Admiral James Lyons (Ret.) On Obama’s Transformation Of The Military
Print Friendly and PDF
The U.S. military is one of our nation’s most respected institutions, but it’s not immune to the radical changes taking place in our society.

In an analysis/opinion piece in the Washington Times, James A. Lyons recently wrote about How Obama transformed the military. Of course, some of these changes were taking place even before Obama was president, but they have accelerated under the current president. Lyons, by the way, is a retired Admiral, and was at one time commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet.

Lyons begins thusly

There is no question that America’s worldwide leadership, power and influence have been significantly degraded over the last seven and a half years. The basic reason, regretfully, is that President Obama has been very successful in the implementation of his goal to fundamentally transform America. In so doing, he has undercut the Judeo-Christian foundation of this great country while at the same time promoting the advancement of Islam throughout our society —including the U.S. military. Clearly, any thinking American understands that this transformation, at its core, is anti-American and anti-Western. Yet it is also pro-Islam, pro-Iranian and pro-Muslim Brotherhood. Compounding this travesty is Mr. Obama’s decision to embrace our sworn enemies. Unbelievable.
Lyons discusses how the U.S. military has been downsized, and a part of that has been “forcing out tens of thousands of well-qualified male personnel under the guise of diversity.”

One problem Lyons doesn’t mention is that the Cold War ended two and a half decades ago and we are long overdue for a complete re-evaluation of U.S. foreign policy.

In writing about our military, Lyons discusses

“…the forced acceptance of open homosexuality. It has had a clear negative impact on unit integrity, cohesiveness and retention. The propaganda statements by Secretary of Defense Ash Carter that this transformation has been a great success are nonsense! In 2014, there were over 10,000 “reported” unwarranted male-on-male advances. If the Mr. Carter thinks this is a great success, I’d hate to see what he thinks failure looks like.
Just as with society at large, the “transgender” agenda is being forced on the military.
Compounding this travesty is Mr. Carter’s decision to allow “transgender” members of the military to serve openly starting this year. This is unconscionable. Dr. Paul McHugh, former head psychiatrist at John Hopkins, stated in a July 12, 2015 Wall Street Journal article that our policymakers are doing a disservice to the public (and certainly to the military) by treating transgender’s confusion as a “right” rather than as a “mental disorder” that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention. He went on to state that this disorder should not be treated as a “civil rights” issue. Clearly, the military should not be burdened with this problem. In my view, embracing the “LGBT” agenda is a slow decline toward paganism.
And, the Obama administration is now forcing all military units to opening all combat positions to women.
Because of Mr. Carter’s vast military background obtained at the ivy-covered walls of Yale, he ignored countless studies and personally overruled the U.S. Marine Corps (as did Mr. Mabus), opening all combat roles to women —including infantry, artillery, special forces and Navy Seals. All of these debilitating social engineering directives are being imposed by people who, for the most part, have never served in the military and never will. Furthermore, we don’t want them to. This is all being done under the mantel of “diversity.”
Having women in combat units is insane on several levels. What can be expected? Problems with unit morale, more soldiers getting killed and more problems in military families, which already have plenty. What you can’t expect is greater combat efficiency, but then again, that’s not the goal, is it?

Why don’t more currently-serving generals and admirals oppose this sort of thing? Of course, we have civilian control of the military, so they know they have to enact the policies given them by the civilian administration.

But if they are being instructed to enact bad policies, shouldn’t they speak up and be willing, if necessary, to resign their commissions in protest? That would attract attention.

Of course, many generals and admirals function more like, and think more like, politicians than soldiers or sailors. Plus, they are probably thinking of lucrative post-retirement plumb jobs in the media, government and corporate worlds.

But shouldn’t they be thinking more of the future of the military than of their own futures?


Print Friendly and PDF