Most Leaders Aren't Really Leaders at All!

By Rich Kozlovich

We have a problem with language and definition in America.  I've been accused of not being reasonable.  Is it that I'm not reasonable, or is the problem a matter of definition?  Adversaries define reasonable as going along to get along, with their views and wants.  

The dictionary defines reasonable as making sensible and fair decisions based on facts, reason, and logic.   And while history isn't in that definition, history plays big in being truly reasonable.  And so my response has always been:  "When have I ever not been reasonable?"  

Well folks, now is the time to be "reasonable", using reason, logic, facts, and history.

On July 22, 2023 Kristina Wong posted this article, Air Force Academy Head Says He Supports Fellowship for ‘Demigender’ Cadets but Does Not Know What It Means, saying:

Air Force Academy Superintendent Lt. Gen. Richard Clark could not define the term “demigender” when asked this week in Congress to defend the Academy supporting a fellowship opportunity for “demigender” people. Under questioning from Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL), Clark confirmed that the population that makes up the fighting force are mostly men, and mostly cisgender men. Gaetz asked him if he was familiar with the Brooke Owens Fellowship, promoted by the academy. Clark confirmed he was familiar with the fellowship. Gaetz then asked him why, if he supported diversity in the military, the academy is promoting a fellowship that excludes cisgender persons from applying. “So you just said…it’s all about the fighting force that we draw from, but you’re literally pushing a program in the academies that says, if you’re a cisgender woman, a transgender woman, a non-binary, a-gender, bi-gender, two-spirit, demigender — what’s demigender?” Gaetz asked Clark.............  When asked again what “demigender” meant, Clark finally responded, “I’m not really sure, sir.”  When asked if he knew what “a-gender” meant, Clark said, “Sir, I don’t.”

In short, here's a three star general who's the head of the Air Force Academy promoting something he didn't understand and couldn't define. While Republican Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama, who "has been stalling promotions for more than 150 generals and flag officers over a policy that funds travel costs for servicemembers seeking abortions", has been criticized for "jeopardizing our national security”.  Which of these two do you think are in reality impacting national security negatively? 

Ultimately though, it's Biden who's responsible since he's made it clear he won't sign any legislation regarding the military unless it includes funding for DEI, abortion, and gender transitions!  All of which has nothing to do with military readiness or national security.  Those are all social engineering issues, all of which all the senior military "leaders" have signed on to.  Tuberville's efforts to stall promotions needs to be replaced with efforts to purge them from the military, just as Obama purged those who didn't go along to get along and replaced them with nitwits. 

So, who do you really think is jeopardizing national security?

When you see this kind of stuff you have to wonder how does someone this stupid become a three star general? Well, I have the answer.  About ten years ago or so while in Washington on my industry's trade association legislative day one of my companions had been a graduate of the Air Force Academy many years back. He told us one of the dumbest guys in his class made the Air Force a career and was now a two star general.

I can say honestly from my personal experience in the service, butt kissing and brown nosing is far more important than smarts when it comes to promotions in the military, and Col. John Boyd showed what happens when you defy the generals, many of whom I don't think are all that bright. 

The fact is the two groups everyone assumes are real leaders, aren't, that's military officers and Ph.D. candidates.  

• Show me a junior military officers who tells senior officers they're all wrong and can prove it, I'll show you an career junior officer.  
• Show me a Ph.D. candidate who tells the Ph.D's. during his oral dissertations they're views are all wrong, and proves it, and I will show you a career Masters degree academic.

They learn very early on they have to go along to get along in order to get what they want, and that pattern of thinking becomes intrinsic to their character, removing any vestige of a backbone.  Make no mistake about it, their ability to be the rock in the current, or the ability to row against the tide is non existent.  They're not leaders, they're mangers who are merely organizing the direction others have decided on.  

Former Speaker of the House John Boehner once said a leader without followers is a man taking a walk by himself.  While that may be true, the lack of followers that doesn't make them any less a leader, because a real leader will stand up for what's right and true, willing to say "you're all wrong, and I'm going to tell you why".  Having the courage and willingness to stand against the slings and arrows of his adversaries, even if he has to do it all alone. 

Heterodoxy isn't for the faint of heart, and real leaders don't countenance the faint of heart. To be, or to do?  Which way will you go?