The defeat-deranged elements of the American Left are unmasking themselves before the eyes of the nation’s electorate. The reaction to Donald Trump’s designation of three generals to senior posts has been hysterical in some of the farther quarters of progressivism, as if some coup were planned. But it is the mainstream where the unmasking is more meaningful.

Michael Ledeen writes a column at PJ Media that focuses on the incredible qualities of  the three generals: Michael Flynn to head the NSC, James Mattis to Defense, and John Kelly to Homeland Security, and I urge readers to take it in and understand the excellence of all three.

But what struck me was the ignorant stereotyping that many liberal-to-progressive journalists engage in when it comes to the military. Bigotry is not too strong a word for it.

Some pundits purport to be concerned about “too many” generals, raising the issue of civilian control of the military.  I’m not very concerned (disclosure: we’re a military family. Two of our sons served in the Marine Corps, and our daughter worked for military commanders, including Stanley McChrystal and Flynn, in Iraq and Afghanistan). I think the Marine Corps may be the best organization in America, and I believe that most of those who criticize the military appointments don’t know as much as they should about the composition of our armed forces. Most writers/pundits/broadcasters I talk to think that our soldiers are marginal losers, who probably entered the military because they couldn’t find anything “better” to do.

They are also inclined to believe that military leaders are less educated than the intellectual elite. Many don’t know that all our commissioned military officers have college degrees,  and most of them have done post-graduate study at top colleges and universities. Trump’s three nominees are  cultured, well read, and thoughtful.  They are certainly more deeply engaged, intellectually and emotionally, than most of the civilians headed for cabinet slots.  They know all about political correctness, for example, in very concrete ways, because the armed forces are the laboratories in which the PC theories of gender equality are most intensively tested. When Marine officers debate whether women should serve in infantry units, it’s not just academic; people will live or die based on the decision.

Read the whole thing.