The Hollow Force Debate
Click on the links below to view the text of specific conversations between Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson, CDR USN (Ret.) and naval aviators and other naval officers presently on active duty in the U.S. Navy. Their names are held anonymous in order that they not suffer any retribution (from any source) for participating in the conversation. The conversations were held via e-mail on the Internet after I published an essay entitled, “Bolshevism by Legal Maneuver.” This essay is similar to the one that appears in the ’order form’ section of the link to our Eternal Vigilance journal link (I did not send the order form — just the descriptive text).
Note: If you would like to join this debate, just e-mail the Webmaster a response to one or all of the specific conversations below. I will send selected different ‘points of view’ to the HollowForceDebate guys and may even publish some of it here on this site. Please be ‘compassionate’ in your commentary — no name-calling. We don’t want to carry out personal ad hominem attacks as Mike, Anonymous, and Stewie did on me. E-mail your commentary to:
Response from Mike This young helicopter pilot is a graduate of the U.S. Naval Academy, class of 1980, who was born on 12/10/59. He has no combat awards or decorations in his record. The tone of his reply is aggressive, defensive, angry, and vituperative. He carries out a personal attack on RADM C.A. ’Mark’ Hill, Jr. USN (Ret.), USNA class of 1944, who has written PUBLICLY on the New Age ’ethics’ program at the Academy. Mike calls RADM Hill “...some woefully out-of-touch ’45 grad [who] sputtered and railed against the Naval Academy.”
Atkinson answers Mike My reply illuminates RADM Hill’s military record and defends his stance re the Academy’s new ‘ethics’ program. I supply Mike with a reading list, all from mainstream sources available from Borders Books, Barnes & Noble, Amazon.com and other mainstream book outlets. This reading list would allow Mike — and any other interested party — to understand the background information which supports my published works on the ‘power elites’ of the Boomer generation, the Frankfurt School, and the culture war in which this nation is currently engaged.
Response from Anonymous This U.S. Naval Academy graduate, class of 1982 and born 6/30/59 defends his friends, Mike and Stewie, and the Academy’s new ‘ethics’ program in a manner that reveals some knowledge of my part in criticizing it. He appears eager to defend this program in a manner that suggests a ‘circle the wagons’ approach to criticism. It is probably true that our criticism of high-level flag-rank naval officers has resulted in pressure on the more junior officers in the program to take personally criticism aimed at higher levels. Anonymous is obviously trying to defend his friends who may be among that set of more junior officers.
Atkinson to Anonymous — Part I My reply reveals the record of the ‘change agent,’ Dr. Nancy Sherman, who designed and implemented the new ‘ethics’ program at the Academy. I also give due credit to ‘...the guys who are out there on the boat right now.’
Atkinson to Anonymous — Part II This reply gives a detailed reason for objecting to an emphasis on the Enlightenment philosophers in the new ‘ethics’ program at the Academy. It reveals for the first time that the Academy’s chaplains are specifically forbidden participation in this program while the study of the Enlightenment philosophers are mandated in the required NE-203 core course. This reply insists that philosophy , as taught at the Academy, must be taught within the context of history. In that regard the reply includes my review of Balint Vazsonyi’s seminal book,, “America’s 30 Years War: Who is Winning?”
Stewie Rebuts Atkinson’s Answer to Mike Stewie is a former Commanding Officer of an F-14 Tomcat fighter Fleet Replacement Squadron. His rebuttal defends his friend, Mike, and carries out a personal ad hominem attack on Atkinson . In making this attack on Atkinson’s character, he makes a few outrageous assertions. One is that his generation of naval aviators “...won the Cold War” and that Atkinson’s generation “...lost the Vietnam War.” It is Stewie’s attack that gets most of Atkinson’s attention.
Atkinson to Stewie — Part I This reply assures these young active duty naval officers that we critics have a deep appreciation for their plight in today’s ‘politicized’ military. I also answers Stewie’s charge that we critics are just “...angry old men with a chip on our shoulders.” The major part of this answer is an essay that Atkinson published in The Washington Times (“’Feminized’ military in need of reform?,” 10/11/98) which gave an account of his first fighter squadron’s reunion and a ‘dependents’ cruise on the USS John F. Kennedy.
Atkinson to Stewie — Part II This reply recites the reasons why we critics of the G.I. And Silent generations are indeed ‘angry’ at what we have seen the politically correct Clinton administration do to undermine military readiness, morale, and the ‘warrior spirit’ over the past eight years. The specific items inciting this ‘anger’ range from high-level Navy leaders lying to the American people about the reduced/double standards in naval aviation to the introduction of an alien ‘ethics’ program at the U.S. Naval Academy. It details instances of the breakdown of TRUST in the active-duty and retired officer community in the current active-duty flag-rank Navy leadership. It relates that we belatedly found that, while we won the Cold War abroad, we have been losing , if we have not already lost, the culture war to the ‘cultural Marxists’ at home. It tells who the ‘bad guys’ are in this story.
Atkinson to Stewie — Part III This reply documents the fact that our generation did not ‘lose the Vietnam War’ and that his generation (the late blooming Boomers) did not ‘win’ the Cold War. With reference to copious texts on the Korean War and the Vietnam War, this reply reveals that those who fought and served in the Korean War and the Vietnam War — the only shooting ‘battles’ of the Cold War — won the Cold War. And Stewie’s late cohort of the Boomer generation, born after the end of the Korean War and too young to fight in the Vietnam War, cannot claim any credit at all for ‘winning the Cold War.’ For ‘pretenders’ of his cohort to so claim such credit simply disqualifies him and those who think as he does from speaking for their cohort or their generation.
Atkinson to Stewie — Part IV This reply asks salient questions regarding Stewie’s stewardship in the LT Patrick J. Burns affair. LT Burns is the valiant young naval flight instructor who tried to warn his chain of command of the unsafe flying record of the first two females to qualify in the F-14 fighter. After being turned away by his superiors, he released the training records of these two females to the Senate Armed Services Committee and a civilian activist in Military Readiness affairs. After one of these females died as a result of a flawed attempt (a rookie pilot error) to land aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln and the other was grounded due to unsafe flying ability with the fleet, LT Burns’ actions were correct, prescient, and in the best interest of the Navy and the nation. For this heroic act, LT Burns was denied promotion, cashiered from the Navy, and defamed by the Navy’s political and military overseers. This reply asks Stewie what leadership actions he took with respect to ‘speaking the truth’ to his superiors in support of LT Burns, a “friend and Brother in Arms.”
Atkinson to Stewie — Part V This reply responds to Stewie’s personal attack on Atkinson’s character. In response to Stewie’s implication that Atkinson may have “...unraveled in combat,” Atkinson reluctantly publishes his citation for the Distinguished Flying Cross awarded in the name of the President of the United States by the Commander in Chief U.S. Pacific Fleet, Roy L. Johnson. This reply challenges Stewie to present similar evidence of his personal combat ‘character.’ This reply also reveals the role played by Navy PAO flacks in discrediting the critics of the Navy brass over the past eight years.
Atkinson to Stewie — Part VI This reply reviews the research conducted by Atkinson on the ‘sensitivity training’ conducted by the Chinese on our Korean War POWs and reveals the similarities between that ‘re-education’ program and the same techniques that have been carried out on our military over the past eight years by civilian and military ‘facilitators’ and ‘change agents.’ It informs interested parties of the parallel nature of the techniques developed in the U.S. by Kurt Lewin and the Chinese methods. It then asks Stewie and his friends what category they fall into — resisters, collaborators, or ‘passive.’
Home Hollow Force Debate Results Essays Women-in-Combat