On the same day, on each side of the Australia-US alliance, two very different things happened. Each spoke volumes about the military priorities of each.
In the US, the secretary of war, a decorated military veteran who wears his Christian faith literally on his sleeve, vowed to rebuild the US military with a sole focus on lethal combat effectiveness. In Australia, on the other hand, judges and journalists, whose closest brush with combat was office politics, completed the odious job of tearing down the nation’s most highly decorated soldier.
While the Trump administration declared its focus to be “preparing for war and preparing to win”, in Australia, it’s an elite chorus of ‘Tommy this, an’ Tommy that, an’ chuck him out, the brute!’
Which country do you think will prevail?
In the US, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth addressed a gathering of generals and flag officers and declared that the era of Woke in the US military is over.
To ensure peace, we must prepare for war.
From this moment forward, the only mission of the newly restored Department of War is this: warfighting, preparing for war and preparing to win, unrelenting and uncompromising in that pursuit not because we want war, no one here wants war, but it’s because we love peace. We love peace for our fellow citizens. They deserve peace, and they rightfully expect us to deliver.
Our number one job, of course, is to be strong so that we can prevent war in the first place. The president talks about it all the time. It’s called peace through strength. And as history teaches us, the only people who actually deserve peace are those who are willing to wage war to defend it.
That’s why pacifism is so naive and dangerous. It ignores human nature and it ignores human history. Either you protect your people and your sovereignty or you will be subservient to something or someone. It’s a truth as old as time.
And since waging war is so costly in blood and treasure, we owe our republic a military that will win any war we choose or any war that is thrust upon us. Should our enemies choose foolishly to challenge us, they will be crushed by the violence, precision and ferocity of the War Department. In other words, to our enemies, FAFO.
In words that sent the chattering classes into yet another chorus of screeching meltdowns, Hegseth warned that, from here on, combat effectiveness and discipline are the metrics for promotion – not race, gender, or sexuality.
It all starts with physical fitness and appearance. If the secretary of war can do regular hard PT, so can every member of our joint force. Frankly, it’s tiring to look out at combat formations, or really any formation, and see fat troops. Likewise, it’s completely unacceptable to see fat generals and admirals in the halls of the Pentagon and leading commands around the country and the world. It’s a bad look. It is bad, and it’s not who we are […]
This also means grooming standards. No more beards, long hair, superficial individual expression. We’re going to cut our hair, shave our beards, and adhere to standards […]
At the War Department, promotions across the joint force will be based on one thing: merit; colorblind, gender-neutral, merit based.
This prompted Wall Street Journal and CNN journalist John Harwood to gnash his teeth that:
Pete Hegseth has made clear that, if he had his way, the US military would have no blacks in leadership positions and no women at all.
As curious respondents noted, ‘Hegseth said he doesn’t want the military to be fat, and you immediately think of women and black people?’
While the US government is focused on lethal combat effectiveness, what’s Australia’s elite class up to? Well, besides promoting hijabis and Aboriginal ‘aunties’ to specifically created positions, LGBT+ morning teas and former commanders poncing around in high heels, they’re busily tearing down the nation’s most decorated soldier and anyone who stands by him.
Mining magnate Gina Rinehart has stymied a bid by Nine newspapers to discover whether she financed Ben Roberts-Smith’s failed defamation appeal, meaning the media outlet will have to pursue other avenues to recoup the $2.4m the former SAS soldier owes in legal costs […]
In a statement after Mr Roberts-Smith lost the original defamation case, Mrs Rinehart said the court’s decision had been “taken by some in Channel 9 as something they can gloat about”.
The case revolves around unsubstantiated allegations published by the Nine newspapers, claiming that Roberts-Smith had ‘murdered’ suspected Taliban insurgents. It all came down to a judge’s ‘I Just Reckon’, because their conduck wasn’t all his fancy-paints.
The war veteran lost [the defamation case] in the Federal Court last year when judge Anthony Besanko found that he had murdered four unarmed Afghan detainees.
Justice Besanko found that on the balance of probabilities, the former SAS soldier was complicit in the murder of four unarmed prisoners in Afghanistan, including a farmer who was kicked off a cliff in the village of Darwan, and a one-legged man dragged from a tunnel at the compound known as Whiskey 108.
Yet Roberts-Smith has never been formally charged with war crimes, or faced a criminal trial. Even in a defence force that wrings its hands about a ‘warrior culture’ and where a non-combatant officer airily orders the collective punishment of an entire army without so much as a single court-martial.
In a statement after Mr Roberts-Smith lost the original defamation case, Mrs Rinehart said […] “Many patriotic Australians ask: Is it fair that this brave and patriotic man who risked his life on overseas missions, which he was sent on by our government, is under such attack.”
No wonder recruitment is in such a deep hole: Tommy ain’t a bloomin’ fool – you bet that Tommy sees!
