Free Markets, Free People

Daily Archives: March 8, 2011

Is the military leadership “to white and to male?” Diversity gone wild …

Welcome to the new military – an affirmative action organization, that is if a certain panel gets its way:

The U.S. military is too white and too male at the top and needs to change recruiting and promotion policies and lift its ban on women in combat, an independent report for Congress said Monday.

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.


Is it working?

I think an unqualified “yes” is the answer. 

We sort of have to stop and talk about some basic things when we see a report like this.  And the first is “what is the purpose of the military – diversity or victory”?  Playing this sort of numbers game is stupid in an all volunteer force which has the job of defending the country.  We’re not talking the university campus or some corporate board.

What you want is the best leaders to rise to the top.  That isn’t to say that always happens, but to pretend that there’s an “acceptable” mix of ethnicity, race and gender that will optimize that leadership and improve the military is simply silly.

I object to this report not because it says we should allow women to serve in combat units – that’s an entirely different argument.  I object to it because of the stupidity of the premise that diversity is more important than effectiveness, especially in military matters.

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.

It isn’t the job of a military to “reflect [the] racial, ethnic and gender mix” of the nation in its leadership. Its job is to field the best military and military leadership it can, close with and destroy enemies of the US and protect and defend its citizens and way of life.   So it must reflect the best leadership available for the job REGARDLESS of race, ethnicity or gender.  On its face the report’s premise is just silly.  Women make up how much of the society in general?  50+%?

So in the name of diversity, given the panel’s statements,  50+% of the leadership in the Armed Forces should be women, regardless of their abilities or capacity to lead in combat?

That’s simply nonsense on a stick.  The military is and must remain a meritocracy.  And while I know that the very best don’t always rise to the top, a good enough portion of them do. And, shock of shocks, it all somehow works.  That’s what we want to encourage and continue REGARDLESS of race, ethnicity or gender.

Playing diversity games just to have pleasing numbers in “leadership” is nonsense, especially if there is no real need for it. 

Having military brass that better mirrors the nation can inspire future recruits and help create trust among the general population, the commission said.

Even more nonsense.  Having a military that they can depend on to kick an enemy’s rear effectively, quickly and efficiently is what will and does create “trust among the general population”.  And by the way, even with 10 years of war the military isn’t having any problem attracting or inspiring recruits with the leadership is has today.

Here’s a little thought provoker for you.  You own an NBA team.  Some independent panel asks:  “Is the NBA to black and to male”? 

You bet it is. 

So, what is the purpose of an NBA team?  To win basketball games and thereby put fans in the stands and make money. 

But in the the name of diversity, you require your team to reflect the race, ethnicity and gender numbers in the nation (other owners -liken them to other countries, like our enemies – refuse to go along with that nonsense).  Someone tell me how many games that team (remember it can only be 14% black and has to be 50% female) is going to win the next season, even though it will reflect America?

Any questions?



DSCC needs your help for a new slogan

Sen. Patty Murray, Chair of the Democratic Senate Campaign Committee (DSCC), wants help with formulating a “pithy catchphrase to rally the troops” according to POLITICO.

No seriously, they need help – and they’re outsourcing the effort.

POLITICO offers:

“Because Harry Reid really likes his nice Majority Leader office"

"Please, please, please vote for us in 2012!"

"Why not?"

"Will the last Senate Democrat in office please turn out the lights?"

A POLITICO reader suggests, "Hey, at least we didn’t flee".  A variation I like is “At least we’re not fleebaggers”. 

Moe Lane pops in with "Drink the Kool-aid". Lane also reminds us of the DSCC’s recent performance:

[T]he DSCC spent 97.8 million and went into debt for 8.9 million in order to lose six Senate seats and gain zero – [which] demonstrates handily that the DSCC cannot be trusted to come in out of the rain; wipe its own nose; or, indeed, wear its underpants underneath its outer clothing.

The Lonely Conservative suggests “Bend Over!”  Don Surber weighs in with:

“Democrats: Not Republicans since 1854.”

“Democrats: Because Republicans are icky.”

“Democrats: More Hope, Less Change.”

“The D Stands For Debtor.”

“Democrats: The Starter Party.”

Me? I’m kind of partial to "Our symbol isn’t a jackass for nothing".

And you?