War The Military Doesn’t Need DEI

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

The Military Doesn’t Need DEI​

By RICH LOWRY

July 18, 2023 6:30 AM

Is the Marine operating a howitzer going to be more proficient if he’s familiar with the work of Ibram X. Kendi?

House Republicans voted to end DEI programs and personnel at the Pentagon, and one wonders whether the U.S. military will ever be the same.
The provision was one of a number of anti-woke measures in the House-passed National Defense Authorization Act — including reversing the Pentagon’s new abortion-enabling paid travel and leave policies — that have occasioned sputtering outrage.

According to National Security Council spokesman John Kirby, there’s no way that President Biden would ever sign such legislation “that would put our troops at greater risk or put our readiness at risk.”

America’s leaders used to worry that we wouldn’t have enough stopping power to defend against Soviet tanks potentially pouring through the Fulda Gap, or a survivable nuclear force in the event of a nuclear first strike; now they worry that service members might not be learning enough about microaggressions.
Last year, Bishop Garrison, serving at the time as the senior adviser to the secretary of defense for human capital and diversity, equity, and inclusion, said DEI needs to be part of every decision that the military makes — it’s a “force multiplier” and will make the military more lethal.

It’s not clear how this could possibly be true. Is the Marine operating a howitzer going to be more proficient if he’s familiar with the work of Ibram X. Kendi? Will our fighter pilots be better at aerial warfare if they think the U.S. is defined by systemic racism? Are our submariners lacking so long as they don’t know that it’s supposedly offensive to ask someone with an accent where he or she is from?

If diversity training is so crucial to a fighting force, maybe we should stop sending so many munitions to Ukraine and ship the embattled country PowerPoint presentations on equity instead?

The U.S. military has been a model for decades of how to build a racially diverse institution that is united by a common purpose and standards. That doesn’t mean it is perfect — nothing is — but it was notably diverse long before anyone thought it needed DEI training.

Thankfully, by its standards, the Pentagon doesn’t spend much on DEI. It requested just $115 million in 2023, although that was an increase of nearly $30 million.
This suggests that the personnel and programming around DEI can be easily axed, and they should be.

DEI is a scammy fad that has ballooned into a more than $3 billion industry even though there’s no solid evidence that it works, and it may well make things worse.
As the left-of-center author and podcaster Jesse Singal writes, DEI programs often “seem geared more toward sparking a revolutionary reunderstanding of race relations than solving organizations’ specific problems. And they often blame white people — or their culture — for harming people of color.”

Why does the military, of all institutions, need that?

At the very least, DEI is another administrative burden. A recent report on the fighting culture of the U.S. Navy prepared at the direction of Senator Tom Cotton and several Republican congressmen noted that “non-combat curricula consume Navy resources, clog inboxes, create administrative quagmires, and monopolize precious training time.”

At worst, it is injecting a poisonous ideology into a fighting force that needs to look past racial and other divisions and needs to believe in this country’s worth.
Those who want DEI in the armed forces either can’t distinguish between the military and an elite liberal-arts college, or want it to be corrupted by the same rotten ideas.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said the NDAA shows that “extreme MAGA Republicans are willing to even detonate the ability of our military to do what it needs to do to keep us safe.”

To the contrary, it is progressives who want the military to bend to their ideological imperatives. We aren’t going to deter or — if it comes to that — defeat an adversary like China with DEI trainers or self-flagellating nonsense about our society’s supposed irredeemable flaws.



 
Thankfully, by its standards, the Pentagon doesn’t spend much on DEI. It requested just $115 million in 2023, although that was an increase of nearly $30 million.
How much of that could you have spent on replenishing our 155mm shell reserves, building more TOW and Javelin missile replacements, or just updating more Abrams tanks to the Sep v3 standard? A lot, that's the answer.
 
DEI is hilariously racist against everyone. It promotes self-segregation. It denigrates merit. It boils people down to their skin color and what is between their legs.

It is the result of big business shoving black women with degrees but no real skills or intelligence into HR for decades and allowing progressive morons to move them up in the ranks of academia based on nothing but their melanin count and weave styling.

The sooner businesses cut out the tumor the better off they are going to be because at some point workers are going to stop just accepting the meetings and training and start lawyering up. And it will not just be a bunch of whites banding together either it will be everyone with commonsense vs the tards grifting.

Actually that is fine. Stay the course!
 
The DEI shit was the last straw that alienated the core base of likely recruits after all the damage the GWOT did to the idea of serving, if anything ditching it is a last measure of self-preservation on the part of the DoD.
 
Let's just abbreviate it properly and call it exactly what is, DIE, as it is not GOD or even a god. It's death to everything it touches. Our military needs no help in that department these days, unfortunately.
 
Last year, Bishop Garrison, serving at the time as the senior adviser to the secretary of defense for human capital and diversity, equity, and inclusion, said DEI needs to be part of every decision that the military makes — it’s a “force multiplier” and will make the military more lethal.

Multiplying by a negative number I assume...
 
The military is an organ of the government, and thus implements the US government's agenda and policies.

It's just that now, that agenda is the enforcement of Clown World orthodoxies, even at the expense of what it should be doing: protecting the country from foreign and domestic threats.
I know guys who are Active Duty who are talking about how they spend more time in stupid ass briefings than they do training.
That's why I think Wokeism in the military is a symptom of its dysfunction, not its cause. It's misplaced priorities. The military is more concerned with being a glorified jobs program/HR department than it is fighting America's enemies.
 
I know that none of the letters in DEI match the actual intent of the people implementing them, but the military has been very diverse, equitable (in less obvious ways, of course there's ranks and pay grades), and inclusive for a while. With the exception of the Air Force, minorities have long been overrepresented to varying degrees, making it diverse. Everyone gets great healthcare and benefits, plus, like a lot of government jobs, you're entitled to a level of job security that you'd have to murder your boss to get fired, so a decent amount of equity. It's also been quite inclusive, given physical standards have been lowered for women and fat people, and a score of 16 (depending on other things) on the ASVAB can get you in. The Army will also take people as old as 42, and if you have a college degree, the Navy has positions where you don't age out until 54.
 
I know that none of the letters in DEI match the actual intent of the people implementing them, but the military has been very diverse, equitable (in less obvious ways, of course there's ranks and pay grades), and inclusive for a while. With the exception of the Air Force, minorities have long been overrepresented to varying degrees, making it diverse. Everyone gets great healthcare and benefits, plus, like a lot of government jobs, you're entitled to a level of job security that you'd have to murder your boss to get fired, so a decent amount of equity. It's also been quite inclusive, given physical standards have been lowered for women and fat people, and a score of 16 (depending on other things) on the ASVAB can get you in. The Army will also take people as old as 42, and if you have a college degree, the Navy has positions where you don't age out until 54.
Wouldn't getting a 16 indicate borderline illiteracy? The ASVAB is one of the easiest tests there is.
 
Wouldn't getting a 16 indicate borderline illiteracy? The ASVAB is one of the easiest tests there is.
Basically yes. The Air Force and Navy won't take you in that case, but the Army and Marines still might.
What? Dude, have you seen a Weapons flight? They're usually 80% niggers.
Maybe that's where the Air Force sticks its niggers, but all the stats I can find show the Air Force is usually over 70% white. My own experience with them (as a military brat, so this is a while ago) was even whiter, because it was with flight crew like pilots and navigators, things you're not going to trust niggers with. Never had any experience with weapons flight.
 
Back
Top Bottom