US The Problem with a ‘Woke’ Military

The Problem with a ‘Woke’ Military​

Robert M. Berg 13 hrs ago

1623044427168.png

I used to belong to a war-fighting organization, where we were taught a shared set of Army values. We were taught mission accomplishment before all else, enforced by “mission first and people always.” Within the Department of Defense (DoD) Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan we are told that “diversity is a strategic imperative — critical to mission readiness and accomplishment.” We are also told, by Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, that it must be a priority for the military “to look like America and not only in the ranks, but our leadership should look like America.” On the surface, this sounds okay. But it flips what had long been a soldier’s commitment to the Army and mission: The new priority turns the Army into a social experiment at the cost of mission readiness. The new push within the DoD for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goes well beyond measures to ensure equal opportunity and instead looks to create preferences that have nothing to do with merit. Our military will suffer if it does not change course.

a person that is standing in the grass: U.S. Army paratroopers with the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, participate in a pass-and-review during a change of command ceremony at Fort Bragg, N.C., June 26, 2019.
© Specialist Hubert D. Delany III/US Army U.S. Army paratroopers with the 82nd Combat Aviation Brigade, 82nd Airborne Division, participate in a pass-and-review during a change of command ceremony at Fort Bragg, N.C., June 26, 2019.

Believing that the Army should be and has been the best example of a meritocracy in the history of the world has become a forbidden position. The only acceptable position now is full acceptance of all elements of DEI. Examples abound, from the more benign recent recruiting messages depicting cartoon stories — one of an “activist” soldier — all the way to creating a new permanent DEI infrastructure to push policies in line with critical race theory. That I am not allowed to openly hold the position that war-fighting and combat readiness should be the Army’s top priority, while being force-fed a radical DEI agenda, demonstrates the open erosion of mission-first principles within the military.

This is a real and serious change, and politician veterans such as Senator Tom Cotton and Representative Dan Crenshaw are right to be worried about it. The Army used to be a values-based organization focused on mission accomplishment above all else. These values were drilled into every soldier during initial entry training and reinforced at unit level. This was done through two long-standing Army traditions, an inability to spell and the overwhelming need to make everything an acronym. So we settled on LDRSHIP (pronounced “leadership”): loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. These values were all pitched toward the idea of leaving your past behind, as you had become part of an organization with a larger purpose. Diversity is not our strength; our shared values and singularity of purpose toward mission accomplishment is our strength. In fact, to “fight and win our nation’s wars,” we need conformity toward the mission-first mindset. We were taught that what came before the Army did not matter. All that matters was how you form a team to accomplish a wide range of demanding mission sets.

The Army does not exist to care for soldiers. Soldiers should not join the Army to be cared for by the Army. It is called “service” for a reason, and military members are still the most respected profession in the country because of the acknowledgment of the sacrifices required for service. Soldiers enter the Army fully understanding the individual sacrifices required for service. While individual welfare is important, it is secondary to mission accomplishment.

By definition, the Army is not inclusive. You can be excluded from service for a wide range of reasons, many (though not all) of which are out of the control of the potential recruit. We have all heard that over 70 percent of our youth are not qualified for military service, because we are exclusively looking for people who can meet the physical and physiological demands of service. If Austin really wanted a military that “look[ed] like America,” he would have to abandon such requirements entirely. Now of course, military exclusivity should be directly related to one’s ability or inability to perform the role one is potentially being recruited for. But to say that DEI policies are always strategic imperatives, without offering any evidence as to why, is simply fantasy.

It is true that recruiting from a broad breadth of society will strengthen the military, by ensuring the whole of the country is vested in defense of the nation. However, the idea that celebrating and promoting “diversity and inclusion” — emphasizing things such as race, religion, gender, or other non-merit-based traits instead of focusing on common culture and combat readiness — enhances the Army lacks evidence. In fact, DEI should not be used in any decisions within military manning or policy after initial recruitment. Attempting to highlight these external “traits” as bearing weight in making decisions for assignments, policy, or training ignores what the real strength of the military is. Unity of purpose and a shared set of core military values of individual merit is what binds us, not lumping people into “diversity” buckets.

Instead of focusing on war-fighting principles and shared values, the Army has decided to engage in a constant bombardment in the name of equity, from rolling out ill-conceived training on everything from unconscious bias to critical race theory and standing up DEI offices at every level. The Special Operations Command Diversity and Inclusion Strategic Plan 2021 outlines what the rest of the force can expect: “Establish corporate diversity and inclusion infrastructure throughout the enterprise . . . to build a permanent framework for sustained, meaningful efforts.” The idea is to create a new permanent bureaucracy to enforce “equity” regardless of merit. The document even boasts, under best practices, that they have added “unconscious bias [training and] . . . diversity and inclusion modules to its Executive Training with the goal of advancing and messaging diversity and inclusion.”

The Army People Strategy from September 2020 has an entire annex dedicated to “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” This document calls for the creation of permanent organizations with the following as an ultimate goal: “Army resources all DEI agencies and staff to levels that allow continuous monitoring, assessing, and updating of DEI policies, programs, and procedures which seek to prevent biases against any Soldier or Civilian.” In other words, you will comply or else, and diversity is a strategic imperative because we say so. “The Army . . . must also understand how to communicate why DEI is critical to the success of the Army profession and how to appreciate, leverage, and integrate principles of DEI into all aspects of its operations.” (Emphasis added.)

I fully expect to see DEI officers at every level — who will operate outside of the command they are there to “support” — to ensure that quotas are met and that radicalized, race-based training is conducted. The strategy states that it is imperative to “ensure DEI principles and policies are integrated into the Army Campaign Plan, Army People Strategy, and Army talent-management processes for all military and civilian personnel.” In other words, goals and targets will be met regardless of the effect on the fighting force, and the new DEI bureaucracy will be there to ensure your compliance. It goes on to say that the Army will “establish and implement procedures for achieving desired Army diversity outcomes through diversity policy and talent management principles and practices.” (Emphasis added.) Let there be no doubt, this is well beyond equal opportunity: This is race- and sex-based preferences.

Military skills are unique, so your past experiences lend you little aid. The military truly is a humbling experience to all. It forces people to either rise to the occasion or fall by the wayside, neither of which has anything to do with race, sex, or other immutable (but superfluous) traits. The only way to succeed is to conform to the military team mindset and judge those around you by how they contribute to the team and mission, while rejecting those who refuse to honor the military values and individual merit. To remain the fighting force this country needs, military leaders should discard this nonsense that the military is systemically oppressive and requires DEI-based correction. They should instead highlight the military as the example where your past does not matter, but only your willingness to work toward a common mission does. Show the military for what it is: an organization in which our unity and our values are our strength.

These DEI efforts are not designed to unite us but instead look to create a permanent structure to ensure that “woke” policies are enforced throughout the Army, with little or no thought given to mission priorities. I have yet to see a single document about DEI that makes a creditable case that DEI efforts are designed foremost with mission accomplishment in mind. These new DEI policies and offices are not designed to unite us. Indeed, they go well beyond a simple distraction from mission priorities. They are being pushed as the priority. Bring back war-fighting and mission-first mindset as our priorities. After all, it is only the defense of the free world at stake.



 
It's the same here in the states, Special Forces are largely white because swim qual drops a lot of blacks.
You're only partly wrong; whites are now a minority in those circles because of all the Mendozas & Lopezes

It's just not as common now to see blacks in SF because they learned it wasn't necessary to work that hard, regular infantry suffices due to optempo, and they still get to fuck shit up, usually places & people.

I'm being halfway facetious; there's still plenty of blacks in SF; they're just all command master sergeants, and the fuckers never retire.
 
Just think of all the boys that survived landing on the beach decades ago only for that effort to turn into the same army they served in running an esports division where servicewomyn post anime on twitter.
 
Cohesion-wise, America would lose. Manpower-wise, America would lose. Tech-wise, America would win but not for much longer. Both nations have nukes so America can't bully China like they do to Germany, Japan, and other occupied nations. Oh, and China has all the factories, which I'm sure already have contingencies for conversion into weapon and ammunition plants should a war break out. Meanwhile in the dying American salad bowl the warring tribes brought in since LBJ's reign have just about reached their boiling points. Dieversity is death, and a Billion+ population of common-goal, same race tribesmen will Easily steamroll the divided and dying Banana Republic - along with its dying Pedophile President, if he is still shambling by then. If he's not around then China gets to help rid the world of another baboon.
I think in an actual no-bullshit war, the US military would still prevail in the end, but you would see all the dead weight personnel (read: women, trannies and soy boys) nope the fuck out.
Sure worked well for the Wehrmacht, didn't it?
TFW you live see the US military gradually become the Wokemacht.
 
”The role of the infantry is to seek out and close with the enemy; to kill or capture him; to seize and hold ground, by day or by night, regardless of season, weather or terrain.”
“The role of the new infantry is to seek and call out institutionalized social injustice; to whine and complain about it; to promote those that complain the loudest, based on skin color, ethnicity or gender.”

One of these is a military branch. The other one is a gay pride float.
Choose well, Western Civilization.
 
There has definitely been a place for certain social initiatives in the military over the years. Desegregation on the basis of race was badly needed. Integrating women into the military was needed, but I don't agree with gender-norming and placing women in ground combat jobs. I still shudder inside remembering the female "paratrooper" I saw during my last assignment - overweight and smoked.

Far as the homosexual issue goes, "don't ask, don't tell" worked and should have gone no further. Tolerance is fine, but glorification is not.

The "woke" stuff only hurts the military. Instead, I advocate simply treating everyone with courtesy and respect, and dealing with those who cannot do that. Worked for me as a commander/leader. Not rocket science.

Spending time on the various "awareness" days/weeks/months/events is a waste. At best, could see starting the day with a blurb from the base social actions office, noting accomplishments of someone/some someones from whatever group is being noticed that time period.

I sure would like to know just how many of these people trying to shove "woke" up the military's ass have any combat experience whatsoever. Very, very few, I'd say. I served under wartime conditions, but never in combat. Didn't give a fuck about the race/sex of whoever I was working with or was working for me, long as the job got done. What that person did or didn't do in bed was not my business. Performance was my only benchmark, as it should be, and I never had a problem providing any support I could provide to someone I was working with or who was working for me.

Mercifully for us, the Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean militaries are at least as fucked up as we are, in their own ways, if not worse. If we ever had to fight a near-peer who had their shit together things would not be pretty.
 
I wonder if civilians realize just how much adding females to previously segregated units really messes everything up. From the barracks to the motor pool to your place of duty, even the chowhall.

Probably not, just like they don't realize just how many problems and how expensive it is going to be to change the names on all of those bases that the Democrats are screaming about.

Just Fort Hood's namechange is going to cost literally tens of billions of dollars and cause problems for decades.
 
Mixed-gender units have lower morale, because of sexual tension which causes unconscious biases and conflicts.
Sexual tension won't also come from gay soldiers? Especially now that they no longer boot outed homosexuals from the military and they dropped 'don't ask, don't tell.'


Biologically, women are unfit for frontline duty and utilising them as such is a waste of human resources.
Pew pews are the great equaliser. A good gun can drop a charging bull elephant, even though he's 4 tons and strong as hell. It doesn't matter what is coming after you as long as you aim for center mass and shoot to kill.
 
Sexual tension won't also come from gay soldiers? Especially now that they no longer boot outed homosexuals from the military and they dropped 'don't ask, don't tell.'



Pew pews are the great equaliser. A good gun can drop a charging bull elephant, even though he's 4 tons and strong as hell. It doesn't matter what is coming after you as long as you aim for center mass and shoot to kill.
You've clearly never experienced camaraderie among bros or carried gear in your life. Go do that and then re-do it but bring your girlfriends along and see how smoothly things go.

The gay sexual tension doesn't exist, it's just you assuming it does as some sort of cop out. Men treat women differently than they do other men, regardless of anyone's sexuality.
 
Mixed-gender units have lower morale, because of sexual tension which causes unconscious biases and conflicts. Biologically, women are unfit for frontline duty and utilising them as such is a waste of human resources.
So you're saying the solution is more all-female units like Gaddafi's Amazon brigade?
 
Pew pews are the great equaliser. A good gun can drop a charging bull elephant, even though he's 4 tons and strong as hell. It doesn't matter what is coming after you as long as you aim for center mass and shoot to kill.
There's more to the military than Pew Pew.

Even the line slime know that with as much shit as they give the REMFs.

How do you disable a tank? Kill the mechanic.

One thing you quickly realize and compartmentalize is the fact that if you've got a work intensive job, you want your crew full of males or at least the female troops be dykes. Female troops fall out faster, lack the strength to continue to do high impact physical labor, or even handle sleep deprivation the same way the male troops do. Male troops have a higher tolerance for shitty conditions, both mentally and physically, than female troops.

That's not to say there isn't exemplary female troops, but believing that the Pew Pew makes everything else irrelevant is ignorant at best.
 
Mercifully for us, the Russian, Chinese, Iranian, and North Korean militaries are at least as fucked up as we are, in their own ways, if not worse. If we ever had to fight a near-peer who had their shit together things would not be pretty.
It does make me wonder if another, real 9/11 happened, would people sign up and enlist or just say, "eh, fuck it."
 
It does make me wonder if another, real 9/11 happened, would people sign up and enlist or just say, "eh, fuck it."

A very good point.

There will always be some who will join to defend the country. These people will largely be from the Midwest, South, and Southwest.

My guess...a lot of the "woke" either wouldn't enlist or wouldn't qualify for enlistment. They've enjoyed those gibs so long, see no reason to do a single thing to earn them. These people will be from coastal areas and urban areas. Would also say this will get a great deal of publicity.
 
It does make me wonder if another, real 9/11 happened, would people sign up and enlist or just say, "eh, fuck it."
Join4GIBill won't.

People who believe in the cause, the country, they will still sign up even if they know they'll get a raw deal when they get out or while they're in.

It's the nature of the beast.
 
Join4GIBill won't.

People who believe in the cause, the country, they will still sign up even if they know they'll get a raw deal when they get out or while they're in.

It's the nature of the beast.
But what is the cause anymore and what is American values these days? It used to mean Protestant work ethic and duty to the US of A. Is it even worth defending anymore?
 
I wonder if civilians realize just how much adding females to previously segregated units really messes everything up. From the barracks to the motor pool to your place of duty, even the chowhall.

Probably not, just like they don't realize just how many problems and how expensive it is going to be to change the names on all of those bases that the Democrats are screaming about.

Just Fort Hood's namechange is going to cost literally tens of billions of dollars and cause problems for decades.
Remember the outrage caused by Trump’s troon ban, when troons have all the disadvantages of women with a massive dose of histrionic cunt as well?
 
Remember the outrage caused by Trump’s troon ban, when troons have all the disadvantages of women with a massive dose of histrionic cunt as well?
I remember.

Shit, I lost a few 'fakebook friends' over that shit. They were blathering on and on about how Viagra costs millions for the military but troons are perfectly fine.

I went into a shitload of details about the difference, mainly how the 'dick pills' were used for spinal injury, blood pressure, and even mental health issues, and troons require CONSTANT medical care.

Then the 'just give them desk jobs' bit they tried they got pissed when I reminded them that 4th Generation Warfare means no more front lines and counting on your supply lines always being intact is a symptom of victory disease.

"It's just one little shot..." got countered with the fact diabetics can't stay in service either and get separated almost instantly.

Then I got into the fact that the flesh tube for FtM could get damaged or go necrotic without even the person knowing because there are no nerves or pain response to the fake arm-roll cock, and how the ones with stink ditches have compromised pelvic floors in a culture that needs to be able to carry shit around, how dialation has to happen or they lose depth/it closes up and they can't take the 2-3 hours every fucking day to do it. It makes them unreliable. Then I got into infection vectors and risks just for healthy people, staring with gear strap abrasions and finishing with 'sand rub' and 'dirt rub'. When asked how I knew all this I told them I did some research so I knew wtf I was talking about.

Then it was "well... they want to serve so how come you think it's ok to destroy their dream' and I asked if my dream was to be able to nut all over their face at 6AM every day, why do they think it's ok to destroy my dream, since there's less chance of catastrophic results anyway.

Troons are absolutely incompatible with the military, even pre-operative ones. The emotional swings of E and T combined with mental illness that makes them want to troon out is a recipe for disaster.

Remember, Bradley Manning was a histronic proto-troon when he released state secrets, cost people their lives, and was hailed as a hero by the left. If he'd been kicked the fuck out instead of the command worrying about pissing off EO because the little shit was going to cause trouble, a shitload of trouble could have been avoided.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo