President-elect Trump's appointments part II

[AWRTR]

Former officials urge closed-door Senate hearings on Tulsi Gabbard, Trump's pick for intel chief

The former officials, who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, said they were “alarmed” by the choice of Gabbard to oversee all 18 U.S. intelligence agencies.

apnews.com

Seriously, what the hell? What are these scumbags trying to hide from us now?

If it’s so bad then say it out loud into a camera and microphone.

 

[Tidewater]

If it’s so bad then say it out loud into a camera and microphone.

Pardon me, but didn't 51 former intelligence officials also say the Hunter laptop was consistent with Russian disinformation?

 

[Tidewater]

If it’s so bad then say it out loud into a camera and microphone.

If public revelations would reveal "sources and methods," don't bet on it.
For example, if a wiretap on Putin's office phone revealed that Gabbard was on the Kremlin take, then talking about that publicly would reveal that we had a wiretap on Putin's phone. So Congressmen won't be able to say either (a) that a wiretap revealed tha Gabbard is dirty or (b) specifically what the wiretap revealed.

Speaking hypothetically, of course.

 

[Tidewater]

There is another example of how dumb out debates are: women in combat.

There is an ambiguity in the term "combat" that swallows the debate.
When Hegseth's name first got floated for the SECDEF position, one woman said, "Hegseth says female veteran can't serve in combat. I maintained aircraft in a combat zone, so he's wrong."
I'm sure she did maintain aircraft in a combat zone and I honor her service, but turning wrenches somewhere in CENTCOM is not exactly the same as kicking in doors and shooting people in the face, or humping a 50 pound ruck up the mountains in the Hindu Kush. Those two jobs have different requirements.
Determine what the "no kidding" physical requirements are and open the field to those who can meet them, regardless of sex. For example, 155mm artillery rounds weigh 100 pounds each. They have to be loaded into the vehicle manually and a basic load is 36 rounds. If a soldier cannot lift 100 pounds over his/her head 36 times within a few minutes, then that person does not need to be in the artillery. Not that they are a bad soldier, just not cut out for the artillery.
The last event in the Expert Infantryman's Badge (EIB) is a 12 mile ruck with a 50-pound ruck, load-bearing equipment and weapons. Probably 65 pounds total. The time limit of 3 hours. A candidate that cannot do that probably does not belong in the infantry.
To be an aircraft mechanic is probably less demanding physically, so that standard would be lower. Or a clerk-typist in the Navy. Nothing wrong with those who do those jobs.
Instead, over and over, the Army set a quota (stated or strongly implied) for whatever under-represented group and then behind the scenes, ordered those responsible to make sure a certain number "achieved" the standard. Every time I see the Army Public Affairs Office celebrating some "glass ceiling" being broken, it makes me wonder whether the person met the standard or the just found flexible graders who were willing to pass them.

But "combat zone" is an ambiguous term. Both the wrench-turner in UAE and the infantrymen in Ramadi in "in combat zone," but they work in different environments.

 

[Bamaro]

There is another example of how dumb out debates are: women in combat.

There is an ambiguity in the term "combat" that swallows the debate.
When Hegseth's name first got floated for the SECDEF position, one woman said, "Hegseth says female veteran can't serve in combat. I maintained aircraft in a combat zone, so he's wrong."
I'm sure she did maintain aircraft in a combat zone and I honor her service, but turning wrenches somewhere in CENTCOM is not exactly the same as kicking in doors and shooting people in the face, or humping a 50 pound ruck up the mountains in the Hindu Kush. Those two jobs have different requirements.
Determine what the "no kidding" physical requirements are and open the field to those who can meet them, regardless of sex. For example, 155mm artillery rounds weigh 100 pounds each. They have to be loaded into the vehicle manually and a basic load is 36 rounds. If a soldier cannot lift 100 pounds over his/her head 36 times within a few minutes, then that person does not need to be in the artillery. Not that they are a bad soldier, just not cut out for the artillery.
The last event in the Expert Infantryman's Badge (EIB) is a 12 mile ruck with a 50-pound ruck, load-bearing equipment and weapons. Probably 65 pounds total. The time limit of 3 hours. A candidate that cannot do that probably does not belong in the infantry.
To be an aircraft mechanic is probably less demanding physically, so that standard would be lower. Or a clerk-typist in the Navy. Nothing wrong with those who do those jobs.
Instead, over and over, the Army set a quota (stated or strongly implied) for whatever under-represented group and then behind the scenes, ordered those responsible ot make sure a certain number "achieved" the standard. Every time I see the Army Public Affairs Office celebrating some "glass ceiling being broken, it makes me wonder whether the person met the standard or the just found flexible graders who were willing to pass them.

But "combat zone" is an ambiguous term. Both the wrench-turner in UAE and the infantrymen in Ramadi in "in combat zone," but they work in different environments.

IOW, if someone cant meet the standards, hopefully reasonable standards, for a position they should seek a different position. I agree with that 100%, without exceptions. However, I'm not sure that was what Hegseth was getting at.

 

[81usaf92]

There is another example of how dumb out debates are: women in combat.

There is an ambiguity in the term "combat" that swallows the debate.
When Hegseth's name first got floated for the SECDEF position, one woman said, "Hegseth says female veteran can't serve in combat. I maintained aircraft in a combat zone, so he's wrong."
I'm sure she did maintain aircraft in a combat zone and I honor her service, but turning wrenches somewhere in CENTCOM is not exactly the same as kicking in doors and shooting people in the face, or humping a 50 pound ruck up the mountains in the Hindu Kush. Those two jobs have different requirements.
Determine what the "no kidding" physical requirements are and open the field to those who can meet them, regardless of sex. For example, 155mm artillery rounds weigh 100 pounds each. They have to be loaded into the vehicle manually and a basic load is 36 rounds. If a soldier cannot lift 100 pounds over his/her head 36 times within a few minutes, then that person does not need to be in the artillery. Not that they are a bad soldier, just not cut out for the artillery.
The last event in the Expert Infantryman's Badge (EIB) is a 12 mile ruck with a 50-pound ruck, load-bearing equipment and weapons. Probably 65 pounds total. The time limit of 3 hours. A candidate that cannot do that probably does not belong in the infantry.
To be an aircraft mechanic is probably less demanding physically, so that standard would be lower. Or a clerk-typist in the Navy. Nothing wrong with those who do those jobs.
Instead, over and over, the Army set a quota (stated or strongly implied) for whatever under-represented group and then behind the scenes, ordered those responsible ot make sure a certain number "achieved" the standard. Every time I see the Army Public Affairs Office celebrating some "glass ceiling being broken, it makes me wonder whether the person met the standard or the just found flexible graders who were willing to pass them.

But "combat zone" is an ambiguous term. Both the wrench-turner in UAE and the infantrymen in Ramadi in "in combat zone," but they work in different environments.

I was in a cop squadron in the Air Force and that basically meant that the females who went there were either the low scorers on the ASVAB or the open generals on recruitment papers. More or less cop squadrons in the Air Force are look down upon in the Air Force and are treated as the “grunts” of the Air Force

But anyways, in my experience, females in cop squadrons are treated under one question by command and it is a horrible one. The question goes “Do they look good in uniform”. If the answer is yes then in all likelihood they are a back office position for some crusty master sergeant that constantly makes up an excuse to go see them. For the rest of them it’s more of a question if they have a crusty flight chief or supervisor because most of them are constantly given passes in work, duties, and tasks based around that.

For example, my second deployment to Afghanistan we had to go to Ft Dix for pre deployment, and we met the major that would be in charge of us. Well he took a liking to one of our females with us. When we got into Bagram we were assigned tower duty instead of Reaper (outside the wire) duty. This female made everyone mad in our sector because she constantly overslept, complained, and would pit guys against each other. So when a Reaper position came open guess who got it? Well to say the least the Reaper flight she was assigned to her got tired of her too, and they put her in back office because they couldn’t get rid of her. Yet she got a combat accommodation medal for her group seeing an IED but our sector didn’t for getting involved in a firefight.

I think the problem with US women in the military is more based on how culturally we view women, and not necessarily the fact they are in the military. I mean if you really want to see women in combat, the Soviets in WWII with the snipers and the night witches are the place to start. But then again that’s Russian and communist culture vs Western culture. It’s also a case of necessity vs it’s nice to have it. I think we are too focused on breaking barriers than creating better soldiers. I’m open for women in combat but let’s stop lowering standards to accomplish this.

Side note: I forgot the abbreviation for Air Force would hit by the profanity checker. So it looked like I was cussing like a sailor once I posted this because I rarely spell out Air Force.

 

[Bodhisattva]

Here's a related issue I've observed regarding the military: disability designations.

I don't have an issue at all with anyone doing any job ... as long as they can really do that job. I'm a civilian employee of the Army National Guard, and I've noticed that there are a lot of women who are now receiving disability payments as a result of their time in Iraq and Afghanistan. When this first came to my attention, my default was that they were injured by bullets or shrapnel or some other combat-related injury in the service of this nation. No. They all suffered their injuries from carrying too-heavy rucksacks, which resulted in back injuries.

Some of these injuries I'm sure are legitimate, but from hearing how receiving this designation is navigated, it leads me to believe many are just gaming the system.

Regardless, if a woman (or a man of slight stature) cannot shoulder the load, then they should be disqualified from that role in the military. Find something else that they can do successfully. Having such people in the field hurts combat readiness on the front end and burdens taxpayers on the back end.

 

[Tidewater]

IOW, if someone cant meet the standards, hopefully reasonable standards, for a position they should seek a different position. I agree with that 100%, without exceptions. However, I'm not sure that was what Hegseth was getting at.

If our politics weren't so stupid, someone would have asked him to explain his position. No one is interested in hearing a nominee's views. They just want a sound bite of them yelling at a nominee.

 

[crimsonaudio]

If our politics weren't so stupid, someone would have asked him to explain his position. No one is interested in hearing a nominee's views. They just want a sound bite of them yelling at a nominee.

In an interview I heard, he stated he doesn't believe women should serve in combat infantry situations unless they meet a universal standard (the same men meet). His example is ACFT scoring where a 17-21 year old female can score a maximum 100 points on the MDL by merely pulling 210#, which means if the average male combatant with pack/gear strapped on is injured, the female likely wouldn't have the strength to pull him to safety / treatment. By way of comparison, the male has to pull 340# to score the maximum 100 points.

"I'm OK with the idea that you maintain the standards where they are, for everybody, and if there's some hard-charging female that meets that standard, great," - Pete Hegseth

What Pete Hegseth has said about women serving in the military

Donald Trump has nominated Pete Hegseth for defense secretary and the veteran has said women shouldn't be in combat roles.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Tidewater]

In an interview I heard, he stated he doesn't believe women should serve in combat infantry situations unless they meet a universal standard (the same men meet). His example is ACFT scoring where a 17-21 year old female can score a maximum 100 points on the MDL by merely pulling 210#, which means if the average male combatant with pack/gear strapped on is injured, the female likely wouldn't have the strength to pull him to safety / treatment. By way of comparison, the male has to pull 340# to score the maximum 100 points.

"I'm OK with the idea that you maintain the standards where they are, for everybody, and if there's some hard-charging female that meets that standard, great," - Pete Hegseth

What Pete Hegseth has said about women serving in the military

Donald Trump has nominated Pete Hegseth for defense secretary and the veteran has said women shouldn't be in combat roles.

www.newsweek.com

My careers fields (Infantry and Special Forces) were by reg male-only.
Two gender-related anecdotes that color my views.
In the 1970s, a female JAG officer applied to go to the SF Qualification Course (the "Q-Course."). Her application was rejected. She was told she could not attend the Q-Course because she was female. "That's not in the reg," she responded.
Sure enough, it wasn't. In she went. Okay, then she started the physical stuff out at Camp Mackall. She failed standards. Repeatedly. Politicians got involved and put pressure on the leadership to get her through. The politicians did not care that she failed to meet the standards. They wanted her to pass. Senior officers/NCOs refused to give in and were relieved. They repeated this process until they found a senior officer who valued his career. She "passed." And promptly left the Army. Special Forces Vietnam vets attended the graduation and threw their green berets up onto the stage in protest as she graduated. The Army subsequently changed the reg.

Fast forward a couple of decades. Sergeant Matt White (no relation) attended the 82nd Airborne Division's Jumpmaster School. A female student from the Corps Support Command (COSCOM) was physically not strong enough to carry her parachute, reserve parachute, and rucksack to the plane for a jump (about ¼ of a mile). One of the instructors yelled at Matt, "Hey, you! Carry her rucksack to the plane."
Matt, to his credit, replied, "I will not. If she can't carry a parachute, reserve, and her ruck, she does not need to be a jumpmaster." Matt walked on. The instructor found someone else to do it.
When any member of a team does not carry his or her load, someone else has to carry more.

 

[AlexanderFan]

Pardon me, but didn't 51 former intelligence officials also say the Hunter laptop was consistent with Russian disinformation?

Those 51 won’t have clearance to work at McDonalds soon.

 

[Tidewater]

Those 51 won’t have clearance to work at McDonalds soon.

Here's my take on that: the Hunter laptop story was consistent with Russian desinfo. That does not mean it was Russian desinfo, just that it could have been Russian desinfo. This just means be careful with it.
When politicians and willing accomplices in the mainstream media started characterizing the letter from the 51 as confirming that it definitely was Russian desinfo, it was incumbent on the 51 to say, "Hang on, we did not say it definitely was Russian desinfo. We said it might be." Either the 51 were trying to influence the election or, by remaining silent while politicians and journalists mischaracterized what they said, they were guilty by omission, and were using their positions to inject themselves into the political process. Either of which is improper and I think, grounds for revocation of a security clearance.

 

[AlexanderFan]

Here's my take on that: the Hunter laptop story was consistent with Russian desinfo. That does not mean it was Russian desinfo, just that it could have been Russian desinfo. This just means be careful with it.
When politicians and willing accomplices in the mainstream media started characterizing the letter from the 51 as confirming that it definitely was Russian desinfo, it was incumbent on the 51 to say, "Hang on, we did not say it definitely was Russian desinfo. We said it might be." Either the 51 were trying to influence the election or, by remaining silent while politicians and journalists mischaracterized what they said, they were guilty by omission, and were using their positions to inject themselves into the political process. Either of which is improper and I think, grounds for revocation of a security clearance.

No way democrat supporters would try something like that, they are good , wholesome, defenders of the oppressed, and the last bastion of hope against the evil empire.

 

[Tidewater]

No way democrat supporters would try something like that, they are good , wholesome, defenders of the oppressed, and the last bastion of hope against the evil empire.

I know that if I was one of the 51, and folks mischaracterized what I had said, I'd call any news outlet that would listen and tell them, "They are mischaracterizing what I said."
Their silence means they were okay with how their letter was being characterized.

 

[JDCrimson]

Would he be okay with cisgender female dragging his butt out of a firefight?

In an interview I heard, he stated he doesn't believe women should serve in combat infantry situations unless they meet a universal standard (the same men meet). His example is ACFT scoring where a 17-21 year old female can score a maximum 100 points on the MDL by merely pulling 210#, which means if the average male combatant with pack/gear strapped on is injured, the female likely wouldn't have the strength to pull him to safety / treatment. By way of comparison, the male has to pull 340# to score the maximum 100 points.

"I'm OK with the idea that you maintain the standards where they are, for everybody, and if there's some hard-charging female that meets that standard, great," - Pete Hegseth

What Pete Hegseth has said about women serving in the military

Donald Trump has nominated Pete Hegseth for defense secretary and the veteran has said women shouldn't be in combat roles.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Tidewater]

Would he be okay with cisgender female dragging his butt out of a firefight?

Well, here is another item.
There are numerous disqualifications for getting into the military. Most are common sense: blindness, deafness, schizophrenia, herniated disc, severe scoliosis, etc.
We do not allow people to join the military just to get the the taxpayers to pick up the medical tab for fixing their medical problems.
When a man who believes he is a woman joins in order for the tax-payers to have to pay for his medical bills, that is not allowed (or was not allowed). The bill for ten years of gender dysphoria treatments (surgery and hormone treatments) is around $100,000. Is that worth it from the perspective of the taxpayer? I do not know. That is a policy debate.
If a soldier develops a medical condition while in the service and that medical condition is service-connected (caused by service in the military), there will be a medical board that will determine whether the condition is treatable and whether, once treated, the soldier will be able to serve again.
If not, he gets medically discharged and the medical review board will determine whether the medical disqualification is service-connected and recommend a percentage of disability for what the service did to him in causing this disqualification.

 

[crimsonaudio]

Senate advances Pete Hegseth as Trump's defense secretary, despite allegations

The Senate has advanced the nomination of Pete Hegseth as President Donald Trump’s defense secretary.

apnews.com

 

[Bamaro]

Senate advances Pete Hegseth as Trump's defense secretary, despite allegations

The Senate has advanced the nomination of Pete Hegseth as President Donald Trump’s defense secretary.

apnews.com

Arent there any senate Republicans left with any integrity?

 

[CrimsonJazz]

Senate advances Pete Hegseth as Trump's defense secretary, despite allegations

The Senate has advanced the nomination of Pete Hegseth as President Donald Trump’s defense secretary.

apnews.com

Unlike McConnell, I'm pretty sure Collins and Murkowski hate their jobs.

 

[arthurdawg]

Senate advances Pete Hegseth as Trump's defense secretary, despite allegations

The Senate has advanced the nomination of Pete Hegseth as President Donald Trump’s defense secretary.

apnews.com

Allegations aside... Politics aside... Our military has some major issues that need to be addressed. We can't make enough shells for example. We need major decisions to be made about what weapons platforms need to be developed and which ones need to be canned because they are simply political boondoggles handing out dollars for political reasons. And so on. Basically lots of hard work that requires good management skills and vision.

Does anyone think Hegseth in an way whatsoever brings even a small fraction of the necessary skills to the table to successfully run this department to ensure our national security in a dangerous world?