With a Hillary Clinton Presidency, We Will Lose the Culture and Character of Our Military
It is often said that if Hillary Clinton wins the election, we will lose the Supreme Court. We will also lose the culture and character of our military, and therefore the ability to defend America. Like a shaky tower of Jenga blocks, the All-Volunteer Force is stretched out and vulnerable due to what has been taken away and burdens of social engineering loaded on.
According to a recent Military Times survey, support for President Barack Obama among active-duty subscribers has “tanked” because of “controversial social changes while seeking to rein in defense spending.” This should matter to conservatives who support the troops.
Obama has forced the military onto the cutting edge of social revolution, and Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton wants to push it further. The 2016 Democratic National Platform praises Obama’s military/social policies, starting with LGBT law and regulations that have had predicted, harmful consequences.
For example, activists keep intimidating military chaplains, demanding that religious liberty and expression be limited to worship services. At the same time, numbers of female and male sexual assault cases have escalated steeply, and annual Pentagon “Pride” events have become special-interest lobbying bonanzas for the LGBT Left.
Because the administration has decided to treat transgenders as a special, protected class, military doctors and nurses will have to provide or condone medical treatments that many consider unethical. Young women who are concerned about personal privacy and “gender pretenders” in private facilities will have no recourse.
The Democratic Platform and Hillary Clinton also support Obama’s women-in-the-infantry mandates, and an army of advisors and sensitivity trainers are planning to wear down “hyper-masculine” attitudes and “unconscious bias.” Gender-neutral standards that are equal but lower than before will leave men less prepared to fight the enemy, but all will be schooled in gender identities, gun control, “white privilege,” and climate change.
In the event of war, officials will order (not “allow”) minimally-qualified women to serve in the infantry, even though scientific research shows that women face disproportionate risks of injury and cannot perform as well as men. In this social experiment, lives and missions will be needlessly lost.
If multiple threats overwhelm the All-Volunteer Force, forcing reactivation of Selective Service, co-ed conscription of thousands who are not physically qualified would jam the system and weaken readiness at the worst possible time.
People who are not concerned about these consequences of social engineering can vote for Hillary or help her to win. All should remember, however that military cohesion—bonds of trust that are essential for a strong fighting force—rely on core values such as honesty, integrity, and truthfulness. It would be difficult if not impossible to establish bonds of trust under a commander-in-chief who abandoned Americans under fire in Benghazi and then lied to grieving families about causes of the attack.
With the approval of presidential nominee Donald J. Trump, the 2016 Republican National Platform states, “We reject the use of the military as a platform for social experimentation … Military readiness should not be sacrificed on the altar of political correctness.”
The platform also includes this key plank: “We call for an objective review of the impact on readiness of the current Administration’s ideology-based personnel policies, and will correct problems with appropriate administrative, legal or legislative action.”
In accordance with these principles, the Republican platform specifically supports the exemption of military women from direct ground combat (infantry) battalions, opposes any modifications or lessening of standards to achieve nonmilitary agendas, supports the All-Volunteer Force and women’s exemption from Selective Service registration, opposes compulsory national service, supports rights of religious liberty for military chaplains and people of faith, opposes special interest demonstrations, and supports due process rights in military justice systems.
The Democratic Platform honors diversity as a paramount value, but the Republicans call for “American military superiority, which has been the cornerstone of a strategy that seeks to deter aggression or defeat those who threaten our vital national security interests.”
Because conservatives united to elect President Ronald Reagan, we did not have to watch the Soviet Union win the Cold War. Now we need to think about the national security consequences of electing a president who fails to restore the strength of our depleted and demoralized military. This is the only military we have, and there is no excuse for helping Hillary to win. {eoa}
Elaine Donnelly is president of the Center for Military Readiness, an independent public policy organization that reports on and analyzes military/social issues. CMR does not endorse candidates; these views are the author’s own.
This article was originally published at conservativehq.com. Used with permission.
