Seal Teams and the Monstrous Regiment

1,339 Views | 1 Replies | Last: 3 yr ago by Old Army Ghost
Patriot4301
How long do you want to ignore this user?
SEAL Teams and the Monstrous Regiment

Dear Editor,

Over the last decade I watched the slow slog to egalitarianism in the Special Operations community. Egalitarianism swallowed the military, then it moved to submariners and direct combat roles, and then into Special Operations. Before I left the SEAL Teams we chugged along on the Navy's veritable (and literal?) slow boat to (communist) China. To the point that leadership updated language in the SEAL Ethos to include gender-neutral *non-binary* pronouns. Or as you said in your post, "But conservative Christians must not forget who we are either. There are better ways for us to push back against the egalitarian paradigm than finding some evangelical woman who flew fighter jets for the Air Force . . . this is just another form of the slow surrender that the conservative movement in American has specialized in." I watched the slow surrender. The surrender where no one draws a line. Where no one says "no."

The egalitarian and relativistic postmodern ethic is organizationally ingrained, even in the Teams. Just nod your head, do your job, get paid. There's even a nice little egalitarian score section on the big Navy's requisite annual periodic evaluations for the enlisted men regarding "Equal Opportunity." Despite the President's recent tweet rolling back our "gender neutral language update" this is only slowing the inevitable. I am grateful, but it's only a temporary stay.

The SEAL Teams have existed since 1962, and prior as NCDUs and Scouts and Raiders, our heritage traces back to Tarawa and D-Day. The men with green faces were a legendary and terrifying testament to the effectiveness of our training. Basic Underwater Demolition/SEAL Training (BUD/S) has been the gold-standard for performance. Given some of the crises since the "war on terror," we needed something more than men who merely physically performed well. We needed a standard for ethical performance. The SEAL Ethos was penned in 2005 prior to the mandated expansion to women in combat roles a few years ago in 2013.

From 2013 until my recent exit from the Teams, I sat in wardrooms and meetings watching a subtle decline with morbid curiosity. The pressure came on Special Operations units to submit a request to exclude women from entering or open BUD/S to them. No reason was given. Platitudes were spoken from ageing leadership about the standards "We won't change the standards" was the promise. It became a mantra. They seemed to believe it. They forgot to add ". . . yet."

To set the stage, I'll point out our slow decline. We required a performance test for SEAL Qualification Training (SQT, a 10-month course that follows BUD/S on the way to earning your trident). It was part of the Tactical Athlete Program, known as the TAP test. It consisted of Deadlift, 25lb weighted pull-ups, a three mile run, body weight bench press, squats, and a fairly long swim. It was a half-day affair. A pass-fail test meant to be an exposure to some of the physical exertion you may be expected to endure in a combat operation: double ladder climbs onto a moving vessel at sea with kit and weapon on, picking up an unconscious man to carry him to safety without taking another gun or two out of the fight, being able to climb onto a walled roof from a ladder, being able to carry 80-100 pounds of equipment up the side of a mountain without unduly slowing the patrol, then swimming away. Then, inexplicably, the TAP test disappeared. Inevitably, testing began for a new, "improved" TAP test. Operators were scheduled to do these TAP tests in the optimum time for their lowest possible performance level, i.e. right after post deployment leave or Christmas leave periods. Weighted pull-ups disappeared. Body weight bench press vanished. Instead sprints and broad jumps and swimming emerged. It was no longer a test for war-fighting men, it was High School P.E. with adults. But like they said, the standards "won't change."

Finally came the rumblings. A rumor circulated regarding non-gendered language in the Ethos. I eventually saw the memo via a friend. I didn't believe it. Stunned, I reviewed the text. Our ethos had changed. No discussion. No questions. In the past, men were disciplined for breaking the Ethos. It was our binding ethical document. It was the gold standard for our ethics. But there it is. The recent update isn't concerned with what is or was, but rather with the political "what could be." The language isn't just inclusive. It's noticeably non-binary. It's not "men and women" even. It's citizen. Sex disappeared. The ethos isn't concerned about how to justly win war, its primary concern is picking a side in the culture war. It was once said, "a lion doesn't concern himself with the opinions of sheep." Unless the sheep are concerned egalitarians. Then you'll have some board meetings, pull all of the Lions' teeth and bring three sheep onto your board for decisions.

Now, it's news.

The Ethos mentioned "a common man with an uncommon desire to succeed." BUD/S began requiring the ethos to be handwritten when it was first written and placed in each student's living space, usually in their wall locker. Now I'm sure they're being torn down and replaced with the "new and improved" version. With comrade- sorry, citizens being the word replacing man. We are no longer men, we are citizens of a shining humanist utopia. "I am that man" becomes "I am that warrior." Talking to one of my friends, he mentioned we were pulled away from combat deployments to confront the real enemy of America, implicit bias in our organizational language.

It's interesting to note the following Catch-22 I've observed. Alcohol is not allowed in combat zones in the military because, to the military, it is a danger to good order and discipline. Alcohol degrades the combat effectiveness of units by causing problems according to the military. But a simple Google search will reveal stories of women who were assaulted by men in combat zones. A violation of good order and discipline degrading combat effectiveness of units. But it can't be because vulnerable women were there, isolated with men. These women aren't vulnerable, they're war-fighters, goes the logic. Alcohol causes men to behave badly according to the military. Women can't cause men to behave badly, and women are war-fighters just like men. Women are not vulnerable, except to sexual assault in remote locations. The Bible clearly states it's the evil desires in a man's heart that causes him to sin, not the object. But nonetheless, we have no objective standard in the military. Heaven forbid someone dare to make the heretical suggestion that if women weren't in combat zones and co-located that sexual assaults against women would stop happening in combat zones. Alcohol isn't bad, and neither are women, but being consistent requires considering what's best for good order and discipline.

I have many personal stories I could relate, but this would make some of my still active compatriots easily exposed. I bring this forward to show that even in a place where egalitarianism has no place, it oozes in. Without Christ as the objective standard for truth, all of our institutions crumble. The current "concern" in the military and in churches is "what does the culture think?" It's easy to transpose this to the current situation regarding Beth Moore and other little "birds" flying around with tweets and massive followings/book deals. We see it with women in combat, women in the police force and women seeking the role of teaching on the Lord's Day. It starts with a couple of questions about "implicit bias", creating new "spaces" and "voices". And if you dare oppose, you receive a refutation to the tune of nice ad hominem assaults, a statement declaring "we're not trying to do that!", or a dismissal of your concern with a platitude. It ends with no one uttering a word of dissent, afraid to be the one caught with the stick, drawing in the sand. That drawing in the sand can get you killed.

It starts small. Cater to the whims of the culture outside and you quickly find yourself trampled under a monstrous regiment of egalitarians and a new foundational document. You could call it a slippery slope, but it's just progressivism. Lest we forget James 4:4Open in Logos Bible Software (if available) "You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God." May this be a reminder to the church to remain faithful to what is written, not what is shouted. In the Teams, we use wind and waves to conceal our movement, but when it comes to doctrine we're four sheets to the cultural wind.

While there is much more to be said on this, I write this to give a hearty amen to your caution regarding applause. Clearly the light of nature is sufficient for some things, but without the Triune God as the final authority, we will eventually run afoul upon the hidden reef of "did God really say?" To quote Star Wars "This is how liberty dies . . . with thunderous applause."

In Christ,

Ethan

You must scroll down to find the editorial.

https://dougwils.com/books-and-culture/s7-engaging-the-culture/letters-5-12-20-2-2-2-2-12-6.html
CharlieBrown17
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

It's interesting to note the following Catch-22 I've observed. Alcohol is not allowed in combat zones in the military because, to the military, it is a danger to good order and discipline. Alcohol degrades the combat effectiveness of units by causing problems according to the military. But a simple Google search will reveal stories of women who were assaulted by men in combat zones. A violation of good order and discipline degrading combat effectiveness of units. But it can't be because vulnerable women were there, isolated with men. These women aren't vulnerable, they're war-fighters, goes the logic. Alcohol causes men to behave badly according to the military. Women can't cause men to behave badly, and women are war-fighters just like men. Women are not vulnerable, except to sexual assault in remote locations. The Bible clearly states it's the evil desires in a man's heart that causes him to sin, not the object. But nonetheless, we have no objective standard in the military. Heaven forbid someone dare to make the heretical suggestion that if women weren't in combat zones and co-located that sexual assaults against women would stop happening in combat zones. Alcohol isn't bad, and neither are women, but being consistent requires considering what's best for good order and discipline



Focus on proving women can't do the SpecOps tasks/requirements if you don't want them around. Trying to say women should be excluded so they don't get raped is trash.
Old Army Ghost
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.