When Michelle Malkin is Right, She’s Right
Email This Post
- 
Print This Post
- Ok readers, you can get up off the floor now.
I haven’t suddenly lost my mind. But you know that I have to call them like I see them, even when it gets me into big trouble. So here goes.
In a recent interview with FoxNews on the topic of the tragedy at Ft. Hood, Ms Malkin stated:
“I don’t think that we have to play games with the rush to judgment anymore. I think that the bigger problem for the American government and their culture post 9/11 is that there are too many people still doing the rush to white-wash.“
She later states: “the red flags were missed and it behooves everyone in Congress and in Washington to figure out who dropped the ball.”
Friends, when Michelle is right, she’s right. Sadly, the rest of her argument misses the point and her statement is a few years too late.
During the rest of the interview, Ms Malkin blames the recent tragedy at Ft. Hood on “the military’s worship of the “false god of diversity” which, in her opinion, was placed before national security.
First of all, that is an insult to the military and all of the servicemen and women whom Michelle Malkin constantly criticizes liberals for not supporting. Shame on her,
Second, I submit that it wasn’t the military’s worship of diversity but rather the Bush administration’s rush to war with an all-volunteer military and a “see no evil” recruitment policy that opened the door to disaster.
In an April, 2008 post, I referenced a December 2006 article in the San Francisco Chronicle which raised very serious questions about the military’s recruitment policy. In his article, “US is recruiting misfits for army: felons, racists, gang members fill in the ranks“, reporter Nick Turse wrote:
“After falling short of its goals last year, military recruiting in 2006 has been marked by upbeat pronouncements from Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, claims of success by the White House, and a spate of recent press reports touting the military’s achievement of its woman- and manpower goals.
But the armed forces have met with success only through a fundamental transformation, and not the transformation of the military — that ‘co-evolution of concepts, processes, organizations and technology’ that Rumsfeld is always talking about either.
In 2004, the Pentagon published a ‘Moral Waiver Study,’ whose seemingly benign goal was ‘to better define relationships between pre-Service behaviors and subsequent Service success.’ That turned out to mean opening more recruitment doors to potential enlistees with criminal records.
In February, the Baltimore Sun wrote that there was ‘a significant increase in the number of recruits with what the Army terms ’serious criminal misconduct’ in their background’ — a category that included ‘aggravated assault, robbery, vehicular manslaughter, receiving stolen property and making terrorist threats.’ From 2004 to 2005, the number of those recruits rose by more than 54 percent, while alcohol and illegal drug waivers, reversing a four-year decline, increased by more than 13 percent.
In June, the Chicago Sun-Times reported that, under pressure to fill the ranks, the Army had been allowing into its ranks increasing numbers of ‘recruits convicted of misdemeanor crimes, according to experts and military records.’ In fact, as the military’s own data indicated, ‘the percentage of recruits entering the Army with waivers for misdemeanors and medical problems has more than doubled since 2001.’
One beneficiary of the Army’s new moral-waiver policies gained a certain prominence this summer. After Steven Green, who served in the 101st Airborne Division, was charged in a rape and quadruple murder in Mahmudiyah, Iraq, it was disclosed that he had been ‘a high-school dropout from a broken home who enlisted to get some direction in his life, yet was sent home early because of an anti-social personality disorder.’ “
In that same post I mentioned, Paula Zahn’s 2007 report on “Gangs in the Military“. If you missed it, here’s an excerpt from the show transcript:
THELMA GUTIERREZ, CNN CORRESPONDENT (on camera): No one knows for sure just how many gang members are in the military. By some estimations, it’s less than 1 percent of all military personnel, hardly an epidemic, but enough to prompt the FBI to issue this report.
(voice-over): Gang members at military installations from Fort Lewis, Washington, to Fort Bragg, North Carolina, have been involved in drug distribution, robberies, assaults, and murder. According to this 2007 internal FBI document, the report found that gang activity in the U.S. — quote — “is increasing and poses a threat to law enforcement officials and national security.”
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Military men training gangsters on how to use weapons.
GUTIERREZ: An issue law enforcement is taking seriously.
Al Valdez (ph) is a former detective. He trains police around the country on gangs in the military.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: It’s not illegal to be a gang member in the United States. And it’s a protected right. In fact, the head of Army Recruitment Command correctly states that. What happens is, they bring that gangster mentality within the military.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: When these cats come back from — these gang members come back from Iraq, we are going to have some hell on these streets, because these dudes are coming back with training that’s on another level.
So, if the military was willing to overlook gang members, overt racists and felons, then it wouldn’t come as a surprise to me if they may have overlooked an Islamic jihadist or two. To be clear, I said “IF”.
Of course, Ms. Malkin may not read the San Francisco Chronicle or be a fan of Paula Zahn but there were other signs that the recruitment demands placed on the military by the Bush administration’s rush to the war in Iraq and lack of an exit strategy would have serious consequences. Where was her concern then?
Oh yes, I forgot. Ms. Malkin was busy labeling anyone who expressed a concern about the war as a “traitor”, “a coward” and “an enemy sympathizer.”
Yes, when Michelle Malkin is right, she’s partially right. “The red flags were missed and it behooves everyone in Congress and in Washington to figure out who dropped the ball.“
Related posts:
What Happens When Johnny Comes Marching Home
The Illusion of An All Volunteer Army
originally posted on Pam’s Coffee Conversation
Comment by proletarian on 11 November 2009:
Plain and simple, the preponderant issue in this travesty is America’s worship of political correctness. If we’re to join the ranks of the rest of the world, we need to get over it.
Comment by Chief Hypocrite on 12 November 2009:
Pam, when I read and consider carefully the odious results on individuals and families of the stop loss policy affecting many thousands of troops, some of whom might have re-upped anyway, I wonder if you or Nick Turse really wish all of our hundreds of thousands of troops had been drafted instead of these lesser thousands during a difficult period. Do you prefer a systemic draft instead of our truly mostly volunteer army?
Your ideological differences with Michelle Malkin aside, what do you think of Pro’s concern that political correctness is hurting America?
Comment by pamelalyn on 12 November 2009:
I must admit that I found proletarian’s comment to be a little contradictory. So in case I was misunderstanding his point I saw no need to start a debate just for the sake of debate.
I have often found that the phrase “political correctness” is used by people to express their objections to language, policies or programs that are attempting to be sensitive to the differences in culture, race, religion, gender etc. that cause conflict and division. So if we’re to join the rest of the world which is extremely diverse, I don’t think that we can get over the arrogance of believing that one group’s ( any group’s) way of thinking is correct.
Do we all go a little overboard with the political correctness sometimes? Of course we do.
Do we fail to go far enough in some instances? I believe so.
I can not speak for Nick Turse, but I support the concept of an all volunteer military. I also believe that if draft is ever reinstated no one of appropriate age and health status should be exempt from service. However, whether the military is built via the draft or on a voluntary basis, military decisions should not be driven by the purely political motives of either party.
There are consequences.
Comment by proletarian on 13 November 2009:
I do apologize Pamelalyn, apparently I wasn’t as perspicuous as I thought. Mine was a feeble attempt not to be scurrilous, or more felicitously, I was trying to be “politically correct.”
I presume your confusion comes from my comment about getting over it and joining the ranks of the rest of the world. Well, how should I couch this?
Have you ever traveled to the Congo, Ireland, Asia Minor, or the far reaches of what was previously known as the Soviet Union? As Americans propagate their desire to be sensitive in issues such as culture, race gender, etc., there is an hidden pompousness that lays beneath the surface. You see, as we tout ourselves as being caring, correct in our words and deeds, others, such as the countries I mentioned, laugh.
In parts of the Middle East a thief will have a hand removed for stealing, while many look on in disdain and scorn. They will openly shout, badger and harangue him. A beggar is still a beggar in many parts of the world. Not a “homeless person.” A liar is a liar, a coward a coward, and a scoundrel will be called nothing more than a scumbag. Believe it or not, there are still parts of the world where some are pilloried, both mentally and physically. Only in America are we so sensitive, only in America are we so sanctimoniously hypocritical.
We pretend to say and do nice things, we look upon mankind as needing our help, and forever spew empty words of “political correctness.” All in an attempt to create the apparency of greatness. For the most part, it’s nothing but a façade. We go back to our own little coteries and rumble and mumble our true feelings, once we’re out of sight of those we wish to impress.
I’m not intimating that the world is vulgar and crude, but what I’m asserting is that the peoples of many countries call a spade a spade. They make a choice - look on and say nothing, or voice their opinion and say what’s on their mind. We dance and play and pussyfoot around over here, hence, the debacle at Fort Hood. Lord help us, we don’t want to profile against those who want to kill us, it wouldn’t be
“politically correct.”
Comment by pamelalyn on 13 November 2009:
What’s interesting is that the responses on this blog have all focused on the political correctness” issue rather than the issue that the military was pressured to meet recruitment needs by allowing any and all volunteers (felons, gang members, white supremacists, and yes, possible jihadists) into their ranks.
As I said in the post, I agree with Ms. Malkin that there should be a thorough investigation into what lead to the tragedy at Ft. Hood. If political correctness was a contributing factor then let’s correct it. However, as proletarian said, let’s “call a spade a spade”
and not scapegoat the military for policies that forced them to rush to fight a war, under manned, under equipped, and with limited allied support.
Maybe I’m being too politically correct when I assume that no one here wants a military comprised of felons, gang bangers, rapists, and neo nazis. Of course, I could be wrong.
Comment by proletarian on 14 November 2009:
Pamelayn, I understand the essence of your post and couldn’t agree with you more. I objected to the initial action in Iraq. I object to what’s going on in Afghanistan and, whether we have thugs, bowsies, poltroons or the like in the military or not, it always comes down to the chicken-hawks pulling the strings.
However, I believe you missed a key word in my original response, “preponderant.” We can no longer afford, or do others desire it, to be the world’s police. That is the crux of my second response. As Americans, we need to be less politically correct, quit our interloping and stop being the quidnuncs of the world.
Our government needs to address the issues at home before worrying about everyone else. From what I see, there’s enough on that plate as it is.
Comment by pamelalyn on 14 November 2009:
Proletarian, when you’re right, you’re right! There’s an old saying that says that a person needs to sweep around their own door step before they can complain about the trash in front of their neighbors. That reminds me that I really need to get up that pile of leaves around my back gate and throw them on the compost pile.