Meet the US Army's 1st 4 star Female General

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

1. I was never trying to make this an argument but if you are going to post something like "her promotion is a way to get women to vote for McCain" especially since it was so obviously pointed out that he had nothing to do with it...then he has to prove it.

It's not a "provable" assertion - it's simply a theory or concept. In general, though, I agree with your point, but here I don't think it's super necessary.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

2. I wouldn't say it to you face to face? You don't think?? Ok...hehehe.....hint: Clark Kent isn't my offscreen name....

I'm not saying you'd be afraid to say it to my face, but rather that arguments of the sort don't make any sense there, and shouldn't here.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

3. Assume you are smart....well let's also assume that she is smart, that she has worked her ass off moving up the ranks for 33 years. Making her a 4 star general, I think is not just a gimmie.....

Like I said, I'm sure this is true - it doesn't automatically exclude the possibility of political shenanigans.

What if she was well qualified after 30 years, but there was no political expedience? Why weren't other qualified women put into this spot? We can't answer these questions, but it's an interesting concept, and not "inane" as you asserted.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

While you are busy beefing with me, if you did as I asked, you may have caught this at the end of the article:

"I am very honored but also very humbled today with this announcement," said Dunwoody. "I grew up in a family that didn't know what glass ceilings were. This nomination only reaffirms what I have known to be true about the military throughout my career ... that the doors continue to open for men and women in uniform."

The Army Materiel Command handles all material readiness for the Army. During her career, Dunwoody has been assigned to the 82nd Airborne Division, 10th Mountain Division and the Defense Logistics Agency. She served with the 82nd Airborne in Saudi Arabia during the 1991 Persian Gulf War.

She has been awarded the Distinguished Service Medal, Defense Superior Service Medal, the Legion of Merit, the Meritorious Service Medal, the Army Commendation Medal, the Army Achievement Medal, Master Parachutist Badge and the Army Staff Identification Badge.

The first woman to become a general officer in the U.S. armed services was Brig. Gen. Anna Mae Hays, chief of the Army Nurse Corps, who achieved the rank in 1970 and retired the following year.

Elizabeth Hoisington, the director of the Women's Army Corps, was promoted to brigadier general immediately after Hays. She also retired the following year.

Maj. Gen. Jeanne M. Holm, the first director of Women in the Air Force, was the first woman to wear two stars, attaining the rank in 1973 and retiring two years later. In 1996, Marine Lt. Gen. Carol A. Mutter became the first woman to wear three stars. Mutter retired in 1999.

Currently, there are 57 active-duty women serving as generals or admirals, five of whom are lieutenant generals or vice admirals, the Navy's three-star rank, according to the Pentagon.

With all that she has accomplished and with so few women ever attaining the rank of General, me personally feels that it's a slap in the face to just simply assume that her appointment (again without evidence to prove it) was simply a political move.

OK - that's fine if you feel that way, but I think your outrage is misplaced (also, I'm not 'beefing' but rather disagreeing - this isn't personal), since no one said "it's only because she's a woman!" or "it's only because they needed a woman for political reasons!" (both of which would be a legitimate 'slap in the face'), but rather that the timing may be beneficial to one candidate, which naturally lead to speculation and skepticism about the timing, not the candidate.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

It's not a "provable" assertion - it's simply a theory or concept. In general, though, I agree with your point, but here I don't think it's super necessary.



I'm not saying you'd be afraid to say it to my face, but rather that arguments of the sort don't make any sense there, and shouldn't here.



Like I said, I'm sure this is true - it doesn't automatically exclude the possibility of political shenanigans.

What if she was well qualified after 30 years, but there was no political expedience? Why weren't other qualified women put into this spot? We can't answer these questions, but it's an interesting concept, and not "inane" as you asserted.



OK - that's fine if you feel that way, but I think your outrage is misplaced (also, I'm not 'beefing' but rather disagreeing - this isn't personal), since no one said "it's only because she's a woman!" or "it's only because they needed a woman for political reasons!" (both of which would be a legitimate 'slap in the face'), but rather that the timing may be beneficial to one candidate, which naturally lead to speculation and skepticism about the timing, not the candidate.

1. I am not 'outraged' as you so finely put it...you take that I use my words as a hammer and not a scalpel and confuse it with outrage or anger... figure this... I shoot straight from the hip...with certain ones of you here I don't have time to waste being 'nice', I say what I have to say and roll on...I would have thought after one year...you would have figured that out.


2. Of course it's not super necessary and this could have died awhile ago if folks didn't keep jumping in trying to add on...I simply think it's a whacked out theory and unless someone can show otherwise...leave it be.

3. Sense? mmmmkay.....

4. Why weren't other qualified women.... siiiiiiiiigh....I think therein lies the whole point of the thread and something that we shouldn't dissect so dayumed much unless we have the inner working pf upper level military CoC at our disposal. WE DON'T KNOW. What we DO know is from the article, she was highly qualified and thus that is why she was nominated and approved. Now, here is the rub....were there men that were considered from the promotion that she competed with? Were there minority candidates? (Rhetorical....) Who else among her peers were also considered this promotion that she got it instead of them?


5. So, let's come to this, since this is obviously what some of you feel needs to be discussed...why (and what are the) would it benefit any candidate that she be promoted now as opposed to any other time?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

1. I am not 'outraged' as you so finely put it...you take that I use my words as a hammer and not a scalpel and confuse it with outrage or anger... figure this... I shoot straight from the hip...with certain ones of you here I don't have time to waste being 'nice', I say what I have to say and roll on...I would have thought after one year...you would have figured that out.

Trust me, I have it figured out - sometimes your "from the hip" approach is clear to you, but not really to anyone else, so I'm asking for clarification. It's not a dick move, I just don't get where you're coming from sometimes.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

4. Why weren't other qualified women.... siiiiiiiiigh....I think therein lies the whole point of the thread and something that we shouldn't dissect so dayumed much unless we have the inner working pf upper level military CoC at our disposal. WE DON'T KNOW. What we DO know is from the article, she was highly qualified and thus that is why she was nominated and approved. Now, here is the rub....were there men that were considered from the promotion that she competed with? Were there minority candidates? (Rhetorical....) Who else among her peers were also considered this promotion that she got it instead of them?

So you're basically saying that the Occam's Razor approach would be to trust the motives and etc. of the higher-ups?

Because generally, you're quite skeptical, especially of government or when it comes to society's treatment of protected classes (such as women in the workforce), so I'm just making sure I'm clear here.

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

5. So, let's come to this, since this is obviously what some of you feel needs to be discussed...why (and what are the) would it benefit any candidate that she be promoted now as opposed to any other time?

You may disagree with the utility of the mechanism, but it seems straightforward - McCain is closely aligned with (his own) military service and the military in general. Indeed, even his campaign logo uses a "military-style" star, so this alignment is recognized and embraced.

Positive, progressive press for the military - again, an institution with which McCain is closely aligned in the minds of many - may just serve as an indication of "progress" in the minds of some voters, which would be quite useful when competing for swing voters against a candidate whose entire platform is based on "change." This is especially true because McCain is markedly older than Obama, and may be associated with a less-progressive Republican party.

Will it work? I have no idea. Does it seem possible that the reasons for waiting until a slow point in the election cycle to appoint a new General may utilize such thinking? Sure, why not?