Generally, the American Military understands and accepts  three major tenets.  (1)  The mission to defend America.  (2)  A kind of subset to this is the paramount need to kill people and break things.  (3)  It also understands that it  serves under a civilian Commander-in-Chief, who all too frequently has little or no military experience.  It appears to be the luck of the draw whether the Military takes orders from a supportive and somewhat experienced CinC or a President who has jaundiced opinion of our Armed Forces.

President Eisenhower is obviously the prime example of a man who totally understands and supports our military.  Carter served in the Navy and for that should be commended.  George the Senior was a commissioned oficer and did extremely well in combat.  Dubya was a pilot in the Guard and that was reasonably OK.  Clinton stated he “loathed” the military and Obama is beyond contempt, although he teleprompters his
“deep seated appreciation.”






Most of the time the military does what it is ordered to do, no matter who is President.  It is currently announcing a plan to shrink our forces dramatically. An action serious military analyists find beyond worrisome.  Reducing our forces to 1930s levels in the face of Iran’s continued development of nukes and it’s threats to destroy Israel is one concern.  North Korea change of leadership to “Unnn” is another.  There are others.  However, the military will just “soldier on.”

This is fine but sometimes “soldiering on” is not always what it seems to be.  Political Correctness appears to have invaded Army thinking.  No one ordered the Army to do what it did.  They apparently could not resist affirmative action’s swan song.  After all, evidence certainly supports that affirmative action gave us our President and his First Lady.






In September 2009, the Army (which was now reporting directly to Obama) appointed the first woman ever as Command Sergeant Major of the US Army’s Drill Sergeant School.  The affirmative action folks went bananas.  Appointee Teresa King wasn’t just any female, she was also BLACK!  It was a two-fer for political correctness.  If the newly annoited Command Sergeant Major had just been black, female, battle-hardened and brilliant all would have been fine.  Guess two of four is not really really bad,  But then again, maybe it is.  Looks like she was far more decorative than functional.

The CSM had never ever been anywhere near a battle zone, which makes gaining the respect of her battle-hardened veteran students well nigh impossible.  Obviously, King had zero combat badges.  This is understandable when looking at her various assignments as she came up through the ranks.  She was an Administrative Assistant to the Army Chief of Staff at the Pentagon.  She served in the 18th Personnel Service Battalion after DC and then went to Korea as First Sergeant for the 19th Adjutant General (Postal) at Camp Casey.  She also served in Brussels/NATO.  Her assignment prior to the Drill Sergeant CSM position was with the 369th Adjutant General Battalion at Fort Jackson.



                                                             CSM Teresa King



The CSMs awards are numerous if not the same kind of ribbons many/most combat veterans display on their uniforms.  Just a few are: The Defense Meritorious Medal, the National Defense Service Medal, the Secretary of Defense ID Badge, and the Army Service Ribbon.

This is one splendid display of political correctness and Affirmative Action.  Many were pleased.   What went wrong? 

 CSM King has been suspended from her position.  This much has been reported by the controlled press.  But what you haven’t been told is the reason why such drastic action has been taken.  This is sure to embarrass the Army.

Apparently King was having a sexual relationship with a lower-ranking soldier.  In addition to this, she had a drinking problem.  To make matters worse, her reported college degrees weren’t worth the paper they were printed on.  Her degree in Business Management from Alameda College was granted her for “life-experience” plus a bit of cash.  Another degree came from the American Institute of Holistic Theology.  Once again, this unaccredited diploma mill gave her the diploma for money.




Want to bet that the military very much wants all this to go away?  They probably want to retire her.  In any case, this has got to be a big setback for diversity in senior NCO ranks, a major problem for political correctness , and a blow for affirmative action.

















You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.


  1. USMC-1969 says:

    And in barry’s case is a huge part of the problem. Definately not part of the solution.

    As to the CSM. Par for the course with this gang. So few have any real world experience. This includes barry. OJT did not cut it. However, it appears as though the barry gang vets their choices almost as well as as the country did when allowing barry to run for POTUS.

  2. Gabriel says:

    USMC…Agreed. This is a case of cultivating a two-fer, a black female for a super important position. Can you just imagine what REAL NCOs thought about this politically correct “promotion”? I observed a bit of “his turn” when I was in the Army, altho it was a bit different. Officers came out of the Pentagon to command Battlions, Brigades, or MACV Teams and they had zero experience. I served undeer a super fine CO when I was in the Delta. He was killed. His replacement was an overweight full bull from the Pentagon. He was a coward. I was his Operations Officer.

    News you can use. ProgLibs never give up.


  3. USMC-1969 says:

    Gabriel -- We made many ROTC non hackers postal officers. Some others daily tasks were inspecting the heads, mess, and living quarters. Very seldom active in the FDC or on the guns. One young 2nd lieut. was very adept at burning the unused powder bags. Have to say though that most were pretty good with insuring all gear was properly tack marked for embarkation home. Many of my best friends back in il retired in that infamous time frame of ’77 -- ’79. Morale was too low, and not enough funding to properly train. I expect we will once again lose many experienced staff and officers.

  4. Gabriel says:

    USMC…That also is my concern. Most civilians believe being in the Armed forces is big time security. I lived thru the VN drawdown and know that is not the case. I saw NCOs and Officers let go that should have been retained. When I entered my second career with the BSA I had a guy that worked for me and he never overcame his depression upon being let go as an Artillery Captain. He is a fine man.

  5. gvtwatcher says:

    MC, lest we forget the highest ranking enlisted US Army person; I believe that was the start of the demise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene_McKinney , This was under the Clinton administration. Unfortunately, most of this goes (un)der reported. Once this leader was relieved, they instead of appointing a new SMA, they appointed an 2 people to shared the responsibility. If you look at the Army today, this transition has been ongoing since 1990.

  6. Gabriel says:

    gvt…I bet most have forgotten. Thanks for the input. Keep em comin.

    News you can use.


  7. USMC-1969 says:

    Gabriel -- Allow me to introduce Gvtwatcher. He is a good friend here in my neck of the woods. Retired Screaming Eagle. He is also the one who has provided me with many of the blogs I have posted. Another who definately gets it. Gvtwatcher, Our host is also retired army who now resides in FL. Hope you will be a frequent contributor.

  8. Gabriel says:

    Watcher…The time is growing short to stop this travesty named Obama. When we send him back to Chicago to play footsies with Emanuel, JWright, and Ayers that will be a great step in the right dirction. When we regain control of the Senate, we will be on the road to recapturing our Nation. We need and truly appreciate your help.

    News you can use.


  9. gvtwatcher says:

    As the post implies, and to some extent I agree; there are really only 3 objectives to the Army infantry. When we cloud those with political issues, or take our eye off the objectives, then it becomes an issue of Servicemen and women giving their life for unjust causes. I have no objection with Civilian Leadership within the Defense Department, I do when that leadership results in their self preservation. The only real 3 mission objectives for the Military (I speak Army, others can relate their opinions) are rather simple: 1) we break stuff 2) we take stuff 3) we kill. If we go into any scenario with this in mind, it is a win, win situation for both, Military and Civilians’ alike. To ask an Infantry Soldier to be politically inclined, not only distracts him from the mission, but causes introspection, leads to challenge leadership, or worse, death. Placing Military leaders in positions of higher responsibility without first having preformed those duties goes against the grain of the Leadership traits and character; rule number 1. Never ask a subordinate to perform a duty you have not mastered yourself. Only then will you understand the required result, or prevent an undesirable one. There is only right and wrong on the battlefield, GRAY MATTER KILLS the INNOCENT ! God Bless our Military leaders who accept responsibility by proving themselves first. Quotas don’t work, and they haven’t since inception.
    Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way..

  10. Gabriel says:

    Watcher…I had almost forgotten “Lead, follow, or get out of the way.” We both know that far too many want to use our military as a social experiment.

    News you can use.


Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Powered by WordPress | Designed by: Best CD Rates | Thanks to dcreators, Las Vegas Condo High Rises and FBF System