An analysis and opinion on the current state of the US Navy by James A. Lyons, ADM, USN (Ret.)

The U.S. Navy’s loss of two sophisticated, key anti-ballistic-missile-capable destroyers within a matter of several weeks is symptomatic of a much larger issue. The fact that these highly maneuverable ships were “steaming” independently and collided with two civilian merchant ships, which was clearly avoidable, demands drastic corrective action.

A recent directive by the Chief of Naval Operations Adm John Richardson calling for a top-to-bottom review by all levels of the Navy’s command structure is a step in the right direction.

Areas most likely to be reviewed include the current size of the Navy and an assessment of its impact on force deployments, operational tempo as well as lack of time for required maintenance. Certainly, current training procedures and how personnel are qualified to perform critical bridge watch-standing duties, as well as in the combat information center, must be examined. While these are key areas to review, the Navy has always had long deployments and overworked crews, neither of which affected fundamental seamanship on operating our ships. However, I am sure that eliminating of the Surface Warfare Officer School will be highlighted as a contributing factor.

In that sense, I never understood why a newly commissioned ensign from the U.S. Naval Academy or from a four-year NROTC program had to be sent to six months of additional training to learn to be a division officer before reporting to his first ship. What was he doing for four years of intense training at the U.S. Naval Academy?

One area that I have not heard would be examined is a “third rail” for the Navy as it deals with personnel-manning policies for its ships and aircraft squadrons: What impact has “diversity” policies had on a ship’s manning criteria?

Implicit within this is examining what has been the impact of President Obama’s social engineering mandates that were forced on our military and their negative impact on our readiness and capabilities. His Executive Order 13583 declaring that “diversity” is a strategic imperative critical to mission readiness and accomplishment simply does not compute.

This is faculty lounge logic. What the EO did, in effect, was to provide cover for the forced implementation of his social engineering programs. Many of these programs were a distraction with valuable time devoted to “sensitivity training” instead of, for example, learning the meaning of “code of conduct.” Due to political correctness, our military leaders failed to challenge the EO just as they failed to challenge the Restricted Rules of Engagement that cost so many lives.

Another distraction that needs to be reviewed is the opening of all combat roles to women. There are many viable roles for women in the military — combat is not one of them.

When I used to visit ship wardrooms, it was not unusual for me to find that the chief engineer was an MIT graduate, the anti-submarine officer was a graduate of Brown, the weapons officer was a Naval Academy graduate, the first lieutenant was from Princeton, and so on. You won’t find a wardroom today with such talent. This is due primarily to current shipboard-manning policies that preclude this type of talent from getting shipboard billets.

President Trump’s recent decision to ban transgender personnel from military service was clearly the right decision No finer expert that Dr. Paul McHugh, former head psychologist at Johns Hopkins University Hospital, has stated that transgenderism is not a physical issue, it is a mental disorder that needs understanding and treatment. It is not a civil rights issue and should never be forced on the military. However, with the hijacking of the American Psychological Association (APA) by the left, there are now enough votes to classify a mental disorder (transgenderism) as perfectly “normal.” Clearly, the APA should be decertified and no longer used by the Department of Defense as the key reference.

Over the years, I have found that there are three elements aboard ship that are unacceptable for good order and discipline. One, you cannot have a thief; two, you cannot tolerate a drug user or drug pusher; and three, you cannot have a homosexual aboard. In fact, the entire LGBT agenda is clearly a distraction and impacts negatively on unit integrity, cohesiveness and the “will to win.” It should be pointed out that in the late 1800s, homosexuality was so rampant on Navy ships that mothers would not let their sons enlist until the Navy cleaned up its act.

The bottom line is that the military is an institution whose mission is to protect and defend the country against all enemies foreign or domestic. Anything that distracts from this mission must be rejected. It is the institution that sets the standards for enlistment. No one has a right to serve in the military unless they meet those standards. In that sense, Navy leadership can take the lead in rejecting the social engineering mandates that were forced on our military forces by the Obama administration.

I believe the current problems our ships are experiencing can be traced to these mandates. With the hundreds of millions of dollars that are expended to build today’s sophisticated warships, we must have the “best and brightest” to man those ships. Now is the time to take the lead by breaking the shackles of political correctness and put the Navy back on an even keel.

James A. Lyons, ADM, USN (Ret.)

P.S. by BZ

The US military is entirely the wrong venue in which to experiment societally with its citizens. Any number of civilizations before ours became unraveled and then perished when they diluted themselves from within by missions separate from those ensuring its inherent safety.

Your company’s line for at least a decade now has been, “we’ll just have to learn how to do more with less,” has it not?

The one true job of the United States, Constitutionally, is to “provide for a common defense.” In terms of the military: surprise. Sometimes less is nothing more than less. And accomplishments diminish with less. So do core competencies, as illustrated above.

Social engineering forced upon the US military is the first place to be avoided and the last place to be implemented. The entire success or failure of our nation demands it.

Finally, Article 1 section 8 of the Constitution reads, “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”

That is the responsibility of and domain of the US military.

Not to serve as a test bed for social experimentation.

BZ

 

Obama smacked down in re illegals

OBAMA EXECUTIVE ORDER IMMIGRATIONAnd a loving smackdown it was — by, of all institutions, his own federal court system.

It couldn’t have happened to a nicer guy.  And the venue couldn’t smart more.

From the NYTimes.com:

Appeals Court Denies Bid to Let Obama Immigration Plan Proceed

by Julia Preston

A federal appeals court on Tuesday denied the Obama administration’s request to lift a hold on the president’s executive actions on immigration, which would have granted protection from deportation as well as work permits to millions of immigrants in the country illegally.

Two of three judges on a panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in New Orleans, left in place an injunction by a Federal District Court judge in Brownsville, Tex. The ruling comes in a lawsuit filed by Texas and 25 other states against actions President Obama took in November. Many of the initiatives were scheduled to take effect this month.

Translation: 26 states took Obama to court objecting to Obama’s assumption of powers he didn’t truly possess and the Federal District Court in Texas agreed.  Today’s ruling by the 5th Circuit upheld that initial ruling.

Cue the crying.

Demorat Party SealHand the Spite House and the Demorats a hankie.

Krauthammer Executive QuoteCharles Krauthammer nails the truth once more.

BZ

P.S.

Obama won’t be taking any blows from this, unless it involves Reggie Love late at night in darkened and closed quarters far from Michelle.

Obama: comparing ISIS to the Crusades

Obama continually — as do other Islam apologists — conflates and compares ISIS to the Crusades.  As in: Islam vs Christianity, with Christianity the abject and utterly violent loser and Evildoer in the equation.

This specious argument couldn’t be more wrong.

Megyn Kelly weighs in:

After that, this video in a more concise version:

And finally, the full 22 minute video:

They are right.  Words matter.  And when Obama speaks before any group and there are TelePrompters involved, the words Mr Obama speaks have been vetted and parsed and sifted with the greatest amount of care possible.  When he says this, he means this.

Which is why when Obama refers to “people (who) committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ,” he’s speaking about Christians in the Crusades and the Spanish Inquisition.

This age-old saw is the first trotted out by Muslim apologists.  The major historical problem people don’t much seem to consider is: the Crusades occurred 800 years ago, and the inquisition was 600 years ago.

Since then, the blood and death and violence involving religion has been at the hands of Muslims, in the name of Islam.  Not Christianity.

Charles Krauthammer said:

“Everything he does is to minimize what’s happening, to hold us back and to essentially deny the gravity of what’s happening. That’s why today he had to compare it to the Crusades and to the Inquisition, which is simply astonishing. Mr. President, the Crusades were 800 years ago, and the Inquisition 500 years ago. What’s happening right now is not Christians on the march. It is radical Islam.”

“The only reason Obama got involved with ISIS in the first place was precisely the public reaction to the video beheading of the two Americans,” said Krauthammer. “If that hadn’t happened, he never would have stirred himself.”

Mr Krauthammer is entirely correct.

Obama still can’t say “Islamic terror.”  And ISIL is not Islamic, according to Mr Obama.

BZ

 

Islam: moderates or not?

Meaning, as I wrote, do we fundamentally have Islam wrong?

I think we do.

Are so-called “Islamists” in the majority or are so-called “moderates”?

Let’s watch:

Any conclusions one can draw?  Something similar to my core phrase, “Islam is as Islam does”?

Clearly, yes.  Over 50% of Muslims on the planet are not “moderate” but are in fact radical.  This goes against the meme of the “good moderate and peaceful Muslim.”

“Moderate Muslims” are, frankly, a statistical myth.  Thank you, Ben Shapiro.

BZ

 

Western civilization has Islam wrong:

KoranAbsolutely correct.

Western civilization and nations have Islam completely wrong, as Islam has been telling you for quite some time.

It isn’t Islamists that aren’t following the Quran.

It’s so-called “moderate Muslims.”

Ponder that for a moment.

Then read “Why Islam Creates Monsters.”

BZ