The "Danzig-ization" of the U.S. Military©


Gerald L. Atkinson

1 October 2000

On 20 April 1995 I published an essay entitled, "The McNamara-ization of the U.S. Navy." It dealt with the then-released book by Robert S. McNamara [1], a self-centered, self-serving, indictment of his personal integrity with respect to his role in directing the Vietnam War. I pointed out that he had, "...appeared, crying [2] and whining, on several national TV shows, promoting his book. To the deep dismay of those of us who volunteered and fought in that war, we now find that McNamara explain[ed] that "We were wrong, terribly wrong [in fighting that war]." In fact, McNamara testified publicly in a deposition he gave for the CBS-Westmoreland trial that [3], " 1965-66 he had concluded the Vietnam War was militarily unwinnable."

Even Mary McGrory, a liberal syndicated columnist, criticized [4] McNamara for his perfidy. "Thousands of young Americans were being sent to a war that he knew, despite contrary assurances to Congress and the country, could not be won. We could have sought a settlement, he writes, in 1963, 1964, or 1965. It went on, as we all know until 1973."

Most of us who fought in that war believe that it could have been won, had McNamara and President Johnson not tied our hands behind our backs [5]. The fact is that the U.S. never lost a battle in that war [6]. In the best book written about the Vietnam War, Lt.Gen. Harold G. Moore (USA, retired), tells us the most important lesson [7] learned in the early (November 1965) Ia Drang battle, "We learned something...about ourselves. We could stand against the finest light infantry troops in the world and hold our ground." He also observes, from a statement of Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap [8] made concerning the Viet Minh War with the French, but equally appropriate to our Vietnam War, "The enemy will pass slowly from the offensive to the defensive. The blitzkrieg will transform itself into a war of long duration. Thus, the enemy will be caught in a dilemma: He has to drag out the war in order to win it and does not possess, on the other hand, the psychological and political means to fight a long-drawn-out war." The fact is, our political leaders fought and lost a politically motivated war, fought on our side by 'gradualism' and politically-imposed constraints that guaranteed the final outcome. But that was not the purpose of my essay.

It was my purpose to establish the complete absence of integrity characterized by Robert S. McNamara in dealing with the Vietnam War, then and in his book. Once established, I pointed out a striking parallel between his conduct during the Vietnam War and the conduct of top-level Navy leadership in handling an issue of analogous importance, the U.S. Navy's current experiment with women-in-combat. We cannot afford to wait for 30 years before someone publishes his guilt-ridden, self-serving mea culpa about women-in-combat if, indeed, the experiment is not working out. If the Navy's top-level leadership is not telling the truth to the American people about the experiment, by then (30 years hence) the irreparable damage will have been done.

I then described in some detail how the first group of females trained as Navy fighter pilots had received preferential treatment and had benefited from reduced training and qualification standards. This resulted in LT Kara Hultgreen's fatal accident in October 1994. I revealed the fact-of the Navy's high-level coverup of the cause of that accident by widespread public lying about it. It was clear. A female could not be allowed to fail in the New Age Navy. Women-in-combat would be mandated and carried out in spite of its abject failure and concomitant lowering of standards in naval aviation.

That essay will not be repeated here. It is posted on my Web Site for easy downloading. You should read it for background and context for this essay.

The reason for this essay is to show that the McNamara-ization of the Navy has been taken to a higher level of absurdity. If ADM Jeremy Boorda, the former Chief of Naval Operations and SecNav John Dalton were the Navy's re-incarnation of McNamara in the mid-1990s, carrying out President Clinton's disastrous agenda of feminizing the U.S. military, the current Secretary of the Navy, Richard Danzig is even more preposterous. It is Danzig who is re-McNamara-izing the U.S. Navy.

And if President Johnson's Joint Chiefs were complicit in McNamara's betrayal of our nation's trust, then the current crop of flag-rank naval officers are equally complicit in failing to oppose Danzig's dangerous, destructive policy of inserting females into every combat position. This AGENDA is on the surface for all to see -- from pushing the Navy to open submarines to females to preferential treatment of females in every aspect of Navy life (recruitment, selection for preferred assignments, promotion, and retention) to a New Age 'ethics' program at the U.S. Naval Academy which downgrades Christianity in favor of flawed Enlightenment philosophers to removing urinals from the Navy's combat ships.

It is Richard Danzig who is continuing McNamara's perfidy with respect to our nation's military -- as the current SecNav and a candidate for a President-Gore's Secretary of Defense [9]. And if you think that McNamara was ill-qualified to be SecDef, you can't imagine how misfit Danzig is for either that post or SecNav. At least McNamara came from a world of 'numbers' and commerce, no matter how flawed. Danzig is in the mold of SecDef William S. Cohen, a poet-politician.

According to The Washington Post [10], "In both style and outlook, Danzig is an unusual figure at the Pentagon. He's an expert on the pacifist Mohandas Gandhi, the subject of his doctoral dissertation at Oxford University. And he has denounced the U.S. military's budgeting process as a 'communist system' and its officer corps as 'predominantly a white man's milieu."

If there could be a more misfit person to hold the civilian reins of the Navy, and the Defense Department in the future, it is Richard Danzig. It was bad enough to have a military antagonist, McNamara, in the Pentagon during the Vietnam War. But having a re-incarnation of McNamara -- this time as a Gandhi pacifist -- with absolutely no knowledge or respect for the military culture as SecNav or SecDef, is courting a major disaster.

Danzig came to power after teaching law at Stanford and Harvard and as a Pentagon official in the Carter administration. He returned in 1993 as undersecretary of the Navy. In a speech earlier this year to Navy admirals, "He elaborated on his notion that the Pentagon is the last genuine communist system, complete with five-year plans and a command economy, run not by market pressures but by directives from the top."

One has only to peruse the mainstream literature on the Frankfurt School to observe that this point of view is right out of the 'cultural Marxist' central theme -- deriding the authoritarian personality. The very core of the military's warrior ethos is under attack by the civilian who is in charge of the U.S. Navy. The traditional hierarchical military command structure, without which our nation would not have survived threats to our survival, is directly under attack by Richard Danzig and his cohorts.

Danzig prefers a more democratic military, one that [11], "...should operate like a jazz band, with a leader setting a theme and the band members improvising on their various instruments." For Goodness sakes. Can you imagine any fighting military unit with a bunch of individual prima donnas going into combat against a determined and resourceful enemy. The whole purpose of military combat training is to build a core of killers who are dedicated to carrying out their mission as a team and on the personal level, willing to risk his life for his squad members and trusting that they will not let him down in his struggle to live in the face of extreme danger. Danzig hasn't a clue about the warrior ethos.

Not only is Richard Danzig deficient in the basics of military psychology, he is attitudinally challenged as well. He is arrogant to a fault and purposely obnoxious. He, like his Commander-in-Chief, obviously loathes the military. He is a tried and true McNamara-ized whiz kid right out of the mold of McNamara's perfidy [12]. "From the outset, Danzig sent a message by refusing to sit through briefings, which the military tends to use to fill the time of its civilian overseers, swamp them with data and sometimes set their priorities. [VADM John] Natham for one, was taken aback when Danzig refused to look at his slides on the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet...Adds one Republican aide in the Senate, 'Personally, I think he's an obnoxious SOB. He tries to be gracious, but he just can't hide his condescension...' Even Danzig's friends say he has a tendency to approach the world like the Rhodes scholar and Harvard professor that he is, lecturing and probing, as if every problem could be solved by a healthy dose of Socratic inquiry ...He's one of the smartest people to ever work in the building -- and he knows it." Yes, just like Robert S. McNamara, of whom he is reincarnate. The Fool [13] as Secretary of Defense.

Danzig, if allowed to continue his stewardship, will do even more damage than McNamara. He is obsessed with the Clinton agenda of feminizing the U.S. military -- especially the U.S. Navy, the most tradition-bound of our military institutions. It was no coincidence that the Navy was the first to come under attack by the lifting of the combat exclusion for females in naval aviation and combat ships. Tailhook '91 was the radical feminists' tactical weapon for invoking this revolutionary policy. Once the Navy could be broken, it would be easy to break the other services.

Danzig tweaked the Navy brass in June 1999, when he pointedly remarked that [14], "...the Navy's submarine force was acting like 'a white male bastion...' it needed to think about, among other things, opening up to women."

Danzig, in promoting this view, orates President Clinton's multiculturalist view that, "In 2050 a majority of America will be what we now call 'minority'...Is the Navy ready for that?" This 'cultural Marxist' fiction in support of a destructive, corrupt policy is at the core of Richard Danzig's world view. If it is allowed to remain at the core of the U.S. Navy's policy, it will emasculate a once proud service. We will not be able to maintain the caliber of those proud Navy warriors who won the Battle of the Pacific in World War II. Thus corrupted, our Navy will be incapable of defending America's interests on the high seas and we will not be able to project power abroad.

Just as McNamara was not the only culprit in the prosecution of the Vietnam War, Danzig is not alone in carrying out his destructive policies. Just as the military Joint Chiefs were complicit in McNamara's blunders, the current flag-rank active-duty Navy leadership is remiss in carrying out their duty to apprise their civilian superiors of the likelihood of disaster of their flawed policy and RESIST up to and including the point of resigning.

In his definitive book, 'Dereliction of Duty,' H.R. McMaster concludes that [15] [16],, "...over the crucial period from late 1963 to mid-1965, President Lyndon Johnson and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara failed to seek military advice on how to achieve U.S. goals in Vietnam. Instead, Johnson manipulated the Joint Chiefs to get their assent to policy decisions he had already made -- and the Chiefs played along, often in return for concessions on parochial inter-service disputes having nothing to do with Vietnam...Everyone, the president, his closest civilian advisers, and the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had taken the path of least resistance."

That is exactly what the active-duty flag-rank Navy leadership is doing in the face of the multiculturalist assault on the U.S. Navy -- taking the path of least resistance. This lack of foresight is transparent at every level -- including the retired naval officer community. For example, Navy submarine officers who were silent when Tailhook '91 erupted and opened the door to women-in-combat in naval aviation and surface combat ships are now frothing at the mouth that they might be forced to open their submarines to female crew members. Their arguments of resistance against this onslaught are petty -- little more than arguing that fewer square inches of berthing space and confined quarters for submarine sailors compared to aircraft carrier sailors will prevail over the multiculturalists. Their 'under-the-surface' antipathy toward their naval aviator brethren, a staple of post-world war II Navy 'politics' and 'culture,' blinded them to the real 'enemy.' They did not think ahead to the AGENDA of their 'real' antagonists, the radical feminists, and realize that they would be next to feel the wrath of those who loath the military.

The submariners took the path of least resistance. They acted as if isolated and distant from the Navy of which they are a part. They did not speak out when it could have counted. They acted in their perceived own best interests. They took the narrow view. They took the path of least resistance. Just like the Joint Chiefs under McNamara. And now they are under the gun.

Then during September 2000, when it appeared that a Republican administration might have a chance at the next presidency, a 'stirring' report emerged. The active-duty Navy finally stood up -- or so it appeared. VADM Lee F. Gunn, the inspector general of the Navy, released a report that criticized the material condition and readiness of the Navy. It stated that [17], "Naval aviation is suffering from serious training and funding problems, and many aviators believe their service's leaders are afraid to admit or address the matter forthrightly."

At about the same time, VADM John Natham, Commander Naval Air Forces Pacific Fleet, wrote in a message [18] to his command on 30 August 2000, "This nation, its president and its citizens, demand global stability -- demand a world inclined to democratic ideals and countries that will protect the rights of their citizens...The value of the naval service is its willingness to do its duty to meet the nation's demands. We will be asked, no ordered, to train, deploy and engage. We engage diplomatically with our forward presence and, if necessary, in combat to sustain those demands."

"Is it not right then that our men and women have demands too? Isn't it right that the pilots and aircrew we send daily into harm's way have modern and capable aircraft? Isn't it right that our young men and women expect to work in efficient, clean, connected and even new hangars and work spaces? Isn't it right that my naval air force be sustained at levels which support our operations and tempo? Isn't it right that our sailors and their families are paid enough to live in dignity?"

"To me, the fact is that we have reached such a low level of funding it will soon be impossible to meet the expectations of this nation in executing our operational tasks and completing the mission. There is a fundamental disconnect between the value we provide and the willingness of the richest nation on earth to pay for its demands. It is obvious -- the naval service is under-valued. This is the challenge -- it must be resolved."

Such a bold statement of need appeared to bolster the flagging morale of young active-duty naval officers -- temporarily at least. CDR John C. Fristachi, an active-duty naval aviator assigned to a high-level headquarters staff, corresponded via e-mail with contemporaries regarding a young naval officer's criticism of the 'All-Volunteer Hollow Force' on the Internet. CDR Fristachi gave his upbeat view of flag-rank Navy leadership [19].

"At the extreme risk of sounding like a Stooge, Company Man, Lifer, Idiot etc., allow me to share my perspective from the vantage point of a congressional liaison officer. While I do not deny the demoralizing effect of the problems cited by this particular JO [Junior Officer], I must take issue with his assertion that Navy leadership doesn't have the balls to say when the emperor's naked. I'm in a position to sit in meetings between CNO/SECNAV and other senior Aviation Flags and Congressional leadership on the Appropriations Committees...The Flag Officers here in the Pentagon are telling the story daily -- we can no longer do more with less, we cannot do the same with what we've got. We need more money and fewer commitments. We need to resume procurement to modernize, and we need to do a better job funding training -- all the stuff you'd hope our leaders would tell the folks who provide the bucks."

"As our JOs leave in droves, dollars are spent for incentive pay, bonuses, etc. to try to stem the tide, further increasing the demand for defense dollars to simply maintain the status quo trend - aging forces and increasing maintenance backlogs.

Having joined the Navy not for monetary gain, but for a sense that I wanted to serve our nation (while getting my jollies flying kick-ass aircraft off of an insane platform - an aircraft carrier at sea) I ponder my upcoming 20-year point wondering whether I should get out and join the airlines, live the high paid, low work, drive-the-bus-safely-and-nobody-will-bother-you life. I think I'd miss the leadership responsibility and the ability to make a change in the organization that the Navy offers."

"As a department head in VF-213 [LT Kara Hultgreen's squadron at the time of her fatal accident] during some of their darkest times, I had conversations with some really hard charging JOs who were contemplating resignation because of the same issues in this JOs letter. I still believe the counsel I gave those JOs. If you think leadership isn't doing things right, stick around and make changes. Make them by setting the example of honesty and integrity we expect from our leaders. Maintain the standards you expect and have the guts to use the words you'd otherwise put in your resignation letter while you work inside the system for change."

"Guys who get out because things aren't what they ought to be are kidding themselves. They've just decided it's easier to quit than try to fight the fight that needs fighting. Lacking the perspective I've been fortunate enough to gain in my current billet, they use the excuse that their leadership sucks. It's easy to generate a We - They attitude about folks located in DC, but these guys flew the same aircraft and have the same core values as the JOs lucky enough to be in flying billets. They want to make things as good as they can."

"Blaming the problems on some vision of weak-kneed, yes-men Flag officers as you walk out the door is a cop out. Quit if you want to, but give it a name - laziness at its heart. And stop whining while you're on your way out -- the rest of us have more important stuff to do."

This earnest appeal to common sense is compelling -- if there were some likelihood that 'things would change' with the civilian leadership. And maybe it would with a Commander-in-Chief with a different perspective. But only with regard to the material condition and readiness that can be fixed by an infusion of steady and increased funding.

But observe. All of these 'rallying cries' are made for changes in funding (spare parts, modernized equipment, and quality-of-life living condition improvements), training, operations tempo, and mission (peacekeeping versus warfare). None, not one, addresses the fundamental problem undermining the morale of our young 'warriors' and diminishing the long-term combat effectiveness of our combat forces -- its feminization.

In this regard, CDR Fristachi's message was answered by recently retired LT Patrick J. Burns who was a central figure in letting the American people know the status of the Navy's reduced training and qualification standards for females in naval aviation. He released LT Hultgreen's training records, revealing sub-standard performance -- before her fatal accident attempting to land aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln. SecNav Danzig's predecessor, John Dalton, overrode the Navy's recommendation that LT Burns be promoted to LCDR and summarily cut his career short by a 'forced retirement' in grade. Here is what this Navy hero had to say to CDR Fristachi [20].

"You responded to a recent article written by a separating junior officer: 'The All Volunteer - Hollow Force.' In your response, you stated that while you 'do not deny the demoralizing effect of the problems cited by this particular JO, (you) take issue with his assertion that navy leadership doesn't have the balls to say when the emperor's naked.' I am giving you the opportunity to back up your words with action."

"In October, 1997, upon my return from a six month deployment aboard USS Constellation, after being selected for O-4 by the selection board, I was informed by the Navy that I may be "unqualified for promotion" to the rank of Lieutenant Commander. My disqualifying attribute was my willingness to speak candidly about a politically sensitive issue: the deleterious effect of sexual integration and sex based double standards on military readiness."

"A career Naval Officer with over twenty years of distinguished service, I became a target of the very institution that I had dedicated my life to. Then Navy Secretary John Dalton wanted to see my career destroyed because I exposed the consequences of official decisions he made that were politically motivated, seriously flawed and self serving. These decisions directly contributed to the death of Lt. Kara Hultgreen, and were the impetus for the subsequent cover up of the circumstances regarding her mishap."

"First, let me say that I knew Kara Hultgreen. I respected her as an individual and I held her in high regard as a Naval Officer. I considered her a peer and a friend. If anyone were to ever question her loyalty to the nation, dedication to the Navy, or her unbridled bravery I would be among the first to come to her defense. My career was destroyed however, because I had the nerve to question policies that publicly espouse full equality for women, but privately deny them any semblance of equal treatment, waste millions of dollars that could be spent on training and readiness and needlessly endanger people."

"During the course of her training I was closely involved in the instruction of Kara, and of a second female, Lt. Carey Lohrenz. As one of their instructors, I was acutely aware of the abilities and limitations of each of these aviators. Hultgreen and Lohrenz both experienced serious problems throughout their F-14 training and, as subsequent events demonstrated, were unsuitable for carrier aviation."

"During the weeks following her death on 25 October 1994 in an F-14 crash aboard USS Abraham Lincoln, a number of queries were made by officers in tactical aviation (individuals unknown to me), which questioned whether she had been the beneficiary of preferential treatment and double standards during F-14 training. Numerous senior officers were quick to condemn any form of dissension by their subordinates, and publicly vilified anyone who might raise legitimate questions about Lt. Hultgreen's training."

"Both of these women were allowed to graduate from F-14 training through a documented series of special concessions and considerations that allowed them to be forgiven chronically low scores, multiple failed training evaluations, and major procedural errors. All of these factors indicated an inability to safely operate the F-14 and all were circumstances that have historically caused male aviators to be dismissed from the program."

"I became certain that a catastrophic mishap involving one of these women was inevitable and I informed my commanding officer, CDR Tom Sobieck, of my concerns, face-to-face, on several occasions."

"My worst fears were realized less than three months after their graduation with the death of Lt. Hultgreen. My horror at the death of a fellow officer was only compounded by the realization that some senior Navy leaders were more concerned with denying culpability in this mishap than with identifying and correcting the mishap causes."

"Because navy leadership refused to address the problems that killed Kara Hultgreen, on 15 December 1994 I wrote and signed a letter that relayed my concerns to the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). In my letter, I provided specific dates and details pertaining to the special concessions and considerations, forgiveness of chronically low scores, failed training evaluations, procedural errors, and serious deviations from training standards that had enabled Hultgreen and Lohrenz to graduate from the F-14 syllabus."

"When this information got to the SASC, then Chief of Naval Information, ADM Kendall Pease, orchestrated a campaign of deception designed to mislead the media, the general public and members of Congress about sex-based double standards and their consequences in military training. In short, CHINFO lied to Congress and has been lying ever since."

"Numerous internal Navy investigations, conducted over the last five years, contain an abundance of information: facts, documentary evidence and sworn witness testimony that all confirm that I had sound and legal reasons for my actions:

(a) In violation of public law, a quota was established that dictated that Airwing Eleven would not deploy with a

personnel complement that was less than 10% female. In order to meet this quota, extraordinary concessions

were extended to the first women to enter tactical aviation in so that they would not fail in training.

(b) Senior Navy officials condoned this practice even while knowing that it was costly, dangerous, and demoralizing

to all who were aware of it.

(c) Senior Navy officials failed to heed my warnings that there were problems, failed to do anything substantive

to correct them, and tolerated unacceptable risks that resulted in the loss of Lt. Hultgreen.

(d) In the aftermath of the Hultgreen mishap, senior Navy officials attempted to hide their culpability in her death

By perpetuating a campaign of obfuscation: misleading the media, the general public and members of Congress

about the cause of the mishap and about the training and competence of female aviators.

(e) This atmosphere of deception and double standards created an environment of "generous" performance criterion

that allowed other failing pilots to continue flying, was the catalyst that resulted in another F-14 mishap in

Nashville, Tennessee, and resulted in the deaths of five more people, three of them civilians."

"In your letter, you say that junior officers who have lost faith in their leadership should 'stick around and make changes... by setting the example of honesty and integrity we expect from our leaders.' Well, in my attempts to address a problem that threatened lives, I was guided by the Core Values of the U.S. Navy: Honor, Courage and Commitment, our bedrock standards of conduct, which read in part:

· Honor: "Be honest and truthful in our dealings with each other, and with those outside the Navy; Deliver the bad news, even when it is unpopular; Fulfill or exceed our legal and ethical responsibilities."

· Courage: "Make decisions in the best interest of the Navy and the nation, without regard to personal consequences; Be loyal to our nation, ensuring the resources entrusted to us are used in an honest, careful, and efficient way. Courage is the value that gives us the moral and mental strength to do what is right, even in the face of personal or professional adversity. "

· Commitment: "Care for the safety, professional, personal and spiritual well-being of our people."

"You say that junior officers who are leaving the service have 'just decided it's easier to quit than to try to fight the fight that needs fighting.' I say, that's Bullshit! I know from personal experience that you can do everything right, everything legally, everything in accordance with our Core Values and, if you are a voice of dissent, you will still be vilified and censured by leaders whose only focus is careerism and self interest."

"You say that defense spending increases 'now have to cover a huge backlog of issues. As our JO's leave in droves, dollars are spent for incentive pay, bonuses etc. to try to stem the tide, further increasing the demand for defense dollars to simply maintain the status quo trend - aging forces and increasing maintenance backlogs.' Well, add to this list of 'issues', the integration of women into our combat units. At last count it cost $1.5 million to refurbish an aircraft carrier to accommodate approximately 600 women. This is just the carrier. The figure will be much higher if you include the other ships in the battle group."

"Even if you discount all of the problems associated with sexual integration: pregnancy, fraternization, sexual misconduct, disparities in upper body strength and double standards in training; even if you assume that every woman on every ship is as capable at her job as any man, after you have spent the millions of dollars, you have a force that is not one scintilla more capable than before you started this great social experiment."

"In fact, historical evidence indicates that your force will be less so. This status quo fails everyone. It fails front line commanders who are assigned women that become detriments rather than assets in combat. It is prejudicial to women because it assumes that they are incapable of competing without double standards. This status quo discriminates against women by putting them into extremely hazardous professions without ensuring that they have the necessary skills to survive. Worst of all, this status quo wastes money that could be spent on procurement, maintenance and training."

"Do you really believe that JO's who blame these problems on 'some vision of weak-kneed, yes men Flag officers' as they walk out the door, are copping out? Do you really believe that those who walk are engaged in 'laziness at its heart?' Do you really think that those who leave should 'stop whining on the way out?' Because if you really believe these things, then here is my challenge to you: You sit in on meetings between the CNO/SECNAV, other senior Aviation Flag officers and the Congressional leadership on the Appropriations Committees. The next time that you're in one of these meetings, stand up and point out that sexual integration wastes tens of millions of dollars each year that could be spent on readiness shortfalls. Suggest that Congress reconsider the entire issue of sexual integration. If your suggestion is not received positively, take off your shoulder boards, throw them on the table and walk out. Go home, write your letter of resignation and turn it in the same day. If you do anything less, you won't be a 'Stooge, Company Man, Lifer or Idiot.' No, if you do anything less, you'll be a coward. It's time to put up, or shut up."

LT Burns places the issue of high-level Navy leadership in a highly focused perspective. Radical feminism [21] is destroying the U.S. Navy. And the flag-rank Navy officers who should be heading off this disaster have again, as in the McNamara era, taken the path of least resistance. Like corporate CEOs, they look at the near-term 'quarterly bottom line.' They have primary interest only in what happens on their watch. When it is obvious to everyone, including many civilians, that the New Age multiculturalists in the Clinton administration are wearing out our military inventory with back-to-back 'peacekeeping' deployments and wearing down military morale by operations tempo, neglect of 'quality of life' considerations, and underfunded budgets, these ticket punching careerists are only now speaking out in opposition to the obvious.

They still refuse, however, to speak out against the major long-term disaster that looms in the future -- beyond the horizon of their watch. And make no mistake about it, some future flag-rank naval officer will be stuck with the blame for the destructive feminization of our combat arms, carried out by the present day pretenders. What is required now is LEADERSHIP, not careerism. The Navy can be saved from disaster only by courageous leaders like LT Patrick J. Burns who are unafraid to take risks to shed light on the truth.

Take a look at more of the evidence. Compare LT Burns' leadership with that of our senior Navy officers. The same VADM John Natham who finally spoke out strongly for improved material condition and readiness funding improvements, not only ducks the primary long-term problem of the feminization of our combat arms, but bows to SecNav Danzig in his primary AGENDA. VADM Natham [22] "...wants the Navy to remove urinals from aircraft carriers and replace them with 'gender neutral water closets'...'heads' -- Navy lingo for restrooms -- should be odor-free and offer one-size-fits-all commodes for male and female sailors aboard the Navy's 11 active carriers. The change 'results in greater flexibility in designating spaces to be used [by] women at sea,' says the September 11 memo from Navy Pacific air command to naval headquarters [in Washington, D.C.]...The Navy is studying whether to replace all porcelain urinals with the [space system] for reasons of cleanliness as well as sex equity...The goal is to make all sanitary spaces gender neutral to facilitate changes in crew composition."

One aviator who asked not to be quoted said [23], "They won't be happy until we all have to sit down to pee. This is the continuing feminization of the Navy." This AGENDA is further exemplified by SecNav Danzig's campaign to "...change shipboard culture since the Clinton administration opened virtually all combat ships to women in 1995. Two years ago, the Atlantic fleet surface ship commander banned nude sleeping, risque sunbathing and women wearing lingerie to bed. Aviators were ordered to clean up radio 'call signs' and ready-room language so as not to offend female aviators."

Of course, Danzig and his flag-rank Navy officers are deaf to the corrosive effect of these changes on the morale of our young Navy warriors. To Danzig, the AGENDA is everything. To the flag officers, career is everything.

Stephanie Gutmann in her seminal book [24] on the subject documents in depth the failure of the social engineering experiment being conducted with women-in-combat. She found that the 'feminization' of the U.S. military is a disaster in the making. She claims that, "...the brass handed over their soldiers to social planners in love with an of a politically correct utopia, one in which men and women toil side by side, equally good at the same tasks, interchangeable, and, of course utterly undistracted by sexual interest ...In the nineties ['womens issues'] took precedence...the military brass's interest in numbers [quotas for women] became an obsession, a kind of madness."

Ms. Gutmann tells us how this 'feminization' of our military came about. "With more women coming in and moving up, the last all-male bastion had to make a decision. Assuming they [the military brass] were now committed to creating a force that looked like America, would they ask women to change themselves to fit into military culture and infrastructure, or would the institution change itself to ensure that women came and stayed? The significant fact about the nineties is that after decades of operating on the first premise, the institution became convinced it had to adopt the latter...the old attitude was something like 'Let's just treat 'em the same; you gotta join us, these are the requirements: You gotta run, you gotta jump, you gotta fight; you shoot, move, and communicate'...In the nineties...that has shifted to 'What can we do so we can join you?'"

Ms. Gutmann was able to break through the curtain of fear that runs deep in our military culture of the nineties. She tells us that "Right now, as I write this in 1999, the military is in crisis. 'The Army is broke like it's never been broke before,' says a highly placed Army officer; he is the part of a chorus one hears service-wide down the ranks. Morale among service people is at rock bottom."

A former F-14 pilot, John Gadzinski, now flying for a commercial airline, says, "...there is a 'no-kidding, core reason' for [experienced aviators leaving the Navy], and it is one the brass haven't wanted to hear. 'It's about the command climate, stupid.'"

"It is the reason that dare not speak its name. One learns that there is one iron rule governing military reporting these days: People on active duty do not tell reporters the truth if the truth is something they know their COs [Commanding Officers] will not want them to say. Many, many service people have ruined or lost their careers testing this rule. 'We live,' one soldier commented, 'in a politically correct fishbowl.'"

"'It's becoming like Mao's cultural revolution,' says ex-Army officer John Hillen. 'Everybody knows it's a system built on a thousand little lies, but everybody's waiting for someone that's high-ranking who's not a complete moral coward to come out and say so.'"

So, there you have it. In plain English. Without hiding the truth behind semantic fog. The major problem with morale in the U.S. military, why the young male 'warriors' are leaving, is plain and simple --it is its radical 'feminization' during the 1990s.

Gutmann asks the primary question. Why is the military of the nineties having a serious problem with morale? The answer is, "...that there is a powerful de-motivator out there that the service chiefs either don't fully see or simply, stubbornly refuse to acknowledge. It sits there like the proverbial nine-hundred-pound gorilla in the services' living room. It's a reason that tends NOT to show up on official data-gathering radar screens (government surveys, for instance) ... because it is intangible, abstract, qualitative and (and this is a big 'and') very politically incorrect in the very politically correct world of today's military."

"Understand only one thing about the current military social climate and you will understand a lot: The social climate of the armed forces has become '…like Mao's cultural revolution, a culture built on a thousand little lies.' In an atmosphere of official avoidance, doublespeak, and euphemism, one reads management's pronouncements not for what they say but for WHAT IS CONSPICUOUSLY AVOIDED..."

"This means that when one is searching for the truth about the motivations and core feelings of today's servicemen and women, one has to look around the margins, between the lines, and several levels below the Potemkin village displays of happy, efficient workers that the brass set up for visiting reporters and government officials. One finds... opinions in unsigned letters on the letters page of the Navy Times, in op-eds written under pseudonyms in Navy periodicals, on Internet bulletin interviews with active duty folks when they have begun to trust you and when they feel confident you won't use their names."

Ms. Gutmann then takes apart a Navy Times survey which used 'forced answer' questionnaires to make the observation that when a category 'other' was further investigated, the results (unpublished but available if one looked deeper) were quite different than advertised. In fact, the 'other' category had been selected by 50 percent of enlisted respondents and 54 percent of officers -- a higher rate than any of the other 'forced choice' categories. "Given a chance to speak their minds, people wrote about 'change in the culture,' which to varying degrees alarmed them, infuriated them, alienated them. In fact, 'Loss of confidence in leadership' and 'Job isn't fun' combined with 'change in the culture' to make up a block that simply dwarfed the economic reasons [for leaving the Navy]."

"And, for all the talk about 'booming civilian economies', only 25 percent of officers, the people more likely to have the kind of technical and managerial skills that could be traded in for big bucks in the civilian sector, reported 'better opportunities as a civilian' as their reason to resign. 'Loss of confidence in leadership' and 'other' both received nearly double what 'Better opportunities as a civilian' received."

Ms. Gutmann also found that "...the sheer monotony of managing gender integration...and making sure that your personnel do not engage in sexual misconduct just don't provide the same thrill -- no, more important, the same pride and sense of accomplishment -- as meaningful operations at sea."

One super-fine naval aviator [25], age 37 and only six years away from locking in a military pension, honestly revealed the truth for Ms. Gutmann. He "...insisted his [decision to leave the Navy] was 'not a money issue.' I joined the Navy with the intent to fly. Money wasn't a factor. I felt I made plenty of money for what I did, and I didn't stay in for so long because of the money but because I was enjoying what I did, but unfortunately I've seen the way that it's going and I'm like 'I don't want to do this!' My reasons for leaving just show the state of the Navy and why people are getting out.' The nut of what drove him out, he said, was 'the overall pressure of senior leadership saying we should be politically correct. It's no fun anymore; we can't be men.'"

So, there you have it. They are getting out, leaving in droves because they 'can't be men.' The 'feminization' of the U.S. military is, indeed, destroying it. The Danzig-ization of the U.S. Navy is nearly complete. Just like his predecessor in the Defense Department, Robert S. McNamara, his incompetence, his arrogance, and his AGENDA are at work setting the stage for another disaster on the horizon.

Ms. Gutmann presciently quotes Amelia Earhart, circa 1930, "Men would rather vacate the arena [of combat] altogether than share it with women." Gutmann writes, "Amelia was right. The nineties have been all about soldiers 'vacating' the arena. Two years of 'quality of life' improvements, bonuses, and revamped advertising campaigns have not boosted recruitment or ended the 'exodus' of attrition."

"With Congress now pushing to see a 'return' on their 'investment' of bonus money, the brass are desperate enough to try new methods. Exit interviews are slated to become more in-depth; outside contractors have been hired to use focus-group data (not a common tool in military research) because the focus group is the only method that stands a chance of drawing out the answers that the rigid yes/no, pick-one-from-column-A questionnaires miss. ONE PRAYS THAT THE FOCUS-GROUP LEADERS ARE ABLE TO HEAR THE THINGS PEOPLE SAY BETWEEN THE LINES AND TO PURSUE THOSE LEADS TO THEIR SOURCE, and then that the Pentagon will listen to the politically incorrect answers that will emerge."

Ms. Gutmann then tells us that the answer is already known. "Actually, if the Pentagon really wanted to know why everybody has been heading for the exits (and I theorize that they do but won't say what they know until 'a study' says it for them), THE ANSWER IS EVREYWHERE."

"In a recent Internet newsletter, for instance, one that the official-types surely read, U.S. Army captain Jeff Church supplied the answer: 'It's not just about money. The U.S. military has never made anybody but flag officers wealthy. People used to stay in because they felt like they were WARRIORS, making a difference, with commanders they RESPECTED, in units they were PROUD of. THESE FEELINGS DON'T EXIST TODAY.'"

Ms. Gutmann concludes, "All this could be borne, the servicemen say, if the U.S. military was still the institution they once joined. But the services made one, single SUICIDAL MISTAKE at the beginning of the last decade: They threw away the mystique, the one thing that gave them an edge over the civilian economy with which they now find themselves in competition. As ex-naval officer Patrick Vincent put it, the brass 'REFUSED TO DEFEND THEIR OWN CULTURE;' they even began to systematically criminalize the warrior spirit as its manifestations (seen through the template of political correctness) were deemed anachronistic, abusive, insensitive, elitist."

And the effect on the young men who would join this culture and stay was that the military became "...just another civil service job...With the loss of the military, there is no frontier to which a man can escape."

Ms. Gutmann has cut to the heart of the problem. She has found the answer as well. We must 'de-feminize' the armed forces of the nineties -- a flawed dream of those New Age Boomer civilians who are slowly but surely replacing our constitutional republic, handed down to us by our Founding Fathers, with a socialist utopia of their own 'enlightened imagination.'

In the face of this evidence, what is Richard Danzig's answer? According to the Washington Times [26], "The Navy has a goal of assigning roughly 500 women to 5,000-sailor aircraft carriers...some ships have attained that number while others have about 300 females. Of 53,659 Navy women, 11,153 are assigned to ships. Of those, 4,358 are carrier sailors and another 1,281 serve on carrier air wings."

Danzig's near-term goal of "...replacing urinals with commodes is daunting. The 316 fleet sports more than 3,000 heads. Each [Space System Commode] costs $187,000." That comes to more than 560 million dollars. And, as LT Burns has reminded us, "without one scintilla of improved combat readiness. This 'frivolous' expenditure to feminize our Navy inventory of ships is just one of the absurd Danzig-ization measures that are driving the young warriors out of the Navy. McNamara was a piker of destructive nonsense compared to his New Age Boomer reincarnation -- Richard Danzig.

Many Americans are beginning to catch on. They are sensing the common sense absurdity of the feminization of the U.S. military. Fred Reed, a former Navy Times columnist, tells us [27], "If you are the parent of a young man who is thinking about joining the armed forces, permit me to offer advice. Tell him not to. Be emphatic about it." He then tells us why. "You don't understand how bad it is...The military has decayed since the Gulf war, decayed badly. The public doesn't know it. If a substantial war comes, soldiers will, again, die for no reason. Your son could be one of them."

Reed excoriates those military 'leaders' with a 'not on my watch' mentality. "[Your son] needs to know this. He also needs to understand that neither the political nor the military leadership much cares whether he lives or dies. Their careers come first."

Reed then hits the nail right on the head regarding the Danzig-ization of the U.S. Navy, under the direction of President Clinton's debauched notion of military leadership. "Today politicization of the military is worse by far than it has ever been. The emphasis is overwhelmingly on social engineering: sensitivity training, toleration of homosexuals, feminization, promotion of minorities. Affirmative action runs rampant. Standards have been lowered drastically for women, many of them using the military as an improved form of welfare. Discipline has suffered. Commanders cannot discipline the protected groups, which makes it hard to discipline anyone."

This is as clear and concise a description of the Danzig-ization of the U.S. military as can be stated. The roots of this destructive influence are clear. "For eight years we have had an administration that is actually hostile to the military. This is new. Before, presidents have alternated between neglect and build-up, but haven't had the visceral loathing for the armed serviced that Bill Clinton [and, I might add, Richard Danzig] has professed. To me, the damage looks deliberate. Nothing like the current wholesale gutting of the services by angry feminists has happened before. We have never had a government that would have allowed it."

Reed doesn't let the flag-rank military leadership off the hook. "The generals know all of this. They're self-serving, but they aren't fools. They are knowingly, willingly, allowing the institutions they oversee to deteriorate, while relentlessly lying to stay in their jobs...The brass know their troops regard them with contempt. They know why soldiers bail out. They don't care. Commanders like this -- I don't think they can be called men -- will preside over a slaughter if war comes."

Reed deliberately and precisely puts his finger on the heart of the problem. "The military is a good place for a woman who wants to have her baby and isn't sure which division is the father. But for a young man who wants to be part of something he can be proud of, a hard-charger who sets high standards for himself, it's a bad idea. He'll hate it. It will hate him. Should we ever need the military, it just might kill him. Don't let him do it."

Reed knows the long-term consequence of all of this -- a degraded military that, when the time comes, can't fight and won't fight. "Unsurprisingly morale is way down...The services are hemorrhaging young officers in the O-3 range (Army captain). Key enlisted men bail out. Second-raters move up the ranks. No, not all of them are, but too many. In war, there will be a price for this. Your boy, or someone else's. Getting the body bag isn't fun."

There could not be a better description of the New Age military under the tutelage of President Clinton and his acolytes, such as Richard Danzig. The damage they are wreaking is every bit as great as that which President Johnson and Robert S. McNamara did on the U.S. military during the mid-to-late 1960s. Only this damage goes even deeper into the military core. The feminization of the military may wound it beyond recovery. Why? Because it is destroying every vestige of male identity with a 'warrior spirit' in both the enlisted ranks as well as the officer corps.

When there is no one left to train our young men in the art of warfare, we will lose the ability to defend ourselves against a resourceful enemy. We cannot just 'snap our fingers' and find drill sergeants who know the ways of war and can instill a tough fighting spirit into young recruits. We cannot just 'snap our fingers' and find core combat officer leadership when they are needed while diluting their preparation at our premiere service academies. We are losing decades of military experience, down the drain, by the Danzig-ization of our nation's military.

The lack of recognition of the damage being done by the feminization of the U.S. military has been summarized by RADM C.A. Hill, Jr., USN (Ret.). He is one of a venerable group of Cold War flag-rank naval officers who proudly call themselves 'Moorer's Boys,' in honor of ADM Thomas H. Moorer, USN (Ret.), a former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. RADM Hill informs us that [28], "[LT Patrick J. Burns] tried but failed to convince his chain of command that corrective action should be taken within the system, rather than be covered up. LT paying the price for his actions. Perhaps it is because he recognizes that where we can recover from a 'hollow' military when weapon systems are concerned, it is much more difficult to recover from an officer corps that does not place truth above all. Truth is the lifesaver in this business while failure to tell it is the killer."

As expected, Reed's article generated feminist response from readers of the Washington Times. Daphne D. Sahlin, a retired Army lieutenant colonel chastises [29] Reed for "...[blatantly slandering] the honor and dignity of the more than 1.3 million American women who have served honorably in the armed forces of the United States." LtCol Diane K. Waters retorts [30] that, "No wonder the only place most people see The Washington Times in this area is at the bottom of a bird cage. Shame on The Times for printing such garbage."

Such shocked indignation is expected of women who have become pawns in a very dangerous game -- the frontal attack on America by the small but powerful radical feminist elite, those who hate men and would do anything in their power to destroy the peaceful relationships among men and women in a civil society. And these radical feminists have captured the soul of the effete power elites of a generation of men who will do their bidding, carry out their AGENDA -- the Richard Danzig's of America.

Several veterans of our foreign wars responded in The Times to the whining of these two females. Like Reed, they hit the nail on the head. Woodrow F. Dick, Jr. writes [31], "Miss Sahlin, like most women raised on decades of feminist propaganda, has it exactly backward...If Mr. Reed were a coward, he would do what our blow-dried male politicians have done: silently cave in to every female demand. Feminists, along with these blow-dried eunuchs, at least one of whom is a draft dodger, conveniently ignore that women stayed home and burned their bras during the Vietnam War while men like myself and Mr. Reed were drafted. It is farcical for that generation of women to call any man a coward...I can pick up any newspaper in the country and find any number of female writers calling men names while proclaiming the wonderful achievements of women against the overwhelming opposition of male sexists. In her heart, every woman knows that is a lie. The truth is just the opposite. Everywhere women go, we men give them a pass. Just as we used to do in grade school, we smile and let the girls get in line ahead of us...Only occasionally, as with Mr. Reed, can we find men with the courage to call this nonsense by its right name...If you want a unique and worthwhile contribution from women on the topic of the military, find a woman who knows what it means to be drafted in wartime, not just another affirmative action beneficiary who regards a peacetime military career as just another place to cut in line, just another female right with no responsibilities."

Edward J. Toner, Jr. writes [32], "I support Fred Reed on everything he writes. [Women] don't belong [in the military] period. The women who [serve are] there in fulfillment of a liberal social experiment. Our defense is not the place to play games with this sort of nonsense. After the 1991 Tailhook affair, an admiral noted that when his operational readiness inspection team went to a West Coast helicopter squadron, it found that of the squadron's 14 female aviators, 11 were pregnant but only one of them was married...There used to be an expression, 'Don't send a boy to do a man's job.' Good. Now they send a girl. Madness."

Another combat veteran, James P. Fazekas, writes [33], "I have served with many women, and there's only one with whom I would go into combat (well, two). She, like my daughter, got out after her second child was born. Why, one asks? To raise her family. It seems to me that's how the feminine instincts function -- and I'm glad...Bottom line: women do an excellent job in their traditional jobs in the military, as in combat support/combat service support. This frees men for the more rigorous combat duties. Why is that so difficult to understand? The feminist state of mind will disappear only if (God forbid) there is another shoot-em-up and the unloading docks are full of body bags containing little Susies and Marys. Then it will be too late to ask 'Why?'"

Common sense stuff. No bull. Combat veterans speak from experience. Women do not belong in the nation's combat arms. They universally reject the Danzig-ization of our nation's military.

If the American people do not have the truth in this matter, the lessons we have learned with respect to McNamara's perfidy and cowardice in prosecuting the Vietnam War will be revisited on us in the future. Wake up America! Leadership at the highest levels of the U.S. military is being "Re-McNamara-ized." In the person of McNamara's New Age re-incarnation -- Richard Danzig. Unless corrected, and soon, this situation will have grave consequences for our national security. If this tyranny spreads and becomes deeper, we will be left with 'really' hollow fighting forces -- hollow at the core. Hollow in spirit. Hollow in soul. Such forces, wracked with doubt and lacking trust and confidence in themselves and in their high-level leadership, will not make the personal sacrifices, take the necessary risks, or face death in the cause of our national defense. Armed forces, thus constrained, will not fight effectively, and cannot win. America cannot survive future external threats to its existence, depending on such armed forces.



1 McNamara, Robert, S., "In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam," Random House, Time Books, 1995.

2 Adelman, Ken, "More to regret than conceded," The Washington Times, 12 April 1995. McNamara broke down in tears when interviewed by Diane Sawyer, on the nationally broadcast 20/20 ABC TV program, during the week of 10 April 1995.

3 Ibid, Adelman, Ken, The Washington Times.

4 McGrory, Mary, "Too Late," The Washington Post, 13 April 1995.

5 Sharp, U.S.G., ADM, "Strategy for Defeat: Vietnam in Retrospect," Presidio Press, 1978.

6 Pruden, Wesley, "Recalling Vietnam is deadly business," The Washington Times, 18 April 1995.

7 Moore, Lt.Gen. Harold G., "We Were Soldiers Once...and Young: Ia Drang, The Battle That Changed the War in Vietnam," pp. 406, 1992.

8 Ibid, Moore, Lt.Gen. Harold G., pp. 398.

9 Ricks, Thomas E., "Churning the Waters: Maverick Secretary Danzig Challenges the Navy on Managing People, Forces," The Washington Post, 9 September 2000.

10 Ibid, Ricks, Thomas E.

11 Ibid, Ricks, Thomas E.

12 Ibid, Ricks, Thomas E.

13 For an illuminating parallel, see Scott, Otto, "Robespierre: The Fool as Revolutionary," The Reformer Library, 1974.

14 Ibid, Ricks, Thomas E.

15 McMaster, H.R., "Dereliction of Duty," Harper Collins, 1997.

16 Isaacs, Arnold R., "Lost In the Jungle," The Washington Post Book World, 1997, a review of 'Dereliction of Duty' by H.R. McMaster.

17 Burns, Robert, "Report: Fund shortage taxing naval airmens' morale, training," The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 9 September 2000.

18 Natham, John VADM, "Administrative Message, From COMNAVAIRPAC, San Diego, CA to AIG 308, 2414 Zulu, 30 August 2000.

19 Fristachi, John C.P., "The All-Volunteer Hollow Force," e-mail message from <Fristachi.John@HQ.NAVY.MIL> to mail-list of active duty naval officers, 18 August 2000.

20 Burns, Patrick J., "Double Standards, Combat Readiness & the All Volunteer -- Hollow Force," e-mail <> to CDR Fristachi, 20 August 2000.

21 Atkinson, Gerald L., "From Trust to Terror: Radical Feminism is Destroying the U.S. Navy," Atkinson Associates Press, 1997.

22 Scarborough, Rowan, "Navy admiral wants to get rid of urinals," The Washington Times, 13 September 2000.

23 Ibid.

24 Gutmann, Stephanie, "The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America's Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars," Scribner, 2000.

25 Note: This person, Gutmann's 'Pilot A,' who requested anonymity in her book is, coincidentally, the same person who was the anonymous heroic Flight Instructor in my book, "From Trust to Terror: Radical Feminism is Destroying the U.S. Navy." Gutmann and I both have honored his wish to remain anonymous. Let me assure you. He exists and he is a true principled naval officer and, to me, a genuine hero. In the same mold as LT Patrick J. Burns. Both left the Navy on principle and core values; honor, courage, and commitment. In the tradition-bound Navy of the past, both these fine young men would still be in the hunt, vying for flag-rank in a service that would be building its future on the foundation of its venerable past.

26 Ibid, Scarborough, Rowan.

27 Reed, Fred, "Military service warning labels," The Washington Times, 21 September 2000.

28 Hill, C.A., Jr., RADM USN (Ret.), "Truth should trump PC in Naval aviation," The Washington Times, 24 May 1998.

29 Sahlin, Daphne D., "Column an insult to women who have served in U.S. military," Letters-to-the-Editor, The Washington Times, 21 September 2000.

30 Waters, Diane K., LtCol, "Column an insult to women who have served in U.S. military," Letters-to-the-Editor, The Washington Times, 21 September 2000.

31 Dick, Woodrow F., Jr., "Who needs women in the military?," Letters-to-the-Editor, The Washington Times, 25 September 2000.

32 Toner, Edward J., Jr., "Who needs women in the military?," Letters-to-the-Editor, The Washington Times, 25 September 2000.

33 Fazekas, James P., "Who needs women in the military?," Letters-to-the-Editor, The Washington Times, 25 September 2000.

Return to:

Home Women in Combat