The Political Voices of Women

Before the post begins, I’d like to send wishes: to our readers in the US, Happy Veterans Day; to Canada and Australia, Happy Remembrance Day; and to every one else, Happy Armistice Day.

Now to the post —

Ok readers, you can get up off the floor now.

I haven’t suddenly lost my mind. But you know that I have to call them like I see them, even when it gets me into big trouble. So here goes.

In a recent interview with FoxNews on the topic of the tragedy at Ft. Hood, Ms Malkin stated:

“I don’t think that we have to play games with the rush to judgment anymore. I think that the bigger problem for the American government and their culture post 9/11 is that there are too many people still doing the rush to white-wash.“

She later states: “the red flags were missed and it behooves everyone in Congress and in Washington to figure out who dropped the ball.”

Friends, when Michelle is right, she’s right. Sadly, the rest of her argument misses the point and her statement is a few years too late.

During the rest of the interview, Ms Malkin blames the recent tragedy at Ft. Hood on “the military’s worship of the “false god of diversity” which, in her opinion, was placed before national security.

First of all, that is an insult to the military and all of the servicemen and women whom Michelle Malkin constantly criticizes liberals for not supporting. Shame on her,

Second, I submit that it wasn’t the military’s worship of diversity but rather the Bush administration’s rush to war with an all-volunteer military and a “see no evil” recruitment policy that opened the door to disaster.

In an April, 2008 post, I referenced a December 2006 article in the San Francisco Chronicle which raised very serious questions about the military’s recruitment policy. In his article, “US is recruiting misfits for army: felons, racists, gang members fill in the ranks“, reporter Nick Turse wrote:

“After falling short of its goals last year, military recruiting in 2006 has been marked by upbeat pronouncements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claims of success by the White House, and a spate of recent press reports touting the military’s achievement of its woman- and manpower goals.

But the armed forces have met with success only through a fundamental transformation, and not the transformation of the military — that ‘co-evolution of concepts, processes, organizations and technology’ that Rumsfeld is always talking about either.

In 2004, the Pentagon published a ‘Moral Waiver Study,’ whose seemingly benign goal was ‘to better define relationships between pre-Service behaviors and subsequent Service success.’ That turned out to mean opening more recruitment doors to potential enlistees with criminal records.

In February, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was ‘a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms ’serious criminal misconduct’ in their background’ — a category that included ‘aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats.’ From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits rose by more than 54 percent, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year decline, increased by more than 13 percent.

In June, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that, under pressure to fill the ranks, the Army had been allowing into its ranks increasing numbers of ‘recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records.’ In fact, as the military’s own data indicated, ‘the percentage of recruits entering the Army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical problems has more than doubled since 2001.’

One beneficiary of the Army’s new moral-waiver policies gained a certain prominence this summer. After Steven Green, who served in the 101st Airborne Division, was charged in a rape and quadruple murder in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, it was disclosed that he had been ‘a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an anti-social personality disorder.’ “

In that same post I mentioned, Paula Zahn’s 2007 report on “Gangs in the Military“. If you missed it, here’s an excerpt from the show transcript:

THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): No one knows for sure just how many gang members are in the military. By some estimations, it’s less than 1 percent of all military personnel, hardly an epidemic, but enough to prompt the FBI to issue this report.

(voice-over): Gang members at military installations from Fort Lewis, Washington, to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, have been involved in drug distribution, robberies, assaults, and murder. According to this 2007 internal FBI document, the report found that gang activity in the U.S. — quote — “is increasing and poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security.”

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Military men training gangsters on how to use weapons.

GUTIERREZ: An issue law enforcement is taking seriously.

Al Valdez (ph) is a former detective. He trains police around the country on gangs in the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s not illegal to be a gang member in the United States. And it’s a protected right. In fact, the head of Army Recruitment Command correctly states that. What happens is, they bring that gangster mentality within the military.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When these cats come back from — these gang members come back from Iraq, we are going to have some hell on these streets, because these dudes are coming back with training that’s on another level.

So, if the military was willing to overlook gang members, overt racists and felons, then it wouldn’t come as a surprise to me if they may have overlooked an Islamic jihadist or two. To be clear, I said “IF”.

Of course, Ms. Malkin may not read the San Francisco Chronicle or be a fan of Paula Zahn but there were other signs that the recruitment demands placed on the military by the Bush administration’s rush to the war in Iraq and lack of an exit strategy would have serious consequences. Where was her concern then?

Oh yes, I forgot. Ms. Malkin was busy labeling anyone who expressed a concern about the war as a “traitor”, “a coward” and “an enemy sympathizer.”

Yes, when Michelle Malkin is right, she’s partially right. “The red flags were missed and it behooves everyone in Congress and in Washington to figure out who dropped the ball.“

Related posts:

What Happens When Johnny Comes Marching Home

The Illusion of An All Volunteer Army

originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation