That’s exactly what we need for the U.S. military — more PC.
Political correctness has already poisoned the well of politics, education, public and private discourse, and the one institution that should not let political considerations interfere — the U.S. military.
On December 22, 2010, Obama signed the bill repealing “don’t ask don’t tell,” thereby ending the 17-year-old ban on openly gay men and women serving in the Armed Forces.
Then there is the Muslim jihadist, Army psychologist Nidal Hassan, who went on a shooting spree in Fort Hood in November 2009, killing 13 and wounding 30? Although Hassan made known his jihadist views in speech and writing, the Army did nothing.
Hassan’s murderous rampage prompted a feeble response from the Department of Defense (DoD) — a directive issued on November 27, 2009, restricting servicemembers’ free speech by forbidding them from actively advocating “supremacist doctrine, ideology, or causes,” including writing blogs or posting on Web sites. But it remains unclear how the DoD defines “extremist” and “supremacist”:
- Does “supremacist doctrine, ideology, or causes” include groups such as Jewish groups who believe that Jews are the Chosen People, or Muslims who believe that Islam — and by extension Islamists — is supreme?
- Do ”hate groups” include Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam that calls white people “blue eyed devils”; the Hispanic La Raza who advocates the retaking by the “brown race” of the American southwest as Reconquista; liberals who demonize conservative tea partiers with false accusations of racism; and gay rights activist groups such as Act Up, which describes itself as “a diverse, non-partisan group of individuals united in anger“?
- Or do “extremists” and “hate groups” mean Christians, pro-lifers, and pro-gun rights Americans? That’s what a leaked 2009 internal memo of Obama’s Dept of Homeland Security said. Despite the controversy generated by the leak, the DHS to this day has not repudiated its identification of Christians, pro-lifers, and pro-gun rights Americans as “extremists” and “hate groups.”
Now comes news of more PC poisoning of our military.
Yesterday, a report ordered by Congress deems the military to be too white and too male at the top, and calls for changing recruiting and promotion policies and a lift on the ban on women in combat.
Pauline Jelinek of AP reports, March 7, 2011, “Report says too many whites, men leading military” (H/t fellow Anon):
Seventy-seven percent of senior officers in the active-duty military are white, while only 8 percent are black, 5 percent are Hispanic and 16 percent are women, the report by an independent panel said, quoting data from September 2008.
One barrier that keeps women from the highest ranks is their inability to serve in combat units. Promotion and job opportunities have favored those with battlefield leadership credentials.
The report ordered by Congress in 2009 calls for greater diversity in the military’s leadership so it will better reflect the racial, ethnic and gender mix in the armed forces and in American society.
Efforts over the years to develop a more equal opportunity military have increased the number of women and racial and ethnic minorities in the ranks of leadership. But, the report said, “despite undeniable successes … the armed forces have not yet succeeded in developing a continuing stream of leaders who are as diverse as the nation they serve.” “This problem will only become more acute as the racial, ethnic and cultural makeup of the United States continues to change,” said the report from the Military Leadership Diversity Commission, whose more than two dozen members included current and former military personnel as well as businessmen and other civilians. Having military brass that better mirrors the nation can inspire future recruits and help create trust among the general population, the commission said.
Among recommendations is that the military eliminate policies that exclude women from combat units, phasing in additional career fields and units that they can be assigned to as long as they are qualified. A 1994 combat exclusion policy bans women from being assigned to ground combat units below the brigade level even though women have for years served in combat situations.
“If you look at today’s battlefield in Iraq and Afghanistan, it’s not like it was in the Cold War, when we had a defined battlefield,” retired Air Force Gen. Lester L. Lyles, the commission’s chairman, said in an interview. “Women serve — and they lead — military security, military police units, air defense units, intelligence units, all of which have to be right there with combat veterans in order to do the job appropriately.” Because they are technically attached to, but not assigned to, combat units, they don’t get credit for being in combat arms, something important for promotion to the most senior ranks.
Lyles said the commission consulted a panel of enlisted women on the issue. “I didn’t hear, `Rah, rah, we want to be in combat,'” Lyles said. “But I also didn’t hear, `We don’t want to be in combat.’ What they want is an equal opportunity to serve where their skills allow them to serve.”
Stretching the definition of diversity, the report also said the military must harness people with a greater range of skills and backgrounds in, for instance, cyber systems, languages and cultural knowledge to be able to operate in an era of new threats and to collaborate with international partners and others.
An acquaintance of mine (and Anon’s too) who had served for many years in the military and still has his ears to the ground sent us this:
“Promotion boards are already directed to ensure that a certain number of promotions go to minorities and women. [This is Affirmative Action on steroids, otherwise known as the racial/gender Quota System. ~Eowyn] That has been the case since the Clinton administration. I expect that the Obama administration will demand that general officer promotions be restricted to women and minorities until the proper ratio is achieved.”