick against the goads?
Transgender people by definition are mentally ill and do not belong in the military.
Hey Sunsong:
"Posting quotes from people you've never heard of never changed anybody's opinion." -
Robert M. Turner.
@Paddy O:
My problem with broadcasting this decision on Twitter as Trump has, is connected to where he is at the moment. I would call it "embattled". Certainly not settled in his administration. Why pick this fight at this time? I have the same problem with his public berating of Jeff Sessions. It is not only wrong, but it is unnecessary. The man is down the hall from you - talk to him man to man! None of this projects strength, in my view. It projects a weakness for insisting on projecting strength.
I hate it. I voted for Trump but I am weary of defending his endless, unnecessary, ill-advised tweets. They actually amused me initially. (I am SUCH a rascal at heart, myself - I know it) I also do recognize that his tweets helped him get elected. Whether that is a good thing in the end still remains to be seen.
Good policy. Horrible communication.
Not helpful to this debate are the so-called Warrior Class, those who don't think the rest of the nation is worthy of their service. Their over-the-top pronouncements on this or any other military issue will eventually destroy the society's goodwill we have towards our military.
"I don't see why you'd eliminate transgender people from every military job, as Trump seems to be doing."
I'm guessing expense. Type 1 diabetics, for example, are not allowed in the military in any capacity either.
Because I can tell you the G's can't stand the T's either, and never get along with L's very well. The L's certainty hate the T's, trying to horn in on their gender and consider them weird.
The logical result of this sensible policy will be for the T's to demand their fellow alphabet people "stand up" for them and "demand their rights".
Gay people are smart enough to know they didn't win their "rights", but an accommodation to serve. They also know their accommodation was nothing like the trans-people are demanding.
What's going to happen when the rest of the alphabet shrugs? The Democratic Party is made of desperate groups held together by shared hatred, not real loyalty. It is an organization that cannot hold together unless the hatred of outsiders is greater than the hatred between the groups inside.
The things that Trump has done that are so great:
1. Preventing Hillary Clinton from being president
2. Appointing a great replacement for Scalia on the SCOTUS.
3. Moving the military back into a fighting force rather than a social experiment. (Next, get rid of the women in combat positions.)
4.Reducing immigration of Muslims into our culture.
5. Moving on the illegal aliens issue.
6. Slapping the MSM around.
7. Eliminating regulatory barriers to economic growth.
8. And so on...
Any one of these is worth the aggravating behavior that he sometimes demonstrates.
It seems to me that a fully transitioned transgender person serving in the military wouldn't cause any problems. As long as they can pass the physical fitness tests for their gender.
Pre-transitional or transitional seems like a difficulty the military doesn't need to take on, for a host of reasons.
I do wonder about the suicide rates of transgendered people, combined with the suicide rates of veterans. Do we know enough about whether serving would be a good mental health decision for transgendered people?
LGBTQ
The transgender spectrum.
The military is not a social laboratory regardless of what the former administration and the left think.
Obama forced the issue by placing the rainbow before merit before the mission. DADT was probably the right policy.
DanTheMan said...
Hey Sunsong:
"Posting quotes from people you've never heard of never changed anybody's opinion." -
Robert M. Turner.
----------------
Hahahhahaha!
Neither am I. This was unprofessional.
Trump was elected precisely because he is not a professional politician.
Yep, Mike; we seem to disagree on Trump's style in making this announcement.
Here's where we agree:
Mike said...
...
"Trump and his administration are using transgender service members as political pawns. Beyond disgusting and shameful."
~ Chad Griffin
Unlike Obama's, which used the mentally ill traitor Chelsea Manning as a pawn. That was different!
You got that exactly right. Obama's grandstanding of the issue was shameless, and insulting to his military experts who advised against it and who disagreed.
Which is actually a big part of the reason why I'd like the decision coming out of the Trump Administration to have been the coldest, most data-driven, calculated statement from uniformed staff at the Pentagon. Not a Tweet from the most notorious user in the history of Twitter.
I do hope that anybody who supported Trump because Trump was "pro-gay and is being cagey about it" feels stung by this new/revived policy direction.
Lem said...
Veterans die waiting for lifesaving procedures at the VA hospitals but military transgender prospects get exotic selective surgery.
It is an indisputable fact that Obama's VA fast-tracked surgery for Chelsea but let our veterans die on waiting list and committed fraud to cover it up....and Obama didn't fire even ONE person from the VA. This single fact should shame all the SJWs looking to promote trans bullshit. But the Left has no shame*.
* See Clinton, Bill and Kennedy, Ed for reference.
@Chuck:
I do hope that anybody who supported Trump because Trump was "pro-gay and is being cagey about it" feels stung by this new/revived policy direction.
Curious what your goal in hoping that is?
Tweet means it's a trial balloon. Trump wants to gage where people are on this.
Trump wouldn't need to tweet if the press wasn't a hostile entity. Since WaPo carried out a coup against Nixon, and their repeat performance today, people have learned that the Fourth Estate is less than an honest broker, which is directed by special and peculiar interests.
It's beyond my expertise, but I don't see why you'd eliminate transgender people from every military job, as Trump seems to be doing.
Because if you don't, some tool will file a lawsuit for discrimination just like women and gays did.
"... whom he did not name"
They just can't help themselves.
A) Transgender and Gay are two wildly different things.
B) Maybe people with profound mental health issues shouldn't be responsible for the maintenance and operation of advanced weaponry. Seems like an idea that the hoplophobic Left could really get behind.
C) Even in the context of the ephemeral world of the Internet, random quotes by obscure people seem like a particularly feeble form of argument. For example:
Trannies don't belong in the military
-Bob Smith
Trans and gay are completely separate.
I do hope that anybody who supported Trump because Trump was "pro-gay and is being cagey about it" feels stung by this new/revived policy direction.
1) WTF do gay people have to do with the transgendered?
2) How was Trump cagey about being gay friendly?
All things being equal, I’m fine with Trump reversing or overturning any policies that Obama enacted with his “phone and pen” after he was a lame duck and on his way out of the door.
As far as “transgender” there is no such thing. There are a small number of mentally ill people who claim that they were “born the wrong gender” but that doesn’t make them a third or fourth gender classification even if they mutilate themselves or pump themselves full of hormones.
And as taxpayers, we certainly shouldn’t be paying to enable their delusions.
Yet another shiny object to distract from things like gutting overtime pay and taking health care from tens of millions of Americans.
Of course, on the bright side: if anyone stands capable of judging what it takes to serve in the military, it's Donald Trump.
Darcy said...
@Chuck:
I do hope that anybody who supported Trump because Trump was "pro-gay and is being cagey about it" feels stung by this new/revived policy direction.
Curious what your goal in hoping that is?
Wedge issue. I like wedge issues in politics. Trump is -- or more properly, should be -- a virtual festival of wedge issues. Because he has no political philosophy. He's just a transactional operator. I don't have any faith in operators. I want somebody with a philosophy that I share.
This was just an occasion when Trump happened to do something that I liked. Even a blind squirrel gets an acorn once in a while.
I do think that there has been an odd sort of personal solidarity with Trump, from the Milo/Matt Drudge/Althouse axis. Hard to isolate and define, but still there.
>> Even in the context of the ephemeral world of the Internet, random quotes by obscure people seem like a particularly feeble form of argument.
"I think I already made that point." Leslie Montront
"My Generals and military experts..."?
For some reason, that strikes me as the weirdest part of all of this. There is something 'royal' about Trump. And I mean 'royal' in the ugliest, most pompous, most un-American, most authoritarian sense of that word.
Jesus you're predictable!
Obama: "My military" Looking At Options
President Obama used that locution several times over the years. Some on the Right--not LifeLongRepublicans, of course--objected. The Media line, and general consensus, was that Obama's use was both accurate and appropriate, and only someone who objected to "the first black President acting as Commander in Chief" (that is, someone who was an ugly racist) could possibly have a problem with that phrase.
But now Trump uses the same phrase and it's evidence of how unAmerican Trump is? If it was racist to call Obama unAmerican, isn't it wrong to say Trump's unAmerican for using the exact same phrase?
Preeeeedictable.
The military is there to provide security and enact kinetic foreign policy ("Kill people and break their stuff"). Anything that distracts or detracts from those essential missions is a detriment to the service. People undergoing transsexual transition are unable to be deployed due to several factors. The transition process itself is long and expensive. They will always need hormone therapy which may not be available in the field. People with insulin-dependent diabetes are not deployable for the same reason and are likely to be medically discharged.
As it is, some 75% of US young people are unfit to serve in the military. Giving preferential treatment to transsexuals over others does nothing to benefit the military. It's just more social engineering from the left.
harrogate said...Of course, on the bright side: if anyone stands capable of judging what it takes to serve in the military, it's Donald Trump.
Oh dang, I haven't been following--is it important for the President to have served in the military, again?
I mean, it wasn't important when Clinton was running, and then it was important when Kerry ran against GWB, and then it wasn't important when Obama ran against McCain, and it wasn't important when Obama became A#1 drone war chief...but now it's important again?!
There really should be some announcement, you know.
(Other than "a Republican is in the White House, so things matter again!" I mean.)
"I would call it "embattled". Certainly not settled in his administration. Why pick this fight at this time?"
I get this, and it makes sense, Darcy. I've never (going back decades) liked Trump, but that's a personal distaste that I'm trying to split from how he actually chose to run, and win, and now lead. He certainly is embattled. It seems (I'm tentative here) that he isn't picking separate battles but is engaged in de-media-control fight on every front.
That an announcement like this, of such cultural importance in light of his battles, was announced on Twitter is important in that bigger fight. Because we're still talking about it, and talking about it more than if he had just made a respectable press release. The media-corporations hate this, because it really is bringing back a freedom of the press in a way that hasn't been possible for a while, and never on such a national/global scale.
I'm not defending him as much as I'm trying to interpret his strategy.
But when you need other people to participate along with you, there are some big conflicts, and the military is a unique situation, where the interests of individuals are often subordinated to greater goals.
It's not unique, because what makes society stable is also all over. Society is a system. If you introduce an instability, you get a disturbance out of proportion to the tiny improvement that you made, to the point of destruction.
"Transgendered people HAVE been serving in the military. Effectively and honorably. Unlike you or your family, 'sir'."
~ Rachel Murphy Azzara
I do hope that anybody who supported Trump because Trump was "pro-gay and is being cagey about it" feels stung by this new/revived policy direction.
As Freeman Hunt pointed out, type 1 diabetics, to take just one example, are not allowed to serve. Does this mean Trump is anti-type 1 diabetics? Should they feel "stung" by Trump continuing the policy?
Of course not. So what does this policy have to do with being pro-gay or pro-transsexual? Nothing.
"After consultation with my Genitals ..." Well, he assured us "There is no problem" with his Genitals." I'll believe it when I see it.
We on the left always knew his self reported support for the LGBTQ community was just like everything else that comes out of his mouth, a lie.
I do hope that anybody who supported Trump because Trump was "pro-gay and is being cagey about it" feels stung by this new/revived policy direction.
And you were doing so well until that sentence! Trump is pro-gay or at least, like me, ambivalent. I've never seen him do anything anti-gay, anyway, and don't buy the proposition that appointing Pence was a signal that he is anti. He's the first Republican candidate to actually WAVE the rainbow flag from the podium. He invited the Gays for Trump to events. He gets no credit from the left but on this issue I wish our side could acknowledge his openness.
I see Trump as more of a "live and let live" type person, which is admirable in a 70-something guy. You should be happy that he is part of the party willing to openly shed the anti-gay label. I was against gay marriage and voted that way here (CA), but I don't dislike gay people. Lot's of them here and I'm friends and family to many. Not one of them is a single-issue voter, and most of my gay friends are fairly conservative or apolitical. We should welcome them into the Big tent, Man!
I also don't get the gay=transgender argument. That happened in the North Carolina issue as well.
I don't think these are the same categories, but it seems like there's a rhetorical ploy to tie them closely together, to make them the same. Not all gay people are transgender and not all transgender people are gay. To to make them equivalent seems offensive to both categories, though it's politically useful, I suppose, as reductionism and obfuscation often is.
American culture-- leftist culture-- has gone very fast, in the last, oh, maybe ten years, in recognizing transsexualism as a "normal" thing. It used to be a sign of mental disorder.
I don't know what's the answer, and I don't trust the psychiatrists and psychologists to tell us what the answer is. It seems like a cultural and political question.
As Mike said above, the LBGTQ coalition seems like a myth, because almost none of them are natural allies with the others (well, maybe a few). It's an attempt to bind people together on a claim, an emotion, of sadz. If you try to bind an L with a G, you've got some challenges.
Most people in the LBGTQ/left movements don't like to talk about this.
"Transgendered people HAVE been serving in the military. Effectively and honorably. Unlike you or your family, 'sir'."
~ Rachel Murphy Azzara
-- Did Rachel Murphy Azzara equally disrespect Obama for not serving?
How many Tweets can be sent that Trump didn't serve in the military? sunsong is going to find out!
How many of the same Tweets can she post before Althouse considers it damaging to the thread? We might find that out as well.
You've made the point. Now make a new one.
"Of course, on the bright side: if anyone stands capable of judging what it takes to serve in the military, it's Donald Trump."
~ harrogate
LOL, thanks
>>"Transgendered people HAVE been serving in the military. Effectively and honorably. Unlike you or your family, 'sir'."
~ Rachel Murphy Azzara
"I served in the military. Effectively and honorably. Unlike Obama. And my parents weren't communists. Unlike Obama, ma'aam."
- Dan the Man
"He gets no credit from the left but on this issue I wish our side could acknowledge his openness."
-- Neither did Cheney.
Objecting to "My generals"... Try Googling:
abraham lincoln "my generals"
or
roosevelt "my generals"
It's a perfectly normal locution for the Commander in Chief to use.
I'm not sure how a big a deal it is (how many actual transgenders are in the military, maybe 9?), but I don't even believe "transgenderism" is a real thing.
The most famous transgender is Caitlyn Jenner, formerly, Bruce.
Bruce was a 70-year old, multimillionaire, getting paid for a reality tv show with his wife and 5 daughters, all of whom were dark-haired models. So he simply just joined the club! It probably started as a publicity stunt, with a surprisingly successful launch, that couldn't be reeled back in. Oh well.
Most "transgenders" probably are confused and/or abused folks in need of some professional mental health treatment.
We on the left always knew. . .
Nothing.
--Some Guy
Approximately 4% of the Althouse poll at this point is what might be classified as supportive of the previous Obama Administration policy.
Unlike many Atlhouse polls, that might actually be reflective of much of the country.
And it might explain why Trump chose to put it out on his Twitter account, claiming as much ownership of it as he could, notwithstanding how people like me feel about Twitter.
you mean trump was lying on the campaign trail when he said he'd stand up for lgbt rights? shocking.
Interesting to view the results of the poll embedded in this blog post. The majority of poll takers here are bigots, not surprising though.
Sigh. I miss the old days. I doubt the military had a policy that "the United States Government will not accept or allow Transgender individuals to serve in any capacity in the U.S. Military." It probably had a policy that people in the military are responsible for following military regulations including dress codes and stuff, and didn't much worry about gender identity and such. It probably also had a policy that military personnel who demonstrated mental illness would be quickly moved away from handling weapons and perhaps discharged for medical help.
These days even the anti-SJW people follow the SJW people's playbook and use their identity definitions as a basis for discussion.
n.n said...
Trump wouldn't need to tweet if the press wasn't a hostile entity.
I agree with that statement 100%.
Hoodlum swings and misses.
This announcement belongs on twitter dealing as it does with a subject that is irrelevant to most and trivial to more still. It takes away the MSM's first mover advantage and allows everyone normal to ignore the fraught reporting that will shortly follow. Trannies are a smaller group than gays who are a much smaller group than suggested by the news devoted to them.
Althouse: If they were given non combat positions they would want combat positions. That is why. Plus the cost of transitioning back and forth.
"Thank you to the LGBT community! I will fight for you while Hillary brings in more people that will threaten your freedoms and beliefs."
~ Trump
"First, he tricked people with health care. Next he tricked people with jobs. Then he tricked LGBTs. Soon, everyone was played by the con man."
~ Mrs. Betty Bowers
So the three big arguments against Trump in this thread are: the method of his press release 2) he said he listened to "my generals" 3) he didn't himself serve in the military so doesn't know what he's talking about. Of course, argument #2 negates #3.
But it's interesting how the first tactic is to argue against the person, not discuss the underlying issues of the policy (that there's medical issues involved).
It not a coherent way of arguing, much more akin to how Fundamentalists labeled gay people. Turns out the Fundamentalists/Evangelicals didn't actually convince anyone of their righteous positions in the 70s-90s, so it's not really a helpful strategy.
So it's odd to me that Progressives have basically adopted the methods of the Christian Right, just with different issues and positions.
The majority of poll takers here are bigots
Because they aren't the enlightened being I am!
Who the fuck is Rachel Murphy Azzara, and why the fuck should I care?
I'm more interested in trying to understand whether the sudden explosion of transgenderism is strictly cultural or if it has some basis in biology like endocrine disruptors.
Fertility has dropped substantially in both males and females. Occurence of certain brain disorders which may be caused by endocrine disruptors has risen. And occurrence of gender dysmorphia certainly seems to have increased dramatically, though it's hard to know how much to discount the increase in media attention.
I find it hard to believe that its strictly coincidental that all of these phenomena have arisen in the same time period when we've dumped tons of estrogens and estrogen mimicking chemicals into the environment.
I went on an extensive tour of Bataan this May.
Besides of course having been fascinated by this bit of history my entire life.
The history is interesting. This is one of the few cases in US military history where rear-area "non-combat" units, even from other services, were organized as infantry, including sailors from the submarine tender USS Canopus and the Naval base at Mariveles. Long-service technical specialists, machinists, instrumentation techs, and admin personnel like payroll clerks, all of which were tasked with providing the support and "back office" services to a submarine squadron and minefield tenders, had to be given rifles and used to dig trenches, defend them, and attack as infantry, notably at the "Points", but throughout the campaign, where they held their sector.
This situation is not unlikely in war. As Philippine Navy ROTC cadets we were told our first job was infantry, as at any moment this could be what we had to do, as at Bataan. The US has been lucky in this way, but other nations have seen this as routine, being regularly in much more desperate straits. The Japanese for instance, but also any number of other cases in recent history, such as US forces in Korea, 1950-51.
If every serviceman can be expected to fight as infantry if needs must, it is important that he can be expected to require minimal support services and share all those in common with his fellows, i.e. survive on a handful of food, a quart of water, and do so for several weeks, without excessive rates of physical or mental breakdown. And certainly without a need for a supply of special drugs and specialized medical services.
"you mean trump was lying on the campaign trail when he said he'd stand up for lgbt rights? shocking."
~ vicari valdez
Trump lying? Were his lips moving?
The majority of poll takers here are bigots, not surprising though.
Thanks for that. It's such a change from being called racist and sexist every day.
I'm not sure how your fingers found the ability to type different combinations of letters, but it's appreciated that you took the time to make them type something different.
Oh, and they're going to be sore tomorrow.
Maybe Trump was only kidding in his tweet and maybe we're all just too obtuse to see it.
Vicari Valdez
Just as Trump refuses to stand up for the rights of one legged men and women who try to enlist. Not to mention the blind and deaf he totally doesn't stand up for. He should suggest federal laws criminalizing sport segregated by sex to show his true belief in equality.
If Trump had made this as the usual press release from the Pentagon, the opponents of this policy would have done the usual Alinsky tactics against him.
By doing it as a tweet, it will cause his opposition to over react. And twitter makes it so easy to over react...
And it will suck all the air out of the room for coverage on other subjects. I see it as a win win for Trump. For his supporters, he is seen as rebuilding the military into a fighting force, instead of a social experiment. For those that hate his guts and think the worse of him, no change.
"I don't see why you'd eliminate transgender people from every military job, as Trump seems to be doing."
There would be constant challenges to the imposed limitations, endless lawsuits, an endless parade of "victims" to exploit for political gain.
Trans and gay are completely separate.
Indeed they are. However, I wonder if there aren't some who would rather claim to be transexual than admit to being homosexual.
">> Even in the context of the ephemeral world of the Internet, random quotes by obscure people seem like a particularly feeble form of argument.
"I think I already made that point." Leslie Montront"
True. Sniped again. Pecking on an IPhone will eating breakfast isn't the fastest form of communication.
The Left and their media handmaidens are going to have an utterly predictable and very vocal fit about Trump's decision. All while the mass of ordinary folks agree with Trump (whatever they may tell the WaPo push poll). It occurs to me that Trump has a whole deck of these cards that He can deal when he pleases, driving the Left further into incoherence, the media into self-mutilation, and solidifying the support of his base. It may not be a strategy but it's tactically formidable.
Trump just boosted military recruitment and re-enlistment. With one tweet. That sound you hear is military recruitment personnel celebrating.
As for the question of allowing transgender in supporting, non-combat jobs: No. Every member of the military must as combat-ready as possible.
The unstated assumption on the affirmative side is that morale is important only for front-line soldiers. And the other 95%? I guess most of them would be required to swallow their distaste, embrace the unneeded complications just dictated to them and get used to the Progressive agenda impacting them in unavoidable ways.
If a transgender ban is essential for the effectiveness of our combat troops then it is also essential for support troops.
We already have a civil service – there’s no need to create and embed three more into each our military branches – which is what ignoring the combat-ready imperative would be doing.
I do not want our military to become a magnet for every person yearning to get a free transgender makeover.
Why would it be unprofessional? By what standard? It's simple and direct, and so short that the lying press can't distort the message.
and
The military has determined that it can function without that particularly small segment of society, and it would rather use its scarce resources to defeat ISIS, contain Iran, and preparing to defeat North Korea without inciting a greater war with China.
Readers, what we have here is a rare DOUBLE BINGO!
So it's odd to me that Progressives have basically adopted the methods of the Christian Right, just with different issues and positions.
Amen, PaddyO.
This is probably for the best. I mean it would terrible if some soldier got her balls blown off.
There ought to be some rule forbidding female spokesmen.
If a guy comes on the radio and talks nonsense in an interview, he's easy to tune out mentally. It's just droning in the background while you work.
But a female is always annoying.
The voice is probably evolved to tell men what to do, since they can't do it themselves.
Gender is a set of physical and behavioral characteristics correlated with sex. Thus the transgender spectrum: LGBTQ, where gender deviates from the individual's biological sex. The conventional definition of transgender is closer to transsexual, where both physical and behavioral characteristics deviate or are forced to deviate from the biological (i.e. genetic) sex.
To have a frank and illuminating discussion about whether it would be acceptable policy to have transsexuals in the military, we must first have frank and illuminating discussions about transsexualism.
However, in today's environment, attempts to have such discussions are nigh impossible in the public and political sphere.
Look at Texas's work on the bathroom privacy bill. As far as I can tell -- and I am subject to correction -- when it came to private businesses, the bill was not about dictating bathroom policy, but on restricting local (city, county, and so on)government from dictating bathroom policy for private businesses.
Yet the vocal outrage! Large corporations mounted significant campaigns to speak out against a bill that would keep local government from enacting laws that would constrain those same large corporations!
Very strange.
"notwithstanding how people like me feel about Twitter."
Baffled how Trump failed to take that into account.
CStanley, it's not the chemicals. It's American musical theater. Especially Les Miz and Frozen. They're turning us all into girls, and even worse, girls who don't know good music from shit.
The difference between gay and transsexual is that gays tend to be clever and amusing and transexual is just weird.
That was before the gay mafia, of course.
Jeez, next Trump will tweet that all people with bone spurs in their heels will not be allowed in the military.
He could set up a separate unit for transgendered individuals in order to reduce disruption to the general population and monitor the effects of conversion on performance. That would be rational and reasonable, but Obama forced the monolithic solution.
Probably what's wrong with the gay mafia is that it isn't gay, in fact. It's virtue signalling by the usual straight morons.
Why would gays stop being clever suddenly.
Modern Presidential meets Dr Frankenstein.
Women in the services are a much larger potential problem. There were no women combatants in Bataan/Corregidor, just a few medical personnel who were kept far from the front lines (but were bombed and bombarded on occasion).
There havent really been any large scale cases, so far, in any case of desperate use of non-combat personnel in combat, by any military which had a large proportion of women in support roles.
Its going to happen one day, and the result should be carefully studied.
"All my life I had to fight. I had to fight my family. I had to fight my neighbors. I had to fight my school and my bosses. A queer child ain't safe in a society full of homophobes. But I never thought I'd have to fight to fight for my own country."
~ Charles Blow
So what will we do about the six transgendered who want to enlist? Or the sixty that want to trans on the military dime? French Foreign Legion!!
A terrible blow to national security. Nothing petrified the lions of the caliphate more than the threat of a mad-dog infantry assault by a battalion of trannies - the boys flinging their filthy maxi-pads like icky hand grenades and the man-jawed girls provocatively pulling down their fatigues to jiggle their ding dongs. Impeach Uncle Donnie now!!!!!
AllenS said...
n.n said...
"Trump wouldn't need to tweet if the press wasn't a hostile entity."
I agree with that statement 100%.
So what will Ivanka's Tweet say?
Charles Blow is transgendered? Well that explains a lot.
I couldn't find "None of the Above" or "Trump is lying yet again" among the choices, so I didn't vote.
This whole announcement germinated in whatever mind Trump has remaining. Note that nothing is being said by "Trump's Generals."
Pentagon was surprised with this.
With more surprises in store, I hope.
MayBee said...It is interesting to me that transgender rights are a big huge thing right now. But when we talk about health care policy, and the number of people who are hurt by the Obamacare exchanges, we hear that is only a couple million and thus not really a big problem. How many transgender people want to serve in the military? Is it, by healthcare debate standards, enough to care about?
Yes. I often struggle to put forward any argument on most "transgender issues" because a large part of my brain wants to shout "we're talking about so few people here!!"
If we're discussing fundamental rights, of course, then even 1 person affected means we have to care. But almost all of the transgender issues the Media desperately pushes have very little relation to fundamental rights!
Does any individual have a fundamental right to serve in the military? No, of course not, the military excludes all sorts of people for all sorts of reasons. Do transgender people have a fundamental right to serve in the military? No, of course not.
Ok, so what's the debate, then? Does allowing openly transgender (or gay, or whatever other hot-button identity we want to talk about today) help or harm the military's mission, on net? If they help then the smart policy is to admit them. If they harm then the smart policy is to exclude them. It's simple.
Kevin said...
In Trump's military, Xe is a chemical symbol, not a pronoun.
Xe is so noble that it rarely has sex with other elements.
"I believe in freedom of expression, and doing things that read as gender are within the realm of the individual's free expression....
But when you need other people to participate along with you, there are some big conflicts...."
And this, Dear Professor,applies to a great number of topics beyond the military.
[As an aside, I remember a friend of a friend talking about how mad his recruiter was with him when he got bounced in the initial stages of intake because he had a lot of untreated dental problems/needed a bunch of work on his teeth. I think he was trying to enlist in the Army. Anyway he said they wouldn't take him because they wouldn't pay for all the dental work he needed and getting it fixed would take a bunch of time.
I guess sex change surgery is really cheap and fast now, though, so that definitely can't be a legitimate issue when deciding whether to accept transgender people into the military.]
"This whole announcement germinated in whatever mind Trump has remaining. Note that nothing is being said by "Trump's Generals.""
Trump, in his ususal sleazy way might be throwing the LGBTQ community under the bus to pander to the Trumpists who are getting pissed at him because of his bullying of Sessions and his general incompetence. But who am I kidding, there probably aren't any Trumpists that aren't sycophants and who won't love everything he utters, or tweets.
Chuck:
So what will Ivanka's Tweet say?
More important is what the butler, the maid, and chauffeur think and tweet... or not to tweet.
So what will Ivanka's Tweet say?
Chuck? What an a-hole! Right?
Another obviously correct decision.
The guy is just great.
"any military which had a large proportion of women in support roles. Its going to happen one day,"
A female helicopter pilot was shot down in the Iraq War and the Iraqis tried to rape her but, typical Iraqis, they could not figure out how to get her flight suit open.
I'll have to change my vote -- I wouldn't want to upset Chuck Blow.
Ann Althouse said... It's beyond my expertise, but I don't see why you'd eliminate transgender people from every military job, as Trump seems to be doing.
If you open some jobs to transgender people then you'll immediately be sued by transgender people who say the lack of ability to do certain jobs harms their careers and earning potential. That's how it has played out w/women, right? Why would transgender people be any different?
Charles Blow should dictate military personnel policy.
Obviously.
" That sound you hear is military recruitment personnel celebrating. "
Yup, and the personnel who handle enlistment.
For Trump:
A man may fail many times but he isn't a failure until he begins to blame somebody else."
~ Paul Getty
"Obama changed the policy too abruptly, but at this point it would be best to maintain the openness in the military."
President Obama did *not* change the policy. He was President for eight years without changing this policy. His people just announced that it would be changed six months into the next President's term. It's a bit like all the federal budgets that "balance" if you count the massive spending cuts five years out in the next guy's term of office.
President Trump isn't discharging anyone from the military or changing any policy at all -- he's just retaining the same policy that was in effect for all eight years of President Obama's presidency, all eight years of President Bush's presidency, all eight years of President Clinton's presidency... well, you get the idea.
Re: Trump was "pro-gay and is being cagey about it"
Trump is pro-gay. He's not at all cagey about it. It's something I like about him. (The importance of a Republican Party that's openly gay-friendly is huge.) Why would this policy decision make me question that?
Jason said...
"Why would it be unprofessional? By what standard? It's simple and direct, and so short that the lying press can't distort the message."
CNN says "Hold my beer."
Barack "I'm good at killing" Obama disapproves of this decision, no doubt.
And his prowess in killing bin laden cannot be challenged.
What was Paul Gettys service record again?
n.n said...
Chuck:
"So what will Ivanka's Tweet say?"
More important is what the butler, the maid, and chauffeur think and tweet... or not to tweet.
Well...
First, the butler, the maid and the chauffeur don't have offices in the West Wing. And they didn't address the Republican National Convention to introduce the 2016 Party Nominee.
Second, it might still be interesting what the butler, etc., might Tweet if they were close to the president and had earlier Tweeted their devout public policy support for all their friends in the "LGBTQ" community.
So, uh, yeah. Let's get Ivanka on a conference call.
Why does Trump want to ban ALL transgender troops from serving? He could promote a policy in which any sexual assignment surgery would not be covered, IF the cost of medical care is an issue.
"The autocrat always requires enemies to protect his base from. If real enemies don’t exist, they will be created. Minorities preferred."
~ Gary Kasparov
"Grateful to Americans, including LGBT, willing to sacrifice & risk their life in military service- more than draft dodger Trump ever did."
~ Ana Navarro
How many $Millions have been wasted getting ready for Obama's order? How many man-hours of sensitivity training and planning? To accommodate how many people? Trump next order should be to eliminate all the Global Warming planning and the $400+/gal green fuels bullshit.
Chuck appears desperate to make this about Ivanka.
Maddow must be planning on using that talking point.
"The WEAKEST most COWARDLY "@POTUS" in history just prevented some of THE BRAVEST among us from serving."
~ Danny Zuker
FullMoon said...
...
Go after the women again, eh Chuck.
Some hussy must have broken your heart.
You've caused me to reflect, and I think you have a valid point.
I'd like to amend my remarks to include Jared Kushner too. Let's get him on the records about transgenders in the military.
Ana Navarro never served.
Women in the services are a much larger potential problem.
... Its going to happen one day, and the result should be carefully studied.
It's almost as if the transgender issue was constructed as a cover-up.
Physical performance between male and female would arise from physiological disparities. Mental performance should be less affected by, but not independent of an individual's sex. A confused state may have unpredictable, possibly positive, possibly negative, perhaps an averaging effect on both.
Then there is Mother Nature's prime directive: be fruitful and multiply. This should be an issue for prolonged or intimate integration in close proximity.
"He could promote a policy in which any sexual assignment surgery would not be covered, IF the cost of medical care is an issue."
-- And then he'd spend years fighting it in court, all while tying up entire units and vital missions.
sunsong is unfamiliar with the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.
MSNBC can foster an all-expenses-paid transgendered Adult Scouts troop now that their ratings are supposedly up. #Giving back.
Chuck appears desperate to make this about Ivanka."
And Drago appears depsperate to make this thread all about Chuck, once again. Yawn.
Chuck:
Let's get Ivanka on a conference call.
And the butler, maid, chauffeur, and chef, too.
Danny Zuker never served.
As for blaming other people, that is a typical post-retirement pastime of even successful generals (and, to be fair, plenty of junior officers as well). It is a huge genre. They often conduct wars in their memoirs, or in statements to historians, who are usually happy to continue these wars on their behalf.
I forgot who it was said, on this subject, "Generals, like poets, are an angry race". It might have been Field-Marshal Slim.
Anyway, I can provide a bibliography of examples.
Post a Comment