Why Would Anyone Want to Join the U.S. Military? By Mackubin Owens.
Plummeting confidence:
In its poll of attitudes toward the U.S. military, the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation found that the percentage of Americans expressing a great deal of trust and confidence in that institution had fallen from 70 percent in 2018 to 45 percent in 2021. …
Discriminating against the warriors:
The sort of people who traditionally have joined the military [are] men, especially, who recognize the inherent dignity and necessity of the martial virtues. These are the Americans Walter Russell Mead has called “Jacksonians,” committed to their family, tribe, and nation — fierce when provoked, eager to avenge an insult, but also willing to live and let live if only others will too.
They believe in the sort of military “ethos” that underpins unit cohesion and military effectiveness. This ethos, which has served the Republic well, is based on trust among soldiers, between superiors and subordinates, and, at the societal level, between soldiers on the one hand and citizens on the other. …
It has long been accepted that to execute the military’s functional imperative on behalf of the nation, it must maintain an ethos distinct from that of liberal society. Indeed, a liberal democracy faces a paradox when it comes to the relationship between the military and society at large: the former cannot govern itself in accordance with the democratic principles of that society.
Behavior that is acceptable, indeed even protected, in civil society is prohibited in the military. The military restricts its members’ freedom of movement and speech, and it prohibits certain relationships among members, such as fraternization. It stresses virtues that many civilians see as brutal and barbaric because the military is one of the few jobs where you may have to tell someone, “go die.”
If the military fails, the society it protects may not survive. And long experience has taught us that certain kinds of behavior are destructive of good order, discipline, and morale, without which a military organization will certainly fail. The goal of military policy must be victory on the battlefield, a purpose that cannot be in competition with any other, including the provision of entitlements, “equal opportunity,” or diversity. Indeed, the battlefield mocks “diversity” …
“As a Chinese, please allow me to say that the US military ad made me feel safer than ever before.”
Woke ideology undermines unity and destroys trust:
Attempts by the military to address an alleged lack of “diversity” in the ranks can actually make things worse by pushing “identity politics,” which, by suggesting that justice is a function of attributes such as skin color rather than one’s individuality, tends to divide people rather than unify them. Identity politics undermines military effectiveness, which depends on cohesion born of trust among those who operate together.
The US military used to be a color-blind meritocracy:
Because of its commitment to unit cohesion, the U.S. armed services have been at the forefront of achieving harmony and cooperation among what used to be considered true “diversity”: one of all races, ethnicities, religions, and regions. As the late military sociologist Charles Moskos observed 25 years ago, the U.S. Army was then the only American institution in which black men routinely gave orders to white men. … Although far from perfect, military service has been a “school of the nation.” …
Now it’s diverse and going woke and ineffective:
The commitment to “diversity” at all costs is today’s party line within the Pentagon. No one wants to be accused of racism or sexism so too many officers hold their tongues as the rank and file are indoctrinated by critical race theory (CRT) ideologues. Those who don’t can find themselves sacked. …
Political and military leaders have failed to define their terms. They have failed to identify incidents that constitute extremism or racist behavior. Is it resistance to CRT indoctrination? Is it conservative political views? Will the social media of military members be scrutinized? By whom?
Of course, there have been serious racial incidents involving military service members in the past. Military leaders never condoned such behavior and were quick to deal appropriately with the perpetrators. But such incidents have also been rare. The idea that racism and extremism are somehow pervasive throughout the military is a slander. …
A high-trust nation become low-trust:
The claim that extremism and white supremacy are widespread in the military undermines trust on two levels: first, between the American people and the military as an institution; and second, between the military rank-and-file and their leadership. …
Implying that extremism and white supremacy are rampant in the military can only engender disrespect for the military on the part of the American people and lead to condemnation. …
Regarding trust within the force, what is the rank-and-file soldier to think when both politicians and especially senior officers seem to suggest that supporting President Trump or traditionally conservative ideas such as gun rights and smaller, less intrusive government might make him or her a threat to the country? What will be the consequences for morale and discipline if the ranks believe that senior leaders have sold them out by their seeming willingness to go along with such accusations? …
Patriots not welcome any more:
I am personally aware of increasing disillusionment among service members who feel betrayed by their senior leadership. The sense of patriotism that inspired so many to join the service is undermined when soldiers come to believe their senior officers are willing to sacrifice them to trendy political ideas. …
The U.S. military claims to be a “profession.” But instead of defending its professional ethos, the Pentagon is revealing itself to be just another failed government bureaucracy pursuing its budgetary self-interest.
Going woke and breaking. The right sort of people no longer want to join.
