The first is from retired Marine Lieutenant-General Greg Newbold, who analyzes what he calls “Critical Military Theory“.
Many Americans, particularly our most senior politicians and military leaders, seem to have developed a form of dementia when it comes to warfare. The result is confusion or denial about the essential ingredients of a competent military force, and the costs of major power conflict. The memory loss is largely irrespective of political bent because all too many are seduced by a Hollywood infused sense of antiseptic warfare and push-button solutions, while forgotten are the one million casualties of the Battle of the Somme in World War I, or the almost two million in the Battle of Stalingrad in World War II.
This “warfare dementia” is a dangerous and potentially catastrophic malady, because the price for it could alter the success of the American experiment and most assuredly will be paid in blood. The condition is exacerbated and enabled when the most senior military leaders — those who ought to know better — defer to the idealistic judgments of those whose credentials are either nonexistent or formed entirely by ideology.
. . .
1. The U.S. military has two main purposes — to deter our enemies from engaging us in warfare, and if that fails, to defeat them in combat. Deterrence is only possible if the opposing force believes it will be defeated. Respect is not good enough; fear and certainty are required.
. . .
2. To be true to its purpose, the U.S. military cannot be a mirror image of the society it serves. Values that are admirable in civilian society — sensitivity, individuality, compassion, and tolerance for the less capable — are often antithetical to the traits that deter a potential enemy and win the wars that must be fought: Conformity, discipline, unity.
. . .
6. A military force’s greatest strengths are cohesion and discipline. Individuality or group identity is corrosive and a centrifugal force.
There’s more at the link. Highly recommended reading.
The second is a report about remarks made by Bishop Garrison, the senior advisor to the secretary of defense for human capital and diversity, equity and inclusion.
Garrison said the need for diversity, equity and inclusion to be a consideration or a part of all decisions in the military.
“I would hope that as many leaders and members of the total force as possible see [diversity, equity and inclusion] efforts as a force multiplier,” he said. He wants them to see the program as a way to make the U.S. military more successful in achieving critical missions and in making forces more lethal.
Bringing in more talented infantry personnel or military intelligence analysts is the goal for any program, he said. When the military gets recruits from diverse backgrounds, there will be more innovative thought, more innovative solutions to incredibly complex and complicated problems that are facing the national security apparatus today, he said. “I want people to see [diversity, equity and inclusion] as another tool in the toolkit and another way of solving these problems.
Again, more at the link.
I can’t imagine two more diametrically opposed views on what the US military should strive to be. Furthermore, I can’t imagine a situation where one view is manifestly so right, and the other manifestly so wrong, as to be self-evident. I speak as a combat veteran, and I can assure you: if I have a choice between one of Bishop Garrison’s “diversity, equity and inclusion” soldiers (who won’t be so much force multipliers as force disintegrators), or one of Lieutenant-General Newbold’s cohesive, well-disciplined fighting men, in the foxhole next to me . . . guess who I’m picking?
I can only hope and pray that my enemy will have listened to Bishop Garrison rather than LtGen Newbold. If they have, we’ll walk all over them with hobnailed boots. If, on the other hand, we have . . . we’re toast.
Peter
I think the circle can be squared like this: The Left wants the money that goes to rent seekers in and around the defense establishment, but it wants it for its own causes, which don't include inconveniencing the PRC.
So they grift as much as they can from the existing system, installing Green and woke officers and taking over the service academies in order to destroy military effectiveness. This will allow them to make the case that the military is not just a waste of money, it's ineffective to boot. If a few more warfighters have to die wagging the dog along the way, it gets rid of dangerous multiethnic white supremacists and further tarnishes the military. Win-win for the Left.
That's also part of why they want to defund local police: to wreck that system, and replace it with a "progressive" national police force built on the wreckage of the military. Sure, they might not be able to do much about China, but to keep down the political opposition, they'll be adequate.
The Left can then give international "peacekeeping" to the UN.
Total Transformation™!
I wish I could not see that happening.
I want nothing to do with the Bishop's view of the military; but it is being crammed down our throats anyway.
In the argument between unity and cohesion versus diversity and individuality, you would have thought the experience of, well, everyone in the known world vs. the Roman legions, 25 centuries thenceward, might have been instructive.
Individuals get ground up and spit out by coherent machines.
As the blue-haired transgendered 69th Intersectional Dildo Brigade (h/t BCE) will find out in 3, 2,…
It would be comedy gold, if only it were someone else's country.
For decades, I've fully supported LGen(r) Newbold's thesis (including living it, during my time in the Army). I just wish he would have found a way to include Robert Heinlein's quote "“The most expensive thing in the world is a second-best military establishment, good but not good enough to win.”