July 17, 2023

The late Rush Limbaugh had a way of summarizing the issues in a concise, pithy way.  On matters regarding the armed services, he would always remind his audience that “the purpose of the military is to kill people and break things.”

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609268089992-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3028”); } }); }); }

That’s not to say that there aren’t a thousand specific details about the military that are worth talking about.  We have to discuss the force strength levels in peacetime and the force strength levels in time of war.  We have to hammer out how much to pay the enlisted men and the officers, the infantry and the artillery, the JAG officers in the field and the engineers and clerks on desk duty stateside.

Which munitions should we use, how much ammunition should we stock, how thinly can we spread our forces, how much should we spend on advertising to bolster recruitment?

There is a reason we have numerous defense committees in Congress and whole departments in the executive branch dedicated to the armed forces and their veterans.  There’s a lot to decide, a lot to keep track of.

‘); googletag.cmd.push(function () { googletag.display(‘div-gpt-ad-1609270365559-0’); }); document.write(”); googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.pubads().addEventListener(‘slotRenderEnded’, function(event) { if (event.slot.getSlotElementId() == “div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”) { googletag.display(“div-hre-Americanthinker—New-3035”); } }); }); }

But what’s its purpose?  In the final analysis, everything they do is about defending the nation and its allies from attack by foreign armies, and, when needed — hopefully, only when needed — going out on offense and waging war.  

In other words, every discussion, every budget allocation, every hire, must be in the service of this ultimate need: to occasionally kill people and break things.

Throughout our nation’s last hundred years, we have often had to remind people of this, as various issues have popped up that interfere with the mission of the armed services.  For example:

Feminists wanted women in combat; traditionalists said “Look, this is nothing against women, but having both men and women in combat together will jeopardize the mission.  Chivalrous men will be distracted from their duty in combat if women fighting alongside them are injured; regular guys will be distracted from their duty in peacetime if hormones kick in and romances occur. And then we have to consider the undeniable differences in physical ability — as groups — and how it affects the ability of the corps.”

Homosexual activists wanted to remove the traditional bans on same-sex relationships in the military.  “Look, this is nothing against gays and lesbians, but you have to admit that all the same challenges posed by temptations and risks, from romance to abuse, that plague the challenge of women in combat go double if you allow homosexual activity in the military.”

Over the years, America essentially lost both of those arguments.  What has it done to our forces?  The statistics show the results: pregnancies, venereal diseases, abuse, depression, drug addition, suicide.