Why Does America Lack A “Warrior-Patriot” Ethic?

Columnist Andrew Bacevich recently wrote an article for the Dallas Morning New entitled “Why America’s All Volunteer Force Fails To Win Wars.” The article makes the point that something is seriously wrong with the US military. While most of the article is couched in politically-correct innuendo and a studied avoidance of the real problems, it at least has the merit of pointing out the obvious. And this is that the military has sold out the martial virtues, and replaced them with something else.

Bacevich starts off on shaky ground when he makes the claim (dubious at best) that the US military is “by common consent the world’s finest, even history’s finest.” The arrogance of the this statement is profound, but this is in keeping with the American penchant for self-congratulatory hyperbole. Despite being so great, Bacevich laments, the US is still “unable to win its wars.”

mil4

Why is this? According to Bacevich, the reason lies in the fact that the nation’s “military mission is out of sync with its military ambitions.” At the core of the problem, he continues, is that far too few Americans are invested in the grandiose military projects that the American ruling elites have decreed, like invading Iraq and pacifying Afghanistan:

Crucially, this indifference toward wars in which Americans as a whole are so little invested allows policymakers to continue those wars in perpetuity, with few questions asked. War thereby becomes a normal condition, with peace at best a theoretical proposition.

The complaint here is not that in a time of protracted armed conflict a mere 1 percent serve. Rather, the complaint is that the other 99 percent find the arrangement and ensuing results tolerable. A conspiracy of silence, or perhaps a clamor of hollow cheerleading, shields our prevailing military system from critical scrutiny. Political and military leaders collaborate in ignoring its shortcomings. The great majority of Americans finds it expedient to go along.

This may be true, but whose fault is this? The American people had little or no say in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. That was mandated by the neo-conservative clique who ran the Bush administration, and, to a lesser extent, the Obama administration.

But Bucevich does come close to identifying the real problem. He skirts around the edges of the problem, and nibbles here and there on the margins. Of course, he can’t come out and say it, for fear that he would lose his comfortable media position. It remains for truly independent news outlets—like Return Of Kings—to speak openly and honestly. No one else will. Here, he says, is the crux of the problem:

To fulfill its self-imposed obligations as sole superpower, the United States would need a citizenry that subscribes to the warrior-patriot’s code: Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori. How sweet and fitting it is to die for one’s country. Most Americans are far more likely to subscribe to the code vividly displayed each weekend in Style sections of newspapers. There, the appeal of dying for one’s country takes a backseat to the latest tips on relationships, restaurants, recipes, street wear, household furnishings, and places to be seen.

What Bucevich is really saying here is this: America lacks a true warrior-patriot ethic. And on this point, I agree with him. How could it be otherwise? America has spent the past forty years shaming and denigrating that ethic by systematically removing masculine virtue from the public sphere. Could we expect any different outcome?

U.S. Marines from 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing listen to a brief as they begin training as part of the Lioness Team on Camp Korean Village, Iraq, July 31, 2006. (U.S. Marine Corps photo by Sgt. Jennifer L. Jones) (Released)

It is characteristic of the modern media to avoid asking the real questions, and to avoid giving the real answers. If we really want to know why the US currently lacks the “warrior-patriot” ethic, we need look no further than that modern state of masculinity in the US. Instead of praising or encouraging the attempts at a “masculine renaissance” (which is the essence of the manosphere), journalists like Bucevich are the first to line up to condemn it for its perceived “misogyny” and lack of adherence to politically correct mantras.

These are the real reasons why America lacks a true warrior-patriot ethic. They will come as no surprise to readers of this site, but others may find the summary useful:

1. The warrior-patriot virtue is grounded in masculinity. Destroy one, and you destroy the other. It is beyond debate that masculine virtue has been under severe attack by political correctness, feminism, pro-gay media culture, and the continuing effort to rewrite history in a way that marginalizes or denigrates the achievements of European patriarchies. A man will not fight for a system that devalues and denigrates him.

2. The continuing infiltration of feminist doctrines into the military. The unrelenting push to put women in combat and remove any barriers between the genders is setting the stage for military softness, alienation, and lack of readiness.  The message to men is clear, and unrelenting:  you don’t matter. We don’t value you or anything you stand for. 

3. The cowardly acquiescence of the generals and leaders in Washington. Men key off of the examples set by their superiors. When they see that the generals in Washington are not standing up for them, but are simply going along with all the politically-correct social engineering projects coming from Congress and the media, they draw their own conclusions. The conclusion is this: these guys are all chickenshits who care only about their own careers. Why should I care if they don’t?

4. The continuing infiltration of pro-gay and pro-transgender propaganda in the military. There is a sense that the military has become one vast social engineering project. Actually it is not just a sense, but a reality. Dissenters who fail to get on board with the new priorities (i.e., coddling misfits) will find themselves purged. With privileged special classes the rule now, a regular, normal man can hardly say or do anything without running afoul of the Orwellian thought police. The effect on morale is ultimately crippling, and is not being addressed.

5. The continuing of infiltration of “rape” and “sexual harassment” propaganda into the military. Again, the message is being put out that males need be bludgeoned into submission to politically-correct mantras. With a completely gender-mixed environment, sexual contacts are going to happen. It is inevitable. And yet, when they do, the military retreats to the comfortable hypocrisies of yesteryear: that men are always aggressors, and women are always victims. For the average man who is just trying to do his job, it is a no-win situation.

mil1

6. There is an increasing sense that the wars in the Middle East were undertaken not for the benefit of the US as a nation, but for the benefit of domestic elites, foreign powers, or entrenched cabals with their own agendas. To inspire a man to fight for something, he must feel that it matters to him, and that the issues affect him directly.

These, then are the real reasons why the US lacks a “warrior-patriot” ethic. The problem is that the entire US culture flies in the face of this ethic. If we really want a warrior-patriot ethic, it will have to be established from the ground up. If your culture celebrates and promotes shit, it will produce shit.  The price of all this will be paid when the US actually has to fight a real war, not just some colonialist adventure.  When that happens, all of the politically correct bullshit will go out the window so fast it will boggle the imagination.

Politicians will have to start listening—and I mean really listening—to what is happening in the worlds and subcultures of men. When has the mainstream ever taken notice of the manosphere, except to lie about it, or malign it? There are some truly revolutionary voices here, and there is some great writing here. But no one is listening. The entire American cultural value system will have to change. Nothing short of a cultural revolution will suffice. Degenerate, corrupt, and sick philosophies will have to be thrown out the window, and new ones embraced.

This will happen either voluntarily (which seems unlikely) or it will happen involuntarily, in the wake of a catastrophic military defeat. The choice is ours.

Read More: It Doesn’t Matter What Women Think About You

276 thoughts on “Why Does America Lack A “Warrior-Patriot” Ethic?”

  1. Am I the only one who is fine with our lack of a warrior-patriot ethic? We can shoot off space rockets and land them on barges. I think the time for killing and conquering poor people for their resources is over.

    1. Nah, you’re probably not the only one. But I won’t ever join that club.
      We can “shoot off space rockets and land them on barges” because of people with warrior/explorer-like attitudes.
      As for killing and conquering, that shit will never be over. The only real defense against it is acknowledging this fact, and being vigilant against it.
      A warrior-patriot ethic isn’t as bad as some people make it out to be. Does it have its meanie-head moments? Yes.

      1. I get what you are saying, but I’d argue that warrior and explorer are two entirely different mindsets. I just think the USA’s obsession with the military is not a healthy addiction.

        1. Name an explorer that wasn’t also a warrior or atleast had a cadre of warriors to back them up. THe explorrior must be ready to face whatever he finds in the unknown with force, if the unknown seeks to destroy him… or he could just y’know, go home so he doesn’t accidentally do something mean.

    2. You may think that the time is over, but the Chinese may not. That’s why you need a warrior-patriot ethic. The world outside Whitetopia is highly jealous of our success. Go all altruistic hippy on them and they’ll swoop down like the Four Horseman on your ass.
      EDIT: That doesn’t mean that we maintain a force of soldiers intent on conquering the world. Self defense only, but you still need self defense at the end of the day.

        1. ^ This man…
          [Kind of related rant]. Normally, I’m a tolerant person, but going out this past weekend and consistently hearing anti American, anti White, anti-whatever the fuck, begins to grate on my nerves to the point where I want to fight back both verbally and physically.
          It gets to the point where not confronting the issue allows it to persist.

        2. History agrees. “Turning the other cheek” whether on a personal or national level towards belligerents always ends bad.

      1. Let’s keep it in check though. 54% of our discretionary budget is a little too much warrior-patriotic for me.

        1. I’m not arguing for the Military Industrial complex. As a libertarian I have an inborn desire to bring all the troops right the fuck back home and then “right sizing” the military. But that’s not actually on point in regard to the article, which is more addressing the *ethic* of the warrior patriot. I suspect that the dudes in the militias in 1880 when we were fighting *nobody* abroad were pretty damned warrior-patriotic.

        2. Right, but an obsession with that ethic is what leads to a bloated military. For example, I find it baffling that we mix so much military and patriotism into our sporting events. God Bless America should not be the 7th inning stretch song. Soldiers should not repel down from the arena rafters before a hockey game. This country is hooked on military violence. I think it is much more healthy to think of the warrior-patriot ethic as a necessary evil.

        3. Couldn’t agree more Warrior-Patriot is an ethos beyond the scope of any institution. It speaks to the spirit of the Nation itself. The Warrior-Patriot need not belong to any military only to oppose the forces which would shackle and destroy the country with righteous vigor!

        4. I think it’s two different things. Men who want to be warriors should not be shamed as “evil” and only marginally tolerated. That’s the opposite of how you get warriors who proudly want to defend home and hearth.
          Now that being said, I disagree with nothing else that you said. The reason we see this is government propaganda, meant to keep people stirred up for perpetual military adventurism. It’s addressing the masses, not the actual warriors, and yes, it is revolting, without question. I am SICK TO DEATH of every holiday being “about the troops, who protect our freeeedums!”. It’s sickening.

        5. I want a nation with overwhelming force and a general unwillingness to use it aggressively. The best tech and the best soldiers, but not the world’s police.
          Basically, if we do have to fight, it should never be fair. But we shouldn’t seek out fights, either.

        6. Same, on all points. I don’t mind a 600 ship navy, as long as it is *only* guarding our shores. Right sizing, to me, means basically keeping a force large enough to utterly annihilate any foe (including nukes), and keeping it based at home with a large Gadsden flag being held by the Statue of Liberty and the national motto being “Come get some”.

        7. I don’t know if it makes sense or not, but I have a strong feeling that the nukes are just a gigantic bluff.
          I mean that one of these days, two neighbouring states with nuclear power will strongly feel the need to sort it out; the nuclear threats will be thrown and the tension will reach its peak, and then, one of them is just going to call the bluff out and make his traditional troops march accross the enemy’s border.
          At this moment the government under attack will realize that there is no point in setting up the apocalypse, and will fight back with his traditional troops too.

        8. When I was in our major gave a giant pre deployment speech to our families where he said that we were the sheepdogs and they were the sheep. Whenever I hear someone talk about how the military protects our freedoms I think of that moment.

        9. That’s the go to line with CHL holders here (concealed handgun license). The criminals are the wolves, the citizens are the sheep, and we are the sheepdogs.

        10. Nukes are what keep other countries from using nukes and attacking you, and that’s about it really. That’s why nations now rush to try and get nukes, basically to keep the superpower(s) in check. Which is rather rational when you get down to it. The U.S. will bully Iraq with impunity, but we steer way clear of the North Koreans, who actually hate us and want to destroy us (well, so they say).

        11. I just found out that a local is organizing a county militia. I think if every county or small town had it’s own local militia, we’d see a lot more warrior patriots at least preparing for some future action.

        12. It’s almost like you’re being billed for something you didn’t order when some cunt says that.
          I didn’t ask for someone to protect my freedom, and they’re doing a shite job of it anyway.

        13. Yeah for whatever reason it wasn’t really reported on outside of military circles. While that one incident was quickly resolved, it’s not certain of next time things will become more escalated between the two states.

      2. I’d argue we need power projection to keep the sea lanes clear of piracy – etc. , AND a cadre that keeps up on refining and developing doctrine and technologies for land projection if we ever have to go on the offensive to resolve a defensive war, but just that, a cadre.
        That’s vastly different than the last couple decades of occupation and lack of political will to finish the job and then be rid of it / go home

        1. What ever happened to the good ol days where conquering a nation that aggressed your people meant that they had to litterally pay for peace and an end to their domination at the hands of the victor they mistakenly assaulted?
          Now the “victor” bears the responsibility of rebuilding the defeated’s infrastructure, attempting to keep the peace on their cities’ streets, stabilizing the region, training their defense forces….?!
          What a different world it would be if a conflict could be resolved adequately by killing the bad guys and walking away.
          Then killing them again as many times as it took to comdition them not to attack those who keep burning their cities to the ground in response.
          Yknow — without hanging around and waiting to be ambushed by an enemy hiding within a civilian population…

        2. That whole transition took place after the Civil War I think. The whole “progressive” peace-building bullshit really took hold after WW2, which was, in fact, bullshit. I suppose the necessity to resurrect West Germany due to Russia spurred it.

        3. Yes, but post WW2 we still made the Germans pay.
          A lot.
          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_reparations_for_World_War_II
          Now none of that exists. And today, keeping occupying forces around on our own bill is not only expensive but also a free opportunity for inferior forces to inflict casualties (IEDs, suicide bombs, rocket attacks)
          When the wall came down in East Germany we were welcomed.
          In the face of an enemy rooted in historically reinforced hatred for our position in the world, why the hell is it acceptible to aid them for their transgressions?
          We aren’t the ones burning gay men alive and beheading christian monk historians.

        4. Yeah. But post WWII Germany still had to pay.
          A lot.
          And when the walls went down in Berlin the GIs were greeted as heroes…

    3. The US dollar is the worlds reserve currency, we have a huge trade imbalance, we are also the worlds largest market. I think considering these factors alone we do need a strong military. I’m not saying your wrong about our foreign policy, but our interests are too international and these too tied in with our general welfare not to have a strong force of arms.

    4. Only takes one determined group with a different opinion to prove us wrong.
      Only takes one side to start a conquest.

  2. What is the fighting man even supposed to fight for now adays? Transgender bathroom rights? Everything strong men believe in is under attack from the government that then wants said men to to kill and die in foreign adventures for it.

    1. It is a sad time when our greatest children’s superhero won’t even say “the American Way” anymore (lest it offends some other country) while being glorified for having a bastard love child, when Baseball is no longer our national past time but that of Japan, when we have movies about humping Apple Pie, and Elvis is now only known for “doing black music so selfishly and using it to make himself wealthy.”

  3. Warrior-Patriot ethic only exists in the old dogs nowadays. And it’s fading, fast.

    1. Who do you think is to blame for the disappearance of that ethic? The old dogs not trying, the new jacks not caring, or a little of both?

  4. “…to die for one’s country.” Quintus Curtis tackled the “warrior” aspect masterfully, but we also have a problem with the “patriot” aspect.
    Is our government worth defending? General mistrust and open hatred for the government would suggest otherwise.
    Is our nation worth defending? Given how divided the SJWs have made us, we are less cohesive and increasingly see even our friends as “the other.” If we think that way about those in our own states, how much more must we think that about the country as a whole.
    Is our family worth defending? Mine is, but the growing number of disaffected youth raised in single-mother homes and indoctrinated by the state would likely disagree.
    Without anything about which to be patriotic, the warrior-patriot ethic cannot exist.

    1. Agreed, if a country was an actual enemy of America, we might see a rise in patriotism but we all know the wars in the Middle East are for profit. I’m not giving my life for oil corporations to get richer and anyone who does is a useful idiot. Its hard to fight for a country that incarcerates millions of their citizens, pushes a neoliberal feminist agenda and incites unnecessary racial tension at every opportunity.

      1. “.. but we all know the wars in the Middle East are for profit.”
        Profit for who? Can you back that up with actual data as rethreshing the leftist bunk from 10 years ago gets tiresome.

        1. Agreed. Total horseshit statement. Radical Islam is our fundamental enemy today. We just don’t have many people today with the balls to say it

        2. Well, even those who think so ought to agree that the US military involvement in the Middle East in recent decades have done more than anything else to turn the region into a hotbed for militant jihadism.

        3. All it did was uncover it. It didn’t create their hostility… it simply uncovered it by reminding them how inferior their military strength and societies are in comparison to ours. Remember many in the Middle East welcome western philosophy and western aid. But hardcore Islamists don’t. So our involvement over there has merely exposed militant Islamism… not created it. Kind of like if I kick over a rock and there’s a snake there… I didn’t create the snake. But now that I know where it is, I can chop it’s head off. That’s what we need to do with militant Islam (as opposed to peaceful Muslims). We need to eliminate them. Where it gets sticky is the fact that Muslims need to police their own… and eliminate threats from within. Since they fail to do that… they’re part of the problem and risk extermination as well. You have to keep your house clean otherwise you’re partly responsible for the shit that falls on it.

        4. Google ´War is a Racket´by US Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler – the most decorated soldier and hardly a ¨leftist. In it he even detail the sock companies that benefit from the useless wars.
          “I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during
          that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers.
          In short, I was a racketeer, a
          gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico
          safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a
          decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in.
          I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the
          benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International
          Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902-1912. I brought light to the
          Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903.
          In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.
          Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best
          he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on
          three continents.”

        5. ¨Radical Islam is our fundamental enemy…¨
          Yeah, that is what the TV said.
          Major General Smedley Butler, USMC…
          Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a
          thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained
          in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is
          typical with everyone in the military service.

        6. a self loathing mercenary? it is very self serving of him to divulge this information, thus absolving himself in his own eyes, but he does not speak with clear vision.

    2. Agree. The article was very well articulated regarding the warrior ethic. One thing he didn’t mention directly though was the poor physical condition of the average American male. I read somewhere that if we were in a real war that required a large mobilization using the draft, a majority of American males ages 18-25 would be ineligible for service because they wouldn’t meet the minimum standards of health and physical fitness. Not sure if that’s true or not but, anecdotally, based on the young men I see in my travels, it wouldn’t surprise me.
      In regards to the patriot ethic, you nailed it with your comment. I too am prepared to die defending my family. I suppose there was a time when nation meant an extension of tribe and of family. Is that what this nation is today? Seems to me that it’s now simply a diverse collection of interest groups. Should I feel bad about not wanting to sacrifice my life or, God forbid, my son’s life for a rainbow colored White House?

    3. Our government is worth a sum of bullets sufficient enough for every corrupt politicians’, their strategists’ and their lobbyists’ (handlers’) brains.

  5. I think there still is a strong warrior-patriot ethic out there. It’s just that those guys don’t go out of their way to be seen. They’re not attention whores; they don’t need to be.
    The media pedestalizes the left wingers and their ilk because they are freakish and novel; they get clicks and ratings and shit. It’s like the modern freak show.
    But they may be losing their shock value. Uh-oh.

    1. I noticed the warrior-patriot ethic remains relatively strong in the southeastern United States and surrounding Appalachia. It’s a pleasant relief from Babylonian hells like New York and California.

      1. check out a book called “Born Fighting” by former senator (and presidential candidate until a few months ago) Jim Webb. He is Scots-Irish, and the book is about how these people helped shape the nation

        1. I’ll check it out… You can sense the clannishness and anti authoritarian attitudes of these people which describe the Scots perfectly.

        2. Great fighters, no doubt, but not always great soldiers. From Culloden to Gettysburg’s 3rd day, on to Franklin and ending at Bentonville – Attack and Die. They operate best under control.

    2. Yes, the reason we don’t “win” wars is becaus we have defined winning as turning foreign countries into Ohio and we do not permit our soldiers to follow Trinquiers advice.
      This country still produces loads of great military men, but as long as politicians support war aims steeped in unreality the cycle will continue.

      1. Mission creep to the extreme.
        I never understood how attempting to build a western democtatic state on the bones of an arab authoratarian one on the backs of the US military was even considered feasible.

    3. No matter there’s still some ethic, it seems that there’s no skill anymore. A few months ago, US marines simulated a landing in a Portuguese beach. They got jammed in the sand.
      Now just imagine those guys in Omaha beach with shooting at them. They would have been sitting ducks. Dear God! they couldn’t finish the landing even without enemies. Better thing US can do is to avoid any war next time soon, or to risk making fools of themselves while the whole world watches.

      1. So b/c this one unit shows their ass, the entire MIC is just a lil’ paper tiger to you? I’ve seen people fuck up worse than that, and instead of going home and preaching phony-ass nonviolence, they *gasp* tried again, and became better at their jobs by learning from their mistakes.
        If those marines had to do it for real now, how much you wanna bet they won’t make those mistakes again? Besides, in military training, it’s usually like the Kobiyashi-Maru test(No-win scenario)

        1. Sure they won’t make those mistakes again. They will make new ones, since they don’t seem to have skill enough to foresee which problems can they face in some situation. Israeli forces during the first wars in their country didn’t have much experience, but they won.
          Anyway, nothing to worry about. It’s widely known that US has become a falling star. You can’t blame those soldiers because they’re just part of the new third world american culture.

        2. But did they make mistakes in their training? If so, then going by your own rules, they suck. And you’re the one blaming soldiers, not me.

        3. Those marines? Yeap, quite a few ones, as you can see in the video. That’s the new level in the army of the African-Hispanics States of America.

        4. No, the Israeli forces. Did they ever make any mistakes? refer to my above comment
          And if the US is a “falling star” then the rest of the world is a frozen chunk of shit falling from an airplane.

        5. If it makes you feel better to believe that, then go ahead. Cherry pick all you like. I admit that the left-wing type of stuff has tarnished the military, no argument there. But still…
          Any country that fucks with us does so at their peril. That’s a fact, Jack. Well, unless the pols and leftwing mob stab them in the back, as they are want to do.

        6. Again, one small element that you admittedly cherry-picked. if the Iranians are so badass, why haven’t they been able to beat the Israeli’s? Or even Iraq? And they were actually TRYING.
          Again, this scenario that you impotently throw out there is a reflection of leadership.
          Also, referring to your 1st comment, you say those marines would’ve been sitting ducks. Well, weren’t the US GIs pretty much sitting ducks on the beach at Normandy? They got pretty fucked up too if history is accurate… but they pressed on and won. You can’t win all the battles, nor should one try, especially if there’s no real gain.
          Kind of like arguing with an idiot.
          And that would be the Navy in that photo. Oh wait! was that a mistake you made???

        7. His other photo was of the Army, not the Marines as he claimed. And it looks terribly photo shopped at that.

        8. A military that seldom takes losses is good; one that never takes losses is pussy. They’ve gotten away with dozens of missions for every one where somebody stepped on his dick.

        9. The entire point of training is to observe mistakes and train further with your new knowledge. Do you think the D-Day landing was the first time any of those men tried a landing? Guaranteed, they screwed the pooch many times over before hitting the beach for real.

        10. Im so glad you possess some phenomenal merit of undisclosed skill to make such assessments about a training exercise.
          I give props to IDF. But dont kid yourself kid. The Corps does one thing.
          Kill till they’re dead.
          Handmedown equipment from other branches? Lesser manpower assigned? They get it done. That’s the only answer to a devildog rifleman.
          I only ever got along with a couple of marines I met. But their stubborn and relentless adherence to drill, discipline and determination is renowned.
          Look it up.

        11. Yeah. Not to mention tons of those landing craft never hit the beachhead and they took the wall anyway.
          Not to mention such a battle will almost definitely never occur again.

        12. No. Thats sadly real. Some SJW bullshit called walk in her shoes I believe.
          But they aren’t marines.
          And the guys on the boat are Navy.
          And our country’s funding and arms and victory in WW2 are the reason Israel exists at all.

        13. So your contention is that because sometimes mistakes happen or troops are taken/killed, that means that the military is incompetent. Which would then lead one to conclude that all militaries are incompetent, using that standard.

        14. Those marines were sitting ducks for snipers and ambush in Iraq. You know why? They don’t get tactical efficiency, conservation of energy and critical thinking. Why? most are high school drop outs. They are only about physical fitness without the brains.

        15. Our entire military were sitting ducks for snipers, roadside bombs and suicide attacks because of the standard operating procedures and rules of engagement imposed on a fighting force aligned against guerilla fighters hiding in civilian populations.
          Also thats a cheap as fuck shot. I served (not in the corps) in part for money to get a degree, and now that I’ve attained one I can’t even come close to wishing I’d taken a different path.
          Furthermore, enlistment in the corps generally requires a high school diploma (very selectively waiverable) whereas other branches allow entrance with a GED.
          Im very glad to hear of your expert-level tactical prowess, but ask you to humbly reconsider that in the age of the firearm, no one wins by brute force. Our programs breed professionals, successful optimally when unhindered by contemporary political influence.
          Please tell me how superior a level of execution you’re able to produce and we all will surely take you seriously you pussy-suckling ignorant bitch.

        16. I don’t mean to pick on the marines. I think all infantry type mil occupations are only suitable for boneheads. Yes I served too in my younger years and I had many options, but what I really wanted was not available (F-18 pilot), I thought I’d go for infantry – You know, be like Rambo kinda thing – I too felt invincible . So yes, I am very familiar with the infantry culture and I know for a fact that most are barely educated. I left and got back in as an officer in a different unit but going on training put us with infantry morons and I finally left all together. Even officers are not all that. Problem solving is not their best aptitude – BS is, You will never see the likes of Hannibal, Napoleon. Every single exercise was a disaster because they put incompetent and uneducated fools in charge. Good luck if NATO goes to war with Russia or China – I know who will win. Everybody who understands war on a strategic level knows it. That’s why I think Putin is flexing his muscles. He know’s he will win he just does not want to be responsible for starting the largest conventional war yet to be seen since WWII. We shall see within a decade how superior a level of execution infantry units with their little 5.56mm, six packs, and bayonets fair against mechanized/armored Russian/Chinese units. Can’t even chip the paint off T-90s. Hint: examine their ground force strength compared to NATO members in Europe, US ground support across the ocean will be unavailable because of enemy subs. F-22/35s heat signatures will be exposed by infrared and advanced S-800. Downed stealth drones and stealth helicopter tech (during ops in Iran and Pakistan) probably made it’s way to Russia and China -figured out counter measures, so US lost the single advantage in conventional warfare. Thermonuclear warfare: Russia has superior number of Nuclear warheads and ICBMs. Check mate.

      2. Remember the Slapton Sands training incident just before D-Day? Or the initial FUBAR of Operation Torch in Algeria? In every generation, it seems, we have to learn all over again.

    4. We play by Marquis de Queensbury rules. Our enemies play by other rules. When we start fighting wars in ways that make our enemies quit or capitulate sooner because of the fear they have for losing to us, then the warrior-patriot spirit will be realized. Every warrior that gets an Article 15 or Court-Martial for pissing on the dead bodies of our enemies because it is culturally insensitive is a betrayal by the government that sends men to fight and die in its name.

      1. Insensitive to the extreme when compared with the mere act of casual beheading of civilians by our morally upstanding adversaries.

      2. ROE, devised by pussy PC leftists, with an aim to shield us from global critique, because not a single one of them has the courage to live by the strength of their convictions, unlike our enemy, who will gladly die in pursuit of their ideology. sickening.

    5. It’s not that they don’t want to be seen. It’s that nobody is shining the light on them. And nobody meaning the people who have the power to do so. It’s all intentional.
      I heard they shone purple lights on the white house or some other government buildings in remembrance of a guy who died and used to sing songs and make millions of dollars from it. If they just spent the same amount of time and effort on real heroes, men who have risked there lives and demonstrated incredible feats of courage on battlefields and warzones, then you will see a strong warrior/patriot ethic. But it’s not needed anymore because there aren’t any serious physical threats left out there. The serious wars are the ones happening on a cyber and mental/mind level.
      And to the commenter below trying to shame the American military as is the usual agenda in the media. Remember what happened after Pearl Harbor? Remember what happened after the bombing of Britain? It may not have been perfect. And it sure as hell wasn’t pretty. But it was complete and utter destruction. Let’s see a hostile country try anything to America on American soil and then you will meet the real American military.

  6. I agree with how fast this will all change. The second the United States (or any western nation) has to fight an actual war, the military will purge all the P.C. shit so fast, people won’t believe it. The same sort of shit happend to Russia, during their Soviet times they crammed so much Marxist shit into their military, it made it weaker and weaker. But once the Soviet Union collapsed and they were no longer doing their “Communist Nation Building” and were forced into real conflicts, they threw all that shit out the window almost overnight.

    1. I agree with this. Plus, if we have Trump 2016, a no-pc president, expect much of this to disappear.

  7. One 8 year contract deep and I’ve declined to reenlist.
    I am, in my heart of hearts, a patriot. But the flag, for me, symbolizes something vastly different than the unwashed masses that shield themselves beneath its vast reaching shelter.
    When your unit spends more time reviewing mandatory EO, sexual harassment and suicide awareness policies than conducting MOS-related, quality training, there is a problem.
    I have sisters-in-arms that I would readily trust with my life, but they are in greatly inadequate proportion to the full sample size.
    In 2011 the Army was planning on rolling out physical fitness assessments that involved realistic displays of soldierly capability (humping ammo cans, dragging casualties, clearing hurdles, etc).
    http://m.military.com/military-fitness/army-fitness-requirements/new-army-prt-and-crt
    The Army CRT (combat readiness test) was designed to make a soldier prove that they could actually be –you know– a warrior (noway!) in a combat situation, rather than a gleaming liability.
    That program is suspended.
    http://www.armyprt.com/acrt/
    Care to wager why?
    Act like capable men who signed up to catch bullets for their country don’t recognize the blatant social experimentation, degrading over-reaching safety standards and the consistent decay of what once was the finest meritocracy the world has ever known.
    I still have my boots. Ive got some gear stacked for the ever-looming point in American history when the bread and circuses stop appeasing this disgusting, degenerate culture-in-collapse.
    Find me then vigilant upon but my own doorstep.
    Eyes fixated on the edge of my neighbors’ lands.
    Ready to rock, but only for my own block.
    Because only a fool would let himself be shipped off to kick down foreign doors by those very traitors that treat him as enemy, fodder, and inferior specimen.

  8. The reason we haven’t won a war since ww2, is we try to get to many things done. And we are not ruthless in our attack, you can’t fight in Vietnam and not invade the north, you can’t just get tired and pawn the war off to afghanis or Iraqis they don’t care. Unti we make winnable objectives in a reasonable time frame and stop running away then we will continue to lose. Because our weak spot has been exposed.

  9. There will never be another warrior-patriot ethic in the US. Maybe in whatever nation emerges from the wreckage, but most people these days just see America as a place with good benefits instead of an idea worth fighting for.
    Even those of us who are inclined to see it as an idea worth fighting for are slowly but surely being cured of those feelings by the incessant march of progressivism.
    Anecdotally, I stopped putting out my flag on the fourth of July a couple of years ago even though I grew up in an extremely patriotic and military family. This nation no longer represents what that flag represents, so I just leave my Don’t Tread of Me flag up year round instead.

  10. The sex harassment training was over the top even 15 years ago before I got out.
    One thing I DO NOT miss.

    1. As I’ve served with women, involuntarily, I can guarantee you that the women are not “winning wars”. They’re getting in the way, causing logistical issues that don’t arise in a male only military, and are a burden to the actual men who have to carry two rucks instead of just one, or drive the jeep to help princess warrior when she gets tired of a forced march.

      1. I noticed in all male units, brotherhood and camaraderie are the rule of the day. Inject one female, and everything becomes poisoned due to biological instinct.

        1. The chump is usually someone higher ranking. Said chump then proceeds to disburse preferential treatment, making life hell for anyone with a Y chromosome.

      2. Lol one was literally my burden in basic, and she was fat. I had to hump her around a whole damn day.
        The other issue is if you have hot girls, because guys won’t be able to resist the temptation, I wasn’t hahaha. Yeah you can get booted for it but she was hot…
        Anyway she was transferred away to another base far away and I kept my dick in my pants the rest of the time.

      3. I concur with this to the absolute. Out of the couple dozen females I served with from basic to Ending the Shit over an eight year frame and four units, only one was competent while the rest were an absolute waste of space.

    2. Not from where I’m standing. Looks as though the situations in both Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Middle East, in general is worse than when we first went in. I was in Iraq, so, I’m open to anyone that was there to challenge this next statement, but, it seems like a bunch of goat herder Taliban put up a very effective straight up fight against “the best military in all of history”. I believe they even took ground from the us?

      1. I absolutely concur. They waged an effective guerilla tactic, that historically, no superpower has ever had an answer for. Considering Shit Laden’s main objective was to bankrupt the United States, he did an effective job. I blame our incompetent politicians and decades of imperialism for this.

        1. We were bankrupt decades before ever entering Iraq. It’s funny that he set a goal that others had already accomplished before he came to power, heh.

        2. True. We just caked on additional trillions in debt, reduction of civil liberties, and reduced status in the world hunting this guy.

        3. “no superpower has ever had an answer for.” That is bullshit. Germany successfully kept guerrilla warfare on the low side and the US successfully kept the Japanese from doing any sort of guerrilla warfare.

        4. Soviet and Yugo partisans were guerillas on the eastern front. Josip Broz Tito, the future Yugo leader after WWII got his start in the guerilla organization that you claim didn’t exist.

        5. Let me rephrase that. Germany did not have an answer* for these guerillas being that they outlasted Hitler and the war. My original point stands.

        6. So Yugoslavia was able to revolt, but at that point the Germans their were pretty close to being cut off from the rest of the German Army and the war was being lost. Everywhere else, guerrilla warfare was kept under control.

        7. During Operation Concerto alone, 53,000 Axis soldiers were killed by Partisans from Belarus, Latvia, and Estonia. I don’t consider that under control.

        8. Share this one with you. I have an acquintance of mine who did peacekeeping with the German army back in the 90’s in former Yugoslavia and his grandfather (WWII vet) told him before he deployed, “be careful. We never had full control of the place the last time we (German Army) were down there. And I am sure it hasn’t changed much.”

        9. There wasn’t room for anything to be considered guerrilla warfare when island hopping. It was meat grinder after bloodbath.
          And are you downplaying the French Resistance?!?!?!

        10. VIVA LA RESISTANCE!
          (haha)
          I mean, they played a roll. But didn’t really do any severe damage until the Allies came to town.

        11. Yugos are a tough people… Not too many groups can outlast Byzantine, Ottoman, Austro-Hungarian, Nazi, and Soviet occupation and retain their own base cultural identity.
          It’s little wonder they [and the Bulgarians] were the preferred breed for the Janissary Corps.

        12. Lol. Satire mate.
          I had hoped the fact that I knew what you meant when you spoke of Germany’s success in dominating occupied territories (by making their own government do it for them) and the wicked lot of punctuation would’ve given me away.
          And don’t worry, as far as I’m aware its common knowledge the French (excluding the exiles under de Gaulle) were the era’s biggest letdowns in Europe.

      2. Ok, you’re wrong. from 2007-2009 there was a surge in troops to Iraq. Even with the bitch-ass ROE US soldiers and marines were stuck with, they still pacified an entire country. Were there still incidents and IEDs and shit? Yes. But we have stuff like that even here in the US. All countries do.
        Obama let the SOFA expire and then left a fuck-ton of equipment there for ISIS, and well… look.
        THe US armed forces kicks ass. OP is correct; it’s the politicians who fuck everything up and give away victories that are won. Note that “politicians” includes the top military brass now.

      1. Indeed. Have you noticed whenever there is a “trade deal” we are waiting on Congress’ approval, never on foreign national approval? Foreign nations are taking us to the cleaners. They get 100% of what they want, our Congress is stuck with collecting votes to approve a bad deal.

  11. Even thought “they” lifted the ban on females, I still think combat arms will remain almost if not entirely male. Yeah, maybe a few females here and there, but, they’ll find their way to some remedial job or pull the pregnancy rip-cord and get most of their enlistment paid for without doing anything (just like POG females do). Look at STEM, women have been free to join this for years, yet, its still very male dominated. Now, what may happen is that, 5-6 years from now, feminists may see that these areas are still male-dominated and throw a shit-fit and, like with STEM, start mandating females be included. And, that will just suck. But hopefully before that we’ll have Trump or some other kind of large systemic backlash against all this social justice bullshit.

  12. ROE is everything. You cannot win if your military isn’t allowed to fulfill its entire purpose for existing. Soldiers aren’t police. Politicians aren’t soldiers. Women and sexual misfits shouldn’t be. And the most effective and underhanded method for affecting political change in a stable country is to send off its most patriotic young men to come home with their coffins wrapped up in the Flag over a conflict you never intended to win from the outset (or treating them as though they are some bad-taste/leftover you don’t want anymore since they remind you of your own cowardice and deceptions).
    Just putting this out there:

    1. What the old timers who fought tell me is that they absolutely obliterated the VC. The problem is that they were not allowed to permanently fortify their gains. In essence, they’d take one hill, then move onto the next, only to find the hill they took yesterday was occupied by new VC reinforcements from surrounding countries.
      If you look at the demographics, the male ratio of SE Asia has yet to recover from the ass whooping our forces unleashed. That’s the version I’ve been told. It sounds legitimate.

      1. America lost to a superior army. Better moral better will power. It was really embarrassing for america.

        1. The VC had everything going for it: defensive war mentality, support of the people, political green light, jungle warfare favoring guerilla tactics; none of which the Americans had.
          Our forces were grossly misused and under different circumstances, I don’t see the VC winning.

        2. “America lost to a superior army.”
          Pure fiction, but I understand why leftists and America haters want to believe that.

        3. No they had not “everything going for it ” what you listed were their positives but that does not amount to everything going for them.
          You are entitled to your opinion but to pretend that America were somehow the underdog is nothing short of retarded. And i have NEVER heard anyone claim that in my entire life.
          Explaining the conditions of defeat doesn’t actually explain away the defeat.
          Neither does vague hypothetical’s like “under different circumstances”

        4. Whatever you do don’t actually articulate a counter argument. No better to throw out a generic label.
          Know who else does that ??? LEFTISTS you fucking clown.

        5. Point to where I said America was “the underdog”.
          If you don’t think differences between of Rules of Engagement have an effect on war efforts then you are clueless regarding military tactics.

        6. The VC imported men from neighboring Laos, Cambodia, and China because we killed so many Vietnamese men. They simply outlasted us due to differences between rules of engagement and political support. Their military was never superior to ours.

        7. America has never lost a war. It also might be the first nation ever, though, that has decided not to win them either.

        8. The also had Chinese field officers, soviet pilots and air defense crews and supplied weapons and ammo from the East block. Nixon allowed US Forces to pursue communists Forces across borders and bomb N. Vietnam’s hard sites after his election — something LBJ completely forbade.
          I think the biggest assets the communists had were poor American leadership, and the ensuing internal power conflifcts in DC (eg. democrats cutting off resupplying S. Vietnam) and the western sympathesizers and propagandists.
          In the end, and after the confusion of consequences for poorly thought out policy, it is pointless to wage war if you are not in for the long haul.

        9. Some things never change…
          My grunt buddies received RPG fire near the Syrian border during OIF. The problem was, they were not allowed to pursue or fire back as the insurgents were firing from Syrian soil. Luckily, that time, none of his guys were lost.
          What Hibernius doesn’t understand is the difference between ROE limits what a military can do. His comment about the VC “being superior” is probably the most troll like comment I’ve ever read on this site.

        10. now tony a couple of things before this gets silly.
          1. i was paraphrasing but you most certainly did insinuate America was the underdog. “everything going for it” would strongly imply that they had the more favorable conditions of the two.You proceeded to name several positive factors for them and ZERO for America. Don’t be bullshitting tony.
          2. You NEVER said anything about “differences between rules of engagement” you said “under different circumstances”. Big leap to make for me to join the two.
          3. Even with different rules of engagement its a stupid argument. If my aunt had bollocks she’d be my uncle !!

        11. hahahahaha yeah yeah. All i heard is you got no fucking answers for me.
          You know i am right about them three points or else you’d have said something other than that lame bullshit.

        12. Whatever bitch.
          VC Death Toll [Low Estimate]: 533,000
          VC Death Toll [High Estimate]: 1,489,000
          U.S. GI Death Toll: 58,307
          Low balling, that’s 9.5 VC killed for every American GI killed. By what metric do you figure the VC was superior the US Army?

        13. It’s clear this kid is trolling.
          An Army with a 9.5 to 1 kill ratio. In spite of an offensive war with restricted ROE. In his mind, this is inferior.

        14. My father was with 25th ID (67-68′) and told me that they would hit them hard all the way to the border– and stop. Despite being serverly wounded, I once I asked him if he had any regrets and he said, “Yeah. I regret they didn’t let us win.” He hated McNamara and LBJ with a passion even after their deaths. So it goes.

        15. hahahaha yeha yeah what ever you like to think.
          I asked you a question and you answered with a question so who is distracting who ??
          If you grow a pair of testicles come back to me and my offer of an answer still stands.

        16. I sympathize with this – we won every close engagement in Vietnam and killed vastly more people than we had casualties, easily capturing any territory that we so chose.
          But war is not football. Success is not measured in points scored/enemies killed/territory conquered. It was never the North Vietnamese goal to kill more Americans than they suffered dead.
          War is a struggle where one side seeks to impose its will on the other, to make it do what they want. Our goal was to prevent South Vietnam from falling to the North. The North wanted us to go away so that they could conquer the South. We lost. They won.
          It matters not a whit that we killed many while not losing a single battle. War is holistic.

        17. “America lost to a superior army.” -Hibernicus Exule
          This kid provided zero explanation on how the VC was superior to the US Army. When pressed, he began to troll.
          I agree with everything you said, and so does history. We lost a war of attrition to an enemy who was far from superior to us.

        18. Galt- This Eurotrash has dodged every question with personal insult.
          The US Army he talks shit on is the only reason he isn’t speaking German right now. Soon enough, he’ll be bowing down to Mecca 5 times a day.

      2. The U.S. military wins all the battles. Let’s face it, technologically and training-wise it has no match. But it doesn’t win wars anymore because that requires far more than good soldiers and equipment. It requires a sense of national will and determination to commit and sacrifice for the greater goal of a well-defined victory. In my major East Coast metropolis, the Iraq war was surreal. Maybe an odd guy knew a guy who was in the service. Other than that though, it was like a reality TV show. Nobody changed their behavior in any way. Nobody bought victory bonds or rationed for the war effort. There was a tax cut for God’s sake!

        1. Politicians are to blame.
          In WWII, we had the moral support and the political green light to conduct total war-and the results show. There’s no other explanation that the same military that took down the Third Reich and the Japanese Empires could struggle with camel herders.
          I think with everyone knowing that GWOT is bogus, it deflates the sense of mission.

        2. Agreed. But it might help if the definition of ‘winning’ didn’t include rebuilding for them.
          Do you remember two lighting invasions in Iraq that we won hands down with negligible casualty sustainment?
          The first time, we went home after and everybody remembers an uncontested victory.
          The second time…

        3. Agree hands down.
          Soldiers first, humanitarians after – because that’s the American way.
          But not the other way around.
          “What makes the grass grow green?!”

        4. BLOOD!!!
          I think in future endeavors, it would be more efficient to send our spec ops as opposed to massive mobilizations in seeking out guerilla style fighters. The 3rd World is geared to fighting standing armies.

        5. Maybe if you are fighting Vietnam or Iraq it’s no match, but Russia, France, even Iran could match the US pretty closely in tech.

        6. Haha. Im glad you knew what I was asking.
          Again, I agree. You would think our brass would have the balls to point out to these washington types the only reason we won our own war for independence in the first place..

    2. A-f*cking-men.
      For those of you who don’t know:
      ROE (rules of engagement) specify the standard procedure for responding to enemy contact.
      In the interest of preserving public image at all costs, American soldiers in many hot zones are required to radio request permission to engage an enemy target WHILE ALREADY TAKING FIRE from said target.
      BS to the MAX

        1. Haha.
          Well its really much more an issue of triple checking target selection for blatant PR reasons than anything M.I.C. related…
          In WWII we wiped two entire cities full of civilians off of the map in order to elicit a surrender and win an end to the hellish bloodshed.
          Today we have to let five men bleed because we can’t be sure the guy with the rifle pointed at us is really, really trying to kill us, and if by some chance he weren’t, some fat regressive would call us islamophobes.

      1. While I think those rules can be ridiculous, there is a reason they exist. In most was the US has fought in the past 50 years, they haven’t been against countries per se, but within countries. If we didn’t have these ROE, there is a good chance that the local populace and government would get pissed off and expel the American soldiers, switch sides, etc.

        1. Which would not matter at all if we simply did not fight this style of “war” because its idiotic.

    3. Couldn’t stop communism from spreading to SE Asia? So what!
      Take a look at the state of our country now! We could stop socialism (same difference really) from spreading here!
      I’ll go a step further and ask what the heck was the point of the cold war against the Soviet Union all those years if we’re simply going to adopt their socialist policies in this country now?

      1. Agreed.
        I am one of several (many?) on here who believe the fall of the USSR was a ploy. A willing sacrifice if you will, so all the staunch anti-communism sentinels would relax their guard, thinking to themselves “we’ve done it, we’ve beaten this symbol of communism and so it’s defeated.” All while our universities, government, and media were being saturated and entire generations made sympathetic and supportive of socialism (as you say, the same thing really). Your last question is the question everyone should ask themselves, it’s all so wasteful and idiotic now. The only thing that communism brings about in equal measure is poverty and misery.

        1. Just look at the rise of the so-called “neocons.” They’re basically just redesigned Trotskyites. Their core belief is that society should be managed by the state (which is pretty much the exact opposite of what being a conservative is all about).

        2. True. For a while now, I’ve believed that neocons are really Democrats who jumped ship like Reagan because they didn’t like how far down the rabbit hole their compatriots were going, or were upset about not being in the top-tiers of the party power structure anymore, or whatever reason but they are definitely not conservative in any capacity and never were/intended to be. It’s pretty easy to see who is all about conforming, collectivism, and government growth and who isn’t. I think more people are seeing “behind the curtain” so to speak now and it’s got them rightfully riled.

  13. Exactly if there somehow was a draft and i was selected it would be hard for me to think it was even a little bit worth it, what we r fighting for rn isn’t something I’d ever risk my life for

    1. If there is a draft for a war, no matter who it’s against I am not fighting. This country as it is now is not worth fighting for. All I care about is protecting myself and my own.

  14. What really needs to happen not just in the USA but all of the westernized world is some terrible threat that actually kills off the majority of useless eaters, faggots, trannies, harridans, feminists, androgynous males etc.
    That’s really the only solution. None of these people will ever be worth a fuck. They just take up space and CONSUME the cultural poison like mindless fucking zombies.
    They aren’t our friends or our countrymen anymore. They are just bloated sacks of flesh awaiting the sword of a Conqueror to come and send them to hell.

    1. They’d be the first to go if anything hit the fan, i can see it now they are just going to go somewhere and ask for guns or food and someone’s going to be like fuck no and they are going to cry and whine that that’s not fair

        1. Maybe they’ll form a Hug Box with a defensive no trigger shield that will save them?

        2. It would be darkly entertaining to see sjw’s and the assorted freak show of mindless creatures flailing uselessly in a cruel world unmasked when the spigot of resources is forcibly removed from their slobbering lips.

        3. I would say that I’d probably find some dark humor in watching that transpire.

      1. I believe you’re referring to the “positive” crowd. They’re constantly badgering about how positive they are and you are SOO negative about not wanting to sink your money in latest model Dodge Charger. In women’s cases, they can think positive because it so happens most still have mommy and daddy paying for those wheels. I’ve seen this happen quite a bit. And when they have babies, mommy and daddy will have their backs, no matter the screwup. However, all it takes is a tragedy or a intrafamily spay, and all that comes down. Meanwhile, the negative me still has food on his belly, his own roof and wheels, and a bit of optimism of all things. Yep, let them serve in the Armed Forces. See how positive they are when ISIS makes them their sex slaves. And ladies, you can’t say no to their advances. That’s just negative thinking.

        1. the new Charger has almost 500 HP; how many people have the skill to drive that thing lol

        2. Probably not women. Then again we all know two reasons why women want that much hp. One, they want to be like the boys. Two, all that vibration must make their ginnies tingle. That, and getting their hands on a stick shift.

      2. I don’t think that they’d ask for “guns” — I think that they’d ask for “men with guns to protect them” (mainly because they don’t have the guts or will to use guns themselves).

        1. “They aren’t our friends or our countrymen anymore. They are just bloated sacks of flesh awaiting the sword of a Conqueror to come and send them to hell.”
          […]
          “Feel the rage flow through you. We will ignite a righteous fire and burn this motherfucker down.”
          Easy to destroy, hard to create. You sound like the type of crazy that “meek” producers who know how to use the sword, but don’t live by it, will be executing on sight.

      1. Until men unleash on feminism with all their might, nothing changes! Only in the west men are the weaker gender, when are men going to take their masculinity back? It’s all talk until there is ACTION.

    2. I wonder when Andrew Bacevich plans to die for his country…
      That said, government military is everywhere and at every time a force for evil, never good. Do not join the military. You will become a paid slave forced to kill innocents.
      Instead, become a true warrior. Learn to shoot a gun and learn to use it to defend yourself and your liberty. You will be better trained than the average soldier.
      The training that they receive in the military is part of the propaganda, to give them a false sense of security that they are invulnerable and strong. They are not. They are human, all too human
      Don’t be like the guy I saw on a poster the other day, missing three limbs and looking miserable.
      Stay home, build a family, raise heirs. Do not give into the propaganda.

        1. I wish I could. I would hire an instructor occasionally as well, to keep yourself on point. Also, I’m looking into some tactical training courses. Its all well and good shooting targets but testing ourselves under pressure is a good idea as well.

      1. While I wholeheartedly agree with your overall theme, there is no psychological reboot that occurs in boot camp. Drill Sergeants condition you to learn the direct association between failing to follow orders and pain, but it goes no further.
        Combat lifesaving courses prepare one to administer tourniquets, quick clot, nasopharyngeal airways and saline-lock IV connections.
        The entire time they impose upon you the likelihood that you might become a casualty and impart what wisdom they can in an effort to keep you alive.
        And nobody thinks they’re bulletproof by the time they get out of there.
        Propaganda? Yeah in terms of the endless onslaught of EO and Sexual Assault courses. But give a man more credit for choosing the path less traveled. I did my time and then took my rights and walked.
        Wouldn’t change a thing.

        1. But you walked. If you could no longer walk (like the guy I saw on the poster) do you think you would change anything then?
          What about the other propaganda? The “Join the Army” campaigns that make war seem exciting and cool. All these new skills you will learn (that will be useless in civilian life).
          Are you sure that there is no psych job done on recruits? How do you change a man’s nature to make him willingly kill another human being who has done him no wrong?

        2. I can’t say for sure about the loss of limbs.I know that I would further resent the putrid population base that I gave them for.
          But my grandfather survived the battle of the bulge in the Army corps of engineers. He didn’t talk about the monstrous works of human carnage he beheld, but he was a proud man. He raised 8 children as a civilian engineer after the war, and there are plenty more jobs that offer skills applicable to the quiet side of life if one chooses realistically. Ive aced every job interview I’ve ever had since joining, and got a great deal of my college paid off by Uncle Sam
          I wanted to be a soldier ever since I was a kid, and that came from reading about the revolution, medieval europe, and the great wars.
          As to the killing, which I was never called upon to do, its a very simple mentality. Family.
          If we weren’t there, conscription would occur. Politics blow, but a fight exists nonetheless. If someone starts shooting at some of my best friends, I’m damn well inclined to shoot back. War is an unfortunate facet of mankind’s hubris but at the end of the day I don’t lie to myself about a nation’s foremost responsibilities in the world. Like nature only the strongest survive, and a nation sheilds its weak against predators with men in boots.
          I harbor no ill will against the common Muslim man in the US. I think Russia should be our tightest ally. Im fully capable of independantly critical thought.
          Im sure you saw full metal jacket. Private Pyle only cracked because he was lacking in mental fortitude and abundant in body fat.
          If you can’t stand the heat …

        3. As per the tv ads, I concede fully that they are glamorozed ang exaggeratory as the actual experience is portrayed entirely accurately in this video.

      2. Hey retard, why don’t you Google Bacevich before you try to talk trash. He actually served his country…what about you???

        1. I serve no one because I am not a slave.
          Anyway, the fact that he “served” as the propaganda calls it is immaterial to my point.

        2. How can it possibly be immaterial when you said it yourself: “I wonder when Andrew Bacevich plans to die for his country…”

  15. I don’t know, war seems kinda pointless to me nowadays. Nevertheless a nice article. Point 6 actually seems like the most relevant to me. Why fight somebody else’s fight? But then, is war ever different?

    1. That’s a good point. History is written backstage in my opinion and war is about too much money so the actual overlords of the US won’t miss out an opportunity to get even richer and gain even more power by starting yet another unjust war even if it’s impossible to win

  16. There’s nothing left to be proud of about America. There was a day when thos place was full of hard working men and beautiful feminine women. Who wants to defend the millenial generation? They’re so self absorbed they wouldn’t appreciate it anyway.

  17. I was actually impressed about the amount of guys who volunteered after 9-11. I thought after 8 years of Clinton, the military would be hollowed shell of it’s former strength, but they came through. I don’t foresee that happening after 8 years of Obama unless they kick out the homos and split tails.

    1. So was I. And I should know. I was one of them. Mind you, I had my own reasons to enlist, but in fact, today is the 10th anniversary of me shipping out to basic training. And I’m proud of my service, and that I didn’t have to deal too much with the PC culture in the military.

      1. Glad to hear it. I would still recommend the military, specific branches, to young men as it does give them training and opportunities you will not get anywhere else.

        1. Funding is controlled by Congress, Policy is shared between the president and congress, and deployment doesn’t really have to do with strength, it has to do with using the strength.

        2. Policy like Libya, Egypt and Syria? Obama has been circumventing alot around Congress, so lets not pretend otherwise.

        3. Those aren’t policies, those were deployments. And anyways, how did any of those weaken the military?

    1. A subtle distinction, but one of imperative importance.
      Ethic as a noun suggests an idea rooted in the administration of right or wrong.
      Ethos denotes the fundamental values of a culture that, in this case, comprises a nation, and a nation, indeed, should strive to do right for the benefit of the world itself.
      But a nation, foremost, is a collective organization of functions aimed at protecting the interests of its citizens (if that nation is a democracy).
      Right and wrong are secondary to the prosperity and protection of this nation’s peoples.

  18. “There is an increasing sense that the wars in the Middle East were undertaken not for the benefit of the US as a nation, but for the benefit of domestic elites”
    What an understatement. Even Tony Bloody Blair admitted publicly they had known all along the “proofs” against Saddam had been fake. Is there here anyone who thinks the US can start a war without at least the approval of “the establishment”? If we agree on this it means it’s not the interests of the US but that of the establishment, the true leaders, that counts. It may intersect though. But the wars the US started in the last few decades brought only distruction and suffering to this world. That’s why I’m over the moon every time I read about your weakening military.

  19. “Warrior ethic” implies that there is something to fight and “patriot ethic” implies that there is a country worth fighting for. When the objectives of our current wars are murky and the nation is a shell of what it used to be, it’s no wonder that there is no “warrior-patriot” ethic left. Better yet, there is currently no “warrior-patriot” ethic. Give us a war with clear-cut and honorable objectives, fought for a nation of honorable people and not fought for the perverse interests of a select elite, and I’m damn sure that we’d have a strong “warrior-patriot” ethic. That’s not happening anytime soon though in this country.
    I believe the author of the critiqued article was criticizing the American public and not the US military. His criticism was that we the public are ignorant of what is actually happening in these wars. That we the public idly and ignorantly stand-by, while a few soldiers die and fight unwinnable wars, and while the elites keep making their riches without any complaint from us. If there should be a resurgence of the true “warrior-patriot ethic,” it should come in the form of “war” against unchecked government; protesting these wars and demanding accountability from our representatives. The elites and our government run free because we allow them to. I highly suggest reading Dark Ages America: The Final Phase of Empire by Morris Berman.

    1. This…. outside of getting an education there is absolutely no reason for a heterosexual white male to join the military in its present incarnation….. the proud history of the American military is being shat upon…..

  20. Well the down right truth of the matter as I see it, if you look to the beginning year of almost any war the professional armies in place all got their asses handed to them or surrender. It isn’t till an attack so grievous enough do the men who volunteer to actually truly fight till the job is done at all cost do you see the might of a countries resolve.

  21. Solider protection against harm is not his armor or rifle, but the citizens of country to reign in those in power. Its the most damning thing that Americans must face today is the misuse of the lives of out countrymen for enrichment of the chosen few. Loss of the warrior ethos is not those in uniform, but the public. We praise our soldiers for going into harm, but can the member of the public muster courage and conviction to do the same? Follow the pyramid of resistance and fight against those who misuse the power of out military. The public must be something worth fight for, again.

  22. “There is an increasing sense that the wars in the Middle East were undertaken not for the benefit of the US as a nation, but for the benefit of domestic elites, foreign powers, or entrenched cabals with their own agendas. To inspire a man to fight for something, he must feel that it matters to him, and that the issues affect him directly.”
    I’m not American or a soldier, but this seems unanswerably true. Does anyone out there actually believe that those wars in the middle east were patriotic? I’ve never met anyone in the UK who thought they were patriotic wars, or for that matter “just” or necessary wars (at least not beyond the realisation that the ‘weapons of mass destruction’ spiel was a lie and a pretext. So if the citizenry aren’t behind those wars, then all that’s left is the professional military class, who in the absence of the possibility of the kind of strong morale belief in one’s country may produce, can only really aspire to be paid mercenaries.

    1. Agreed.
      When it comes to the whole WMD thing, it’s completely FUBAR, there isn’t a straight answer to be found. Did Iraq have categorical WMDs, yes: http://www.thepoliticalinsider.com/bombshell-new-york-times-reports-wmds-found-iraq/
      Did they know they had such weapons there, yes and maybe no, who knows really, but these guys say not: https://theintercept.com/2015/04/10/twelve-years-later-u-s-media-still-cant-get-iraqi-wmd-story-right/
      Were they of the same category as Uranium and other administration-stated types, no. Is there a lot of propaganda being put out even today, yes. Likelihood we were pushed into this for “other” causes, an almost guaranteed certainty (if anything can be said to be certain this would be it).
      Two of the biggest things we do wrong though are:
      1. Trying to attribute an inherit “goodness” or “badness” to war. Is it just? (That’s a relative question, certainly the losers would say not). Is it necessary? (May be more relevant depending on your objectives). But all war is terrible, I think its a built-in deterrent from having one, though it isn’t as if participation is like joining a rodeo, more like walking into a bar and having to decide whether to fight or just take a potentially lethal beating.
      2. The idea (in the US at least) that we are hawkish war-mongers. We didn’t have much national enthusiasm for fighting in WW2 (until we were given an enemy to hate), we needed similar stirring for many of our earlier and later wars as well (such as massacres and other unprovoked attacks). And we didn’t start things in Vietnam, more to do with France and Communism (see the Indo-China War), long after the Allies ignored the Vietnamese claim to independence following WW2. The truth is, there has always been an aversion/reluctance to go to war in the US (by much of the civilian populace anyway).

      1. “Likely we were pushed into this for “other” causes, an almost guaranteed certainty.”
        There isn’t a shadow of doubt in my mind that WMD was anything other than a pretext. They had Iraq marked for invasion since the 90s.
        1. You’re right that all war is terrible. But one of the problems with this age, in which something akin to just war theory prevails is that all aggression has to occur through pretext or pretense. Pretexts for war have always existed but people pretty much knew they were pretexts: today what we have is the US and allies preaching about human rights and democracy while waging war for strategic interests, which aren’t even obviously the strategic interests of the American people (as opposed to corporate interests, the banks, and other lobby groups).
        2. I agree about the US not really being hawkish war-mongers historically speaking. At least the American people (and the better amongst your politicians) have always been reluctant to get in foreign wars fought in distant lands, however the point about the elite etc though is that it isn’t and never has been the american people who drive such wars.

        1. The US has been at war for more than 95% of it’s history. Maybe they seem “reluctant” to you, but then I don’t know what you would call pretty much any other country in the world.

        2. They seem to sit on their asses and not do anything about it. In my opinion American’s need to start occupying government buildings (particularly recruitment centres) and rioting when a war is starting.

        1. Unfortunately that is inaccurate, Iraq actually did have those stockpiles of chemical weapons leftover from before 1991 that qualify as WMDs. It’s why I included the linked sources, both acknowledge WMDs were found (as the NYTimes originally reported), even though their conclusions regarding the information differ. WMDs do not only refer to nuclear.

        2. Ahh, that story that neocons push around over and over again. If you actually read the report, they were all expired anyways, so no, they didn’t have WMD’s. But anyways, do you really trust the US government about that anyways? What evidence is their that the whole report wasn’t just fabricated? And honestly, even if he did have WMD’s, who cares? We have WMD’s, why can only a select few countries have them?

        3. That’s really my point, the whole thing is such a mess there is no real, verifiable trust to be had, especially from government. I could completely believe everything about it was fabricated. (I could also easily believe that Benghazi was a gun-running scheme designed to hand over weapons to terrorists so that we would have a continued “foe” to face and keep us riled, it isn’t out of the realm of possibility). Or not. Who knows? There is no guaranteed certainty here.
          That was why I agreed with the original poster, I only tried to reinforce the point that it really was disastrously FUBAR. Looking at which sites/sources report which way: Daily Caller, Breitbart, Fox, News Max (versus) Salon, MSNBC, Huffington Post, Media Matters show that all the usual suspects are right in the big thick of spinning it so that we’ll never know for sure. Who do we trust?
          Even expired nerve and mustard gas is no less viable it is still classified as a WMD, and according to the 2003 UN report on it, that in Iraq was of high quality and hadn’t lost any potency. http://www.un.org/Depts/unmovic/documents/6mar.pdf page 79, paragraph 1: “The sulfur mustard contained in artillery shells that had been stored for over 12 years, had been found by UNMOVIC to be still of high purity.” Doesn’t exonerate the Bush administration and I’m not arguing (nor would I) that it does, only that there were indeed WMDs found, to say otherwise would be inaccurate.

        4. Last response from me to you on this.
          Nothing said about who supported the war, this was all about who is (or has been) reporting which way on the WMDs being “found” or not. Breitbart specifically falls into the camp with Fox, etc. not MSNBC and Co.:
          http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2014/10/16/report-thousands-of-chemical-weapons-found-in-territory-controlled-by-islamic-state/
          http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/08/14/credible-information-isis-used-mustard-gas-in-attack-on-kurds/ the quote here is “It is also possible that it was obtained from one of the Iraqi stashes that the “no WMD were found in Iraq!” crowd pretends not to know about.” though it originated in the WSJ as later cited on Breitbart.

  23. Well this is good news for the rebels that will make the changes needed to change the west. I have spoken to guys about a civil war scenario and they fear the technology. The point being maybe some of those guys won’t fight to be kept in their cages. Imagine a civil war with men actually killing for all intents and purposes are their liberators. This pussifying the military is as much about making a force of political loyalist as it is some utopian diversity fantasy.
    The real war maybe an act of civil repression that opens eyes. keep your eye on Germany if there is a civil war the men that kick the foreign “guest” out over the government’s rule I don’t see those men handing things back over to the same people that treat them as second class citizens for a life of emasculation and misandry.

  24. Interesting to see other people’s reactions, but, the military has two large secular trends 1) Robotics (drone et al) and 2) Outsourcing (BlackWater et al), that could be relevant here. With robotics you may not need a blood and guts military run by hardened Grunts. Most of the dirty work would be automated. Now, even if the military does become mostly automated, I don’t think it will turn war into some spectator sport where the better bot wins. Like all technological evolution in war its both misunderstood and greatly underestimated. The trouble is, like in all the previous times, the general staff likely holds some rosy optimism that an automated war, just like a mechanized one, will finally be “noble”. The popular phrase prior to the outbreak of WWI, “home by Christmas”, echoes this elevated optimism and look how that turned-out. Nonetheless, we can, at least, see the pathology of such a mindset with robots replacing the grunt (and fighter plane, and bomber etc) and how that could influence less masculine military. The other item, outsourcing, could be relevant too. But, I have no idea how much we use private military corporations or to what extent. I never worked with any of them or saw them. But, could a professional Grunt that makes > $200,000.00/year could be more effective? Certainly, a professional contractor carries far less political risk. That said, I’m distrustful of such a conclusion, but, if we outsource more missions, particularly, the dangerous ones that need real men, then I can see how it would engender a pussified military.

    1. “With robotics you may not need a blood and guts military run by hardened Grunts.”
      Robotics has too many problems. For starters, our current robotics technology is very limited in battery length. A humanoid robot also wont last that long when a mob of locals get pissed off at and smashing it up with bricks, hog tying it, breaking the electronics, etc. So now that you can’t eliminate GI’s, the robotics are basically limited to Armoured fighting vehicles and Aeroplanes.
      But the problems don’t stop their. For any robot, you will need a connection to a remote location to control them. These connections can disconnected, blocked, broken, eaves dropped, and as Iran has proven to the US – Hacked and Hijacked. In addition, all these robots are going to have another problem. You could propose to use AI, but AI is no where near the required abilities to go into combat situations, and it will require a lot, and I mean a lot, of political capital to be able to deploy or even create a weaponized AI system.
      Finally you have a problem with supply – They will still need service and maintenance personnel and human run supply lines at least close to the front battle lines which still means lots of people going near battle. If a unit of human soldiers are cut off from a land route, they can survive off local supplies and such, but robots are basically going to be rendered useless without their human support.
      As for mercenaries, well they cost more money and aren’t nearly as effective. What if the enemy offers them more to just stop fighting, or even stab you in the back? And I would fear it would lead to a problem rampant in the Roman Republic and late empire – they, having the weapons and being independent, can and probably will try to take power for themselves.

  25. The American military is geared for wars of annihilation on a WWII scale. It is not fit for any other mission. We lose because of policy, not the men at arms. It takes political will to win and our policy makers don’t have it. End of story.

  26. God help us the day the current U.S. military faces a determined, well-armed, ruthless regular enemy force that can contest control of the airspace. It will be interesting to see CNN newspeople announcing the slaughter or surrender of 50,000 or so U.S. troops in a matter of days or hours. The hard core of Southerners and other American patriots in the military will not be able to counteract the effects of feminization and corrupt, cowardly generals. Nor will technology save us. Prepare to see our troops – the survivors – paraded down the streets of Moscow or Beijing. Sickening.

    1. Despite what the propaganda says, that military is Russia. And, likely China too, if not more so. I only have some reluctance on China because unlike Russia haven’t seen action for some time. If you watch regular Russian troops training its impressive. They kick the shit out of each other…they’re fucking hard. Worse, they have gear and lots of it and its good. In Iraq, the Iraqi Air Force wouldn’t dream of sending up a Mig. Their air defense, mostly first gen Soviet shit and some Rolands shot ballistic, meaning not guided because they knew our anti-radar missiles were hot on their asses once they turned it on to track. That was a disorganized and de-moralized hodgepodge of a military. Not so much with the Russians. At the onset, there would be no air superiority and that makes a huge fucking difference.

  27. Because Americans are sick of invading countries like Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Vietnam, etc. and getting their asses kicked, only to go home and kill themselves from PTSD.

    1. Half right.
      replace “getting their asses kicked” with “taking unnecessary casualties by hanging around forever after a successful invasion”

  28. You’ll get warrior patriots when you have a country and a cause worth fighting for. But who the fuck wants to fight for America v.2?

  29. It’s actually really really easy to explain, much simpler than the author of this article spins it to be: When you have unnecessary and unethical wars over and over again, and no country posses a threat to your country, Smart and moral people don’t join your Army. Why would I get a shitty job where I make 20k a year, am forced to move around, have a fairly high chance of dying (if I am in a conflict), and then get handed a truly shitty benefit – VA healthcare. Oh, and this is all to protect the Jews…

  30. I have posted that I am an active duty Marine before. This article is spot on. Our warrior ethos has been destroyed by 8 years of liberal infiltration. We had a battle hardened force that could have sustained fighting indefinitely and we shit canned it. We purged those who didn’t fit the neat little mold the appointees wanted to parade around, no tattoos on the forearms, no battlefield injury’s that could not be quickly rehabbed and you best support the newest SJW causes.

  31. The US is unable to win its wars because it lacks the political will to do so. The military is simply an extension of the political machine, accomplishing the desires of that machine when diplomatic means fail. If you think that the US military lacks the firepower or ability to simply annihilate most of the enemies we’ve faced in the last few decades, I would offer that you compare the destruction of Iraq’s conventional forces to the protracted shitshow that followed.
    The reason that our two latest conflicts turned into the mess that they did is because America can no longer stomach the collateral damage that results when you unleash real destruction. I’m neither here to defend nor condemn this approach, but simply to point out that it is an ineffective one. To paraphrase another commenter, our goal for the last decade has been to turn Iraq into Ohio. This is laughable. The military does not exist to reform our enemies, but to destroy them. As long as the men pulling the strings continue to use the military for a purpose that ill-suits it, we will continue to see poor results.
    And for those who believe that the US would be steamrolled in a conventional conflict with a real power, you have bought into too much of our rivals’ propaganda. Make no mistake; it would be horribly bloody, and there is no garauntee that the US would triumph. However, real conventional war has always been horribly bloody. People like to lose track of the body counts in their nostalgic recollections of the glory days. There’s a reason all the major powers fight most of their battles through proxies nowadays.

  32. Brilliant. Simply Brilliant.
    There is also the case of the Military and ROTC cadets wearing red High heels for “Sexual assault awareness” http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/04/23/rotc-cadets-wearing-heels-for-sexual-assault-awareness-spurs.html
    The white Male Privilege Army Training
    http://www.wnd.com/2015/04/armys-white-privilege-training-sparks-backlash/
    Obama’s Legacy on the Military
    http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/apr/24/president-obama-leaving-liberal-blueprint-on-armed/

  33. Bacevich is a vital voice, but Quintus nails him on this one. He knows what’s wrong with our martial culture, but is too deep in the sick DC culture to risk his paychecks to admit the truth. He’s as bad as the general staff lining up contractor gigs and a juicy pension with great dental care after retirement.

  34. All of the American infantry men are warrior patriots. They do what they do because they want to kill the enemy. Plenty that are not infantry also serve for love of country. Some though do it for college money. Can’t knock them for trying to get ahead. The point is we have warrior patriots. They are well trained and deadly. If winning wars meant killing the bad guys no one could say we lost these last two.

    1. I’m sure there are vids out there showing kickass US soldiers or anti terrorist squads in operation or training as well. Its just a snapshot of a segment of the military. The elite corps are well funded and well trained, but I have read articles on Russian military that all is not rosy there. Poor pay, poor amenities, poor food, bullying, old equipment, low moral.

      1. Watch youtube russian training. Tougher than anything in our military by a long shot

  35. There is no hope except for the west to witness its own demise and fight back among its very own death throes.

  36. America should learn from Poland, which has the best warrior-patriot culture I’ve ever seen.
    Then again, the Polish have something to defend. No immigrants, a nation proud of its culture and way of life, keeping to its traditions.

  37. Too much “winning the hearts and minds” and not enough killing the enemy. The way to victory is to kill enough of the enemy that they can’t or don’t want to fight back. It’s just that simple but, our political leaders nor the public have the stomach for that kind of thing. Our political leaders can’t even call the enemy the enemy anymore because it could offend someone.
    We should stop using our military forces as police and public relations personnel along with not getting involved with fights that shouldn’t concern us.
    By the way I didn’t think going to Iraq was a good idea but, they could have nuked Afghanistan as far as I’m concerned.

  38. It is more than these things. It is hatred of this country by the left, and disgust with her depravity and disunity by people like myself. Leftists would never put their lives on the line for the evil white patriarchy, and I wouldn’t put my life on the line for a degenerate, decaying, SJW America that hates me.

  39. Compared to who? This guy’s premise doesn’t match reality, in that the United States is the most militarized society on earth. Most officers around the world are used to force the men to fight. This problem has never existed comparatively in the United States. Most other nations don’t deify the military either.
    The reason we aren’t winning wars isn’t due to military tactics and/or ability, but due to the way in which they are used and the reasons for which they are used. Political will and necessity are the true reasons.
    Are our virtues, including warrior ethos, declining? Yes Does that mean we are comparatively not up to snuff compared to other nations? No

  40. “The US military is by common consent the world’s finest, even history’s finest”.. that’s only because it is also the world’s most mechanized, and most modernized, military. That’s not to denigrate the average US soldier, who I’m sure is SMH’ing along with this article.. rather, it’s to remind everyone that the average soldier in the Russian, Chinese or Iranian army is very fine as well.
    Therein lies the rub: If I didn’t know any better, I’d say the Generals are gunning for a 100% mechanized military at some point. Drones, UVACs, robots, and god-knows what else.. basically the removal of warm bodies from the field, replaced by bespectacled coffee-sipping geeks driving it all from computer consoles. I mean, there would be *far* less outcry by the average slob about the wars America is waging if there are no body bags coming home.

    1. So China vs the US would be ”my robots can beat your robots”. The robots would be programmed to target civilians or key persons if not stopped by the other side’s robots. So the other side builds bigger robots to stop your robots. Then you counter with even bigger ones than theirs. Soon your robots are bigger and more powerful than you and theirs are bigger than they. Can’t we just develop new tech without having to scramble about in a staged conflict where we get mad and bitch for logistical solutions on the table while in an underpaid frenzy. It just seems awful womanny to have to get mad first before you can do something exceptional. I myself am a very patient tinkerer and ponderer. I could never invent something new under duress or to appease the hyped up bitch clamor and noise. I would first make the bitch noise go away. Put a cap on the bitching first. I don’t work for bitchiness. Never feed the beast. Solutions arrived at under bitch screaming are inferior solutions and half ass stop gap venues that force the real mega projects to be shelved, projects that could bring our species to the next level.

  41. The warrior patriot ethic is stronger than ever but it is no longer in the clutches of the degenerates in so called ‘power’. We’re LOOSE. We’re out of the cage, unshackled. The warrior patriot ethic courses through the veins of every red blooded American in total polarization against the gelded corrupt cabals and against the ultimate mass of cancer that negates our culture. The warrior patriot ethic slipped through the fingers of the ‘establishment’ long ago but never died. We are the established natural order and have always been. True nature always wins. We are a storm brewing on the horizon and a storm not of destruction, ruin or chaos but a force of straight line winds, like a power washer, yes, that will blast the menace from the face of our homeland. Many many men and women alike have a clear vision now of decency, order and patriarchy and we are met with one after another degenerate criminal figure festooned in their teetering chairs and offices as they contemplate either shitting themselves and fleeing to save their ass or daring to play another hand. They know they’re making their last stand either way and we can smell it like the changing of the seasons. Our season comes as assuredly as the hands of the clock. We’re too big, too right and waaay too overdue. Who can’t sense this by now? You can taste it in the air.

  42. I’d say the prime candidates for joining the military is people under the age of 25, that would be my generation.
    That very generation has a deep hatred of American soldiers. They think of soldiers as bloodthirsty rednecks, psycho gun-toting virgins, and, at the very least, sheep with no mind of their own. (Yes, I have heard people describe soldiers that way.)
    I never see a reason in this article other then “6” being why men in my generation dislike the idea of military service. Many parents raise their children to disrespect the military which does not help, that is also further cause for the reason. Usually that reasoning goes back to the Vietnam and Korean wars, not just the Middle East.
    The only other reasons I can think of is many state they simply do not want to be cannon fodder, they do not want to die. Or many believe the military is part of the Illuminati. The Illuminati beliefs among my people are unreal.

    1. “That very generation has a deep hatred of American soldiers.”
      We’ve (my family) noticed. Feeling is mutual.

        1. Oh god. I almost don’t want to tell you to Google it hahaha.
          To me, being only a gen ahead of them but still appalled, that image is the defining symbol of the millenials.

        2. Ah geeze… I wish you didn’t have to see that…
          Please don’t google any further in that direction. It gets really bad, really fast.

  43. I’m wondering why return of kings haven’t written a word about the outrageous first episode of sixth season of Game of Thrones and its feminist agenda [Spoiler Warning].
    Only men have died in this episode and often in ludicrous ways (literally “All men must die”).
    Women rising to power by backstabbing their male enemies and rightful heirs… like “it’s fine to backstab patriarchy, you-go-grrl!”
    You can see in the same episode:
    – two men (Trystane and Areo) cowardly backstabbed by girls (Obara and Tyene): one from a spear on the back of his head and a big guy through a dagger in his back;
    – one man (Doran, on a wheelchair!) stabbed to his heart by a woman (Ellaria);
    – a feminine girl (Myrcella) poisoned by these same sucker-punch warrior girls;
    – a female knight (Brienne) with two beta (a squire and a eunuch) taking down about 6 knights, 4 of whom armed and mounted!
    – a girl (Daenerys) captured by a horde of savages and not treated as a prisoner… (smh)
    – another girl (Arya) who is doing some ninja training to kick armored knights’ ass, last villain she killed was abruptly portraited as a pedophile to make it look more evil…
    I can already foresee what will happen to couples in the show.

    1. “Women rising to power by backstabbing their male enemies and rightful heirs… like “it’s fine to backstab patriarchy, you-go-grrl!””
      That is Chinese history written in a nut shell. Well, most of human history in a nut shell. You do know that Empress Wu and Empress Dowager Cixi did alot of backstabbing in their rise to power. Even going as far to kill their own family members. Let’s not forget the female consorts of other nations who used their wiles to get their way. And let’s not forget about the eunuchs in Ancient China and other nations gaining their powers through cunning and manipulation and than misusing them.

  44. “Bacevich starts off on shaky ground when he makes the claim (dubious at best) that the US military is “by common consent the world’s finest, even history’s finest.” The arrogance of the this statement is profound, but this is in keeping with the American penchant for self-congratulatory hyperbole.”
    Quintus here is spot on in that its largely hyperbole. The US military is dominated with 2nd generation of warfare style thinking and depends largely on airpower. Short summary of US infantry tactics (admittedly this is overly simplified) = 1) bump against enemy 2) call in air strike/artillery. Our tactics are subpar and we have largely lost the ability to engage against a determined enemy in high-intensity conventional warfare; especially if they can contest/take away air superiority.
    Similar problems exist with our vaunted high tech weapons procurement (overly expensive, fragile, and designed to enrich the military-industrial complex with cost-effectiveness as a distant secondary concern) and the Navy (aircraft carriers are floating dinosaurs).

  45. I look at how the baby boomers/68-ers trashed the civilisation that the men of WWII fought for, and I think to myself that I don’t think I’ll volunteer for war if what I give my life for is just going to be thrown away in a generation or two.
    I would die for the Faith because I know that will never be thrown away by those who come after me.

  46. For the life of me I still cannot understand this move to put more women into the military. When I was a kid I learned to respect the small guys (I’m tall), they pack a ferocious will and can fight like a motherfucker, but, with females…NO. Later on in the military I saw it with my own eyes. The entire female Marine OCS PLC Juniors Class FAILED. There were only three females, all Dark Green (Black) and were priors, meaning they were enlisted (they were staff NCOs). I actually liked them…professional. FUCKING 3! That made it. It just makes no sense to me. Furthermore, as they try to push this cultural archetype onto girls its not taking. I see no light sabar fights between girls, no star wars paraphernalia on girls. I still see girls pushing plastic babies in little strollers and little boys playing with trucks, dirt and footballs. This tells me this whole fucking thing is not only a waste of time but a BIG fucking annoyance. Now, there are consequences and its not with the kids, rather the, um, “adult” females (who are easy to confuse with kids). This pissing me off. They, all of a sudden, think they can throw down. I think back to lesson with a short kid – don’t act cocky, know your limits, respect your opponent. female adults immersed in this fantasy of 98 lbs waifs beating on +200 lbs men are big fucking FOOLS. This overconfidence that they can take anyone is the kind of foolishness I saw beaten out of many of boy when he acted up and had his punk card pulled.

    1. In WOBC I witnessed the same thing. I want to say out of the 50 women in a 350 man class 20 left on crutches. They passed but some had to stay behind to take the final PFT. It is a waste of time and dollars.

  47. We’ve been seeing this since the rise of the baby boomer generation (the first generation to openly attack masculinity). The Vietnam War was a pure result of pandering to crybaby children and the radical leftists… again which was a result of the baby boomer generation. The Greatest Generation, as great as they were, ended up spoiling their children… and as a result set our country on the path to destruction.
    “I want my kids to have it easier than I had” was the mantra so many GGers lived and raised their kids by. Like many mantras of a generation and a culture… they went too far with it.

  48. To point #6: sure enough this should be aimed at the cuckservatives and ignorant Israel-firsters’. The same chicken sh*t cuck fags who thinks they are badass because they have a gun and worships post wall skank sluts who pretends to be a conservative (aka neo-con) and love guns because “that’s totally Murica kick ass and hawwtt y’all”. The same c*ck sucking idiots who say support our troops and are oblivious to the fact that, supporting our troops means fighting the internationalist criminal luciferian cabal that has taken over our govt (US, or U.S.), whether it be Bush, obama, Hillary, sanders, Reagan, carter etc…
    The same people who get riled up when we know the truth of 9-11, and they seem to be in a perpetual state of denial, or just igorance and stupidity.
    The same people who blindly follow some ass face like Cruz because he is a “conservative Christian”; but then these “Christians” conveniently don’t observe Shabbat, eat pork, etc…
    These people are the baggage we need to cut off and purge first, before we even think about going against the liberal c*nt muffin agenda.
    Sincerely,
    A gun toting, messianic Judeo-Christian (pardon my language), who believes Israel is not the physical land but the eternal kingdom of the spirit, and who actively opposed the internationalist cabal and supports our troops of the true United States of America. Long live the REPUBLIC.

  49. Ironically, the Left is gutting & denouncing the same military & police they want to use to disarm & enslave us.
    Tree of Liberty may get a watering, as they say.

  50. The reason the military isn’t winning wars is because of the crippling Rules of Engagement they have to follow. If the military had the same ROE’s as they did in WWII then the wars would be over in months.
    Also, the military never loses, the politicians lose wars.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *