No Time for Losers
Feminists don’t understand what war is about
“Americans love a winner,” Gen. Patton said. “Americans will not tolerate a loser. Americans despise cowards. Americans play to win all of the time.”
If you want to understand male psychology, study military history, because the trial of war is the ultimate test of manhood. The soldier must earn the esteem of his comrades-in-arms, and win the approval of his superiors, if he is to advance to a position of leadership. Advancement through the ranks involves a process of winnowing out the weak and unreliable. The man who wears sergeant’s stripes must have proven himself capable of completing any task assigned him, and the junior officer who hopes to advance beyond the rank of lieutenant has to strive for excellence. If you ever meet a senior noncom — a first sergeant or chief petty officer — you will find yourself confronted with a man who has no tolerance for whining and excuses.
Nothing could be more absurd than America’s three-decade experiment of trying to create a gender-neutral military. Anyone who has read Stephanie Gutmann’s book The Kinder, Gentler Military: How Political Correctness Affects Our Ability to Win Wars understands the fundamental problems created by this social-engineering project. This feminist fantasy has only “succeeded” through the subversion of training standards. “Gender integration” undermines unit cohesion and weakens morale. (You may also wish to read Co-ed Combat: The New Evidence That Women Shouldn’t Fight the Nation’s Wars by Kingsley Brown and Deadly Consequences: How Cowards are Pushing Women into Combat by Robert Maginnis.) Facts and common sense had nothing to do with the Obama administration’s misguided agenda of pushing women into combat duty, and feminists scream “misogyny” and “discrimination” at anyone who questions this agenda. Despite their efforts, however, the percentage of women in the military has scarcely changed the past 15 years. The “total military force” (both active duty and reserves) is still 84% male which, in an all-volunteer force, reflects the simple fact that most women have no interest in joining the military. They believe that fighting wars is a man’s job, and why shouldn’t they? We have 2.2 million service members in a nation of 320 million people, so that less than 1% of the U.S. population provides our defense. Were it not for the feminist obsession with statistical measurements of “gender equality,” no one at the Pentagon would care about the kind of quota-mongering mentality behind the effort to put women into combat units. The job of the military is to win wars, not to pursue the whims of a bunch of civilian lobby groups.
Feminists don’t give a damn about America’s defense capability. The feminist movement arose within the radical anti-war New Left of the late 1960s, and feminists have always been against the U.S. military. Were it up to the leaders of the feminist movement, the American military would be no more powerful than Sweden, France or Denmark. Feminists refuse to confront the reality that there are evil forces in the world which wish us harm. The protection of our interests abroad requires America to maintain a force capable of deterring aggression: “Peace Through Superior Firepower.”
Feminists hate the U.S. military because feminists hate America, but beyond that, feminists simply fail to understand male psychology. Aggression and violence are an inescapable reality of male existence, as every schoolboy knows. There is always a bully looking for some weakling to pick on, and bullies will form gangs to prey upon the weak. A boy must demonstrate his ability and willingness to defend himself against aggression, and he must make friends with other boys who will assist in his defense against any gang attack. The gang warfare that plagues America’s inner cities (there have already been 122 people shot in Chicago so far this month) is what happens when grown-ups fail to suppress the violent tendencies of young men.
Similarly, the forces of violent anarchy — in Washington and Berkeley — represent the thug-mob mentality of overgrown playground bullies who flourish in the absence of adult authority. The punks who rioted against Donald Trump in D.C. or Milo Yiannopoulos at UC-Berkeley are cowards who would never risk their lives fighting against our foreign enemies. The rioters hate America, and also hate the brave troops who defend America.
This was why anti-American actress Sarah Silverman’s fantasy of the U.S. military joining a “resistance” against President Trump was so delusional. Whatever their purely political opinions of Trump, our armed forces are sworn to uphold the Constitution and obey the orders of the president as Commander in Chief. Unlike the atheist scum in Hollywood and Berkeley, our nation’s troops take seriously the “So help me God” of their oath.
My son enlisted in the Army when Barack Obama was President, and was sworn to obey his Commander-in-Chief’s orders. If Hillary Clinton had won the election, my son would fulfill his oath by obeying her orders. The soldier is always, as the centurion told Jesus, “a man under authority.” A soldier serves the nation, and the nation chooses the Commander in Chief.
What has Sarah Silverman ever done for America? What service has she rendered to her fellow citizens? Nothing. She is a Hollywood degenerate who makes her money mocking everything decent and honorable in America. She is anti-marriage, anti-motherhood, anti-religion — well, just name anything good about America, and Sarah Silverman is against it. Nothing could be sillier than the idea that the U.S. military would support a coup led by someone like Sarah Silverman, who hates the U.S. military.
By contrast, we have a President who loves the U.S. military:
Our men and women in uniform are the greatest fighting force in the world and the guardians of American freedom. That’s why the Trump Administration will rebuild our military and do everything it can to make sure our veterans get the care they deserve.
Our military needs every asset at its disposal to defend America. We cannot allow other nations to surpass our military capability. The Trump Administration will pursue the highest level of military readiness.
President Trump will end the defense sequester and submit a new budget to Congress outlining a plan to rebuild our military. We will provide our military leaders with the means to plan for our future defense needs.
The brave men who have sworn an oath to defend our nation against its enemies, who are willing to risk their own lives as “the guardians of American freedom,” deserve our respect and gratitude. They are the ones who protect us against the bullies, who help preserve peace by deterring aggression. Our nation’s foreign policy is subject to debate, and I have disagreed with presidents of both parties at times. Like most conservatives, I consider Obama The Worst President in History, to borrow the title of my friend Matt Margolis’ recent book, but that doesn’t mean I agreed with everything President Bush did. My attitude toward war is that whenever we go to war, America should always win decisively, and the Bush administration’s adventure in Mesopotamia — trying to reinvent Iraq as a democracy — obviously lacked a plan for the post-victory phase. Our military destroyed Saddam’s army and captured Baghdad in three weeks, but what to do afterwards had not been given sufficient consideration. Our troops won, but the dividends of their military success were squandered by the civilian leadership. And clearly our adventure in Mesopotamia was an unnecessary war. The arguments for taking out Saddam Hussein were persuasive, but the arguments for taking over Iraq were non-existent.
Despite these unforced errors, however, the Iraq War did give our troops a chance to show what they can do. What’s the point of having the world’s most powerful military if you don’t occasionally put it to use? And did any dictator ever deserve a good ass-kicking more than Saddam Hussein? If it weren’t for the subversive media and the peacenik protest mobs, America could have maintained its military presence in Iraq indefinitely. The total of U.S. casualties in Iraq was 4,424 dead and 31,952 wounded. During the peak of the insurgency, 2004-2007, the number of U.S. troops killed averaged about 856 a year, or about 16 a week. When you consider U.S. casualties in Vietnam or World War II, Iraq was trivial by comparison. During a three-year period, 1967–69, nearly 40,000 U.S. troops were killed in Vietnam. In 1968, the year of the bloody Tet Offensive, more than 300 U.S. troops were killed in an average week. During the four years of U.S. involvement in World War II, more than 400,000 American troops were killed.
The death of any American soldier is a tragedy, but this is simply the hazard of war, and the media was guilty of placing an exaggerated emphasis on U.S. casualties in Iraq. An average of 16 combat deaths a week was not evidence that Iraq had become a “quagmire,” considering that U.S. troop strength in Iraq was about 140,000 at the time. During the worst months in the Iraq War, American troops suffered more than 100 killed and 500 wounded, but this was barely one-tenth of U.S. casualty levels in Vietnam in 1968.
America cannot deter aggression if our enemies believe that we are unwilling to fight. War always involves casualties, and it is dangerous to allow our enemies to believe that America won’t fight because, as a nation, we are unwilling to endure casualties as the price of victory. Our superiority in weapons, technology and training mean that America’s enemies will always suffer far worse damage than they can inflict on us in return. Every soldier, sailor, airman and Marine who takes the oath understands that military service involves risk, and they accept that risk voluntarily. America’s foreign policy ought to ensure that our troops never die as a result of some civilian blunder, but we there is no such thing as risk-free war, and we cannot expect that our nation’s enemies will refrain from aggression, if they think Americans are too cowardly to fight a real war. The destruction of Saddam Hussein’s regime therefore conveyed a valuable message.
No other military on the planet could have done what the U.S. armed forces did in Iraq, and let us hope the Islamic fanatics in charge of neighboring Iran understand what this means for their brutal regime. Does anyone suppose that Sarah Silverman gives a damn about the threat from Iran? No, she consider the President of the United States to be the real enemy, and never mind what a nuclear-armed Iran might do. Like every other feminist in America, Sarah Silverman is a fool who takes for granted the rights she enjoys as an American. Feminists can denounce the president as a “fascist,” and suffer no harm, but what would become of these fools if America was not protected by brave troops obedient to our Commander in Chief?
There are no feminists in Iran denouncing the mullahs as “fascist,” and so the mullahs are free to act like schoolyard bullies. Meanwhile in America, the only power that could restrain those bloodthirsty bastards in Iran, our leadership is constantly harassed by dimwit celebrity feminists and mobs of unruly adolescents and a press corps who seem to think their job is to produce anti-Trump propaganda. At what point will the media realize that no one has elected them to run the country? Hillary Clinton lost the election, Donald Trump won, and the losers need to accept this reality.
Speaking of winners and losers. let’s quote General Patton again:
“I don’t want to get any messages saying, ‘I am holding my position.’ We are not holding a g-dd — d thing. Let the Germans do that. We are advancing constantly and we are not interested in holding onto anything, except the enemy’s balls. We are going to twist his balls and kick the living s — t out of him all of the time. Our basic plan of operation is to advance and to keep on advancing regardless of whether we have to go over, under, or through the enemy. We are going to go through him like crap through a goose; like s — t through a tin horn! From time to time there will be some complaints that we are pushing our people too hard. I don’t give a good g-d — n about such complaints. I believe in the old and sound rule that an ounce of sweat will save a gallon of blood. The harder we push, the more Germans we will kill. The more Germans we kill, the fewer of our men will be killed.”
That’s how winners think. And this is no time to be listening to losers.