Monday, June 9, 2008

Racial/Ethnic/Gender Quota-Mongering Above National Security In Wartime

From: ...
"So, the war-winning team and our best Middle East expertise are all transferred out of theater in May 2003!
General Sanchez receives two promotions in quick succession. He is promoted to three-star rank and takes over 5th Corps from General Wallace. Within the same month - May 2003 - he is promoted to command the newly named Coalition Joint Task Force 7..."
From the official report as found here: THE REACH OF WAR; Findings on Abu Ghraib ...
"... Lt. Gen. [Ricardo] Sanchez should have taken stronger action in November when he realized the extent of the leadership problems at Abu Ghraib. His attempt to mentor Brig. Gen. [Janis] Karpinski, though well-intended, was insufficient in a combat zone in the midst of a serious and growing insurgency."
That the government is willing to let situations like Abu Ghraib develop, rather than miss an opportunity to fill quotas, demonstrates how serious a threat affirmative action has become. "Diversity" was "mission critical", trumping every other consideration, and that makes our government look a lot like a buffoon's bungling state religion of anti-caucasianism.
From an earlier post, with additions:
Quota Placeholders In High Places In The Military In Wartime: Wherefrom Abu Ghraib?
As found in Affirmative Action and Abu Ghraib, quoting from Heather MacDonald in an NRO article:
"The Abu Ghraib abuse represented an inexcusable breakdown of military control; it had nothing to do with interrogation. Culpability lies with the military chain of command that [...] allowed order within the prison to disintegrate completely. The soldiers working there didn’t know who was in charge — indeed, practically speaking, no one was. Soldiers talked back to their superiors, refused to wear uniforms, operated prostitution and bootlegging rings, engaged in rampant and public sexual misbehavior, covered the facilities with graffiti, and indulged in drinking binges while on duty. The guards’ brutal treatment of the prisoners was just an extension of the chaos.
Gender imperatives undoubtedly played a role in this debacle of leadership, ensuring that Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski was left in charge long after her inability to maintain order had become glaringly apparent."
JB resumes comments: When affirmative action is used to fill sensitive positions of responsibility, and the quotas are set high enough, eventually there occurs the dangerous conjunction, in which one high-level quota placeholder is almost exclusively responsible for supervising another. The danger of quota promotion is not merely additive: it can easily multiply from just such juxtapositions. There is no way that the top people in government could be surprised by this in the least. Therefore, one may infer, that their power-greed interest, in conflict-promotion on a racial, ethnic, and other population-genetic basis, is what they have staked their hopes on, almost to the exclusion of other considerations.
Obama, or even McCain, would entrain this awful conjunction daily, and in many directions at once.
From this older post:
A Severe Strategic Weakness Of The Quota Place-Holding System
For each degree of departure from the merit standard, which is needed for a promotion, the recipient will tend to be more disloyal, to that which needs merit in such a hierarchy. The higher a quota case is promoted, the more his loyalty should come into question. National security needs merit to be maximized in the functional parts of government hierarchies, but racial manipulation of politics does not.
It follows from all this, that each anti-merit promotion event will be associated with weaker loyalty from the recipient, towards national security insofar as it depends on merit. Now we have at least one candidate for nomination, who has been promoted in an anti-merit way at each significant step. His loyalty ought to be considered highly questionable on that basis alone, and the others also must be considered questionable in the same way, if not to the same degree.
Added 7-21-08 from: Saturday, July 19, 2008

The Quota Regime Is Graft & To Excuse It Is Cynically To Excuse Graft
Affirmative acton is graft given on a population-genetic basis. The extent of the corruption implicated in having such graft infest what could otherwise be a merit system, is shown by its widespread use even in the military, when wars are underway. The power-greedy use the population-genetic graft system to set groups in ever-greater conflict domestically, as this allows for the progressive extinguishing of democratic procedures. When the goal is to eliminate democratic procedures completely, as the more power-greedy must always want, the majority becomes, more and more, the enemy. Political advancement is about power and getting more of it. That the left and the moderate right are morally indifferent to the huge and spreading engine of graft, that the quota regime is and must be, demonstrates anew that they are unprincipled and want power because they want it. This is why also they must choose issues, which allow for smearing opponents as motivated entirely by population-genetic hatred; otherwise they'd have to say they want more power because they want it.
Added 7-28-08 from : Thursday, July 24, 2008

May Those Favored For Their Diversity Be Expected To Be There When Loyalty Counts More...
than when you don't have multiple wars on? If diversity is our strength, the expectation would be that doing more to draw from minority populations, should be rewarded with loyalty from them, but especially that they not make themselves scarce when needed more than at other times. From this article:"In 1998, nearly a quarter of all active duty black officers were in various combat fields. As of this month, that had fallen to 20 percent, compared with nearly 40 percent for non-blacks, according to Pentagon data.""Since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan began, the percentage of blacks coming into the Army has plunged from 22 percent to 13 percent. Also, the percentage of blacks in military overall has dipped in the past 10 years, from more than 20 percent to 17 percent today.[...] positive indicators. Over the past decade, the percentage of black officers has grown slightly"[JB asks why this is to be assumed to be a 'positive indicator', except on a quota-filling racial premise, and how can such priorities reasonably appear even Re: the military in wartime?] From this article: “The lack of diversity in Navy leadership does not allow us to take advantage of varied perspectives, of varied experience. And as a result of that, we are a lesser service,” Adm. Gary Roughead said.This implies racial-genetic determinism of "perspectives", and it implies a quota regime. If only the public would realize the abysmal quality shown by this extreme of quota-mongering: if it is acceptable for military officers' promotions in wartime, then when is it not to be used? Please notice also that they do not give any reason why the black officers' percentage should be expected to be more than 1%; it is assumed without saying that equality of results is to be expected, and such that any deviation from quota is implied to be someone's malfeasance. Since we're not talking about money here, it has to be about trying to raise the prestige of blacks and the power of some government evildoers to equalize at will. Another bit of sleight-of-hand by the powerful to notice here, is the way the switch of emphasis to the navy is done. The blacks are at quota for officers in the army now, since fewer of them will go into the army in the first place today, surprisingly enough, when wars are on. The same drop has not occurred in the navy though, as the two articles specify, so the switch of attention is attempted, to get the public to accept accelerated quota outrages there. The people don't appreciate official anti-caucasianism, though, and it would be monstrous if they were to follow officials in that. Rewarding disloyalty is a grossly impractical course, which itself indicates that officials have other objectives, such as gratification of power-greed, to drive on this sort of process.
Posted by John S. Bolton


Flanders Fields said...


I think one of the commenters on the American Thinker post came closet to the truth, at least in this portion of what he had to say:
"...the Clinton Administration had politicized the senior Military Leadership and the Intel Community as well as the State Department, to extents that had never been seen before in American History, and from the day Bush got in office, he was viewed by the Clintonistas in all three institutions as a "one-termer" who's job was to keep the Oval Office "warm" for one term until Hillary could be "crowned" President in 2004.

Clintonista flacks such as Bremer, Joe Wilson, Valerie Plame, Larry Johnson, Tony Zinni, etc., prove it.

Then, on top of having to fight against the internal enemies, the Clintonistas, the Bush Administration basically flubbed thru incompetence other major leadership decisions such as appointing Bremer, Garner, and putting Tommy Franks in charge of CENTCOM.

It was a "perfect storm" confluence of the Clinton Administration and its flacks and lackeys actively working to undermine a sitting US President and is policies, and the Bush Administration's own inability to recognize that, and Bush's naivete in believing that everyone was on the same team, and would work for the good of the country and the Military and the mission."

John S. Bolton said...

Although there was undoubtedly plenty of such subversion going on, and the strategy assumptions were themselves guaranteed to lead to a rocky occupation, none of it could give you Abu Ghraib. Only Bush's own program of fast promotion of women and minorities, but especially latinos, Mexicans first, could do that. Bush probably imagines that quota promotees are going to be loyal to him personally, but they can't be, they have to be loyal to the quota system itself.