A strong military strategy must not be bound to political correctness
There have been many articles written about “political correctness” and how it has effectively silenced any dissent from our military leaders. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs by Michael E. O’Hanlon and David H. Petraeus, titled “America’s Awesome Military,” the authors continue to promote political correctness and the Obama administration’s propaganda that “the United States has the best military in the world today, and have few, if any weaknesses.” They go on to argue that “no radical changes or major buildups are needed.” They must be delusional, since the impact of sequestration has decimated our military force structure and capabilities. Further, they clearly do not understand one of our main threats — the global jihad movement — which is not “Islamic extremists” but rather a whole-of-civilization assault against the West, by the Dar al-Islam, that obligates all Muslims to fight jihad for total world conquest.
Compounding the problem are the social engineering mandates that have been forced on our military, all under the guise of “diversity.” This includes the removal of “Don’t Ask-Don’t Tell” and now the forced inclusion of “transgender” personnel. Dr. Paul McHugh, former head psychiatrist at Johns Hopkins, has documented that “transgender[ism]” is a “mental disorder” and needs treatment. It is not a civil rights issue and should never be forced on our military.
Another ill-advised directive is the Obama administration’s dictum to open all combat roles to women. Despite in-depth multiple studies, including a recent U.S. Marine Corps nine-month study which clearly showed that women are incapable of performing strenuous combat roles and that their inclusion adversely affects unit effectiveness, these concerns have all been dismissed. Not one of these social-engineering forced mandates improve combat readiness or effectiveness.
Make no mistake, these changes are not cosmetic. They affect the very fabric of the customs and traditions of our military. As a result, our military forces will suffer more casualties and permanent injuries. One of the more egregious dictums to be imposed on our combat forces is the restricted Rules of Engagement (ROEs), which have cost the loss of so many military lives and permanent injuries. In an article written by Capt. Joe John on Feb. 14, 2014, he addressed the net impact of these restricted ROEs. It has resulted in a net increase in our combat fatalities by “400 percent” per year, and wounded by 378 percent. From 2001 to 2008, combat fatalities averaged 90 per year operating under standard ROEs for a total of 630 loss of life spanning eight years. However, between 2009 and 2013, the number of combat fatalities dramatically jumped to 458 per year for a total loss of 2,292 personnel using President Obama’s ROEs.
Recently, the secretary of the Air Force announced new diversity and inclusion initiatives. Shockingly, it includes new forced diversity requirements for certain promotion criteria including selection board composition. It even goes down to the level of which enlisted personnel will be selected for recruitment duty. Unbelievable.
The Air Force directive identifies service career fields that have “historically” lacked diversity including piloting; air battle management; combat systems operations; and cyber and intelligence operations. Commanding officers in these fields will be forced to submit plans to reverse the trend. The message is clear. If you want to get promoted, you will have to embrace enthusiastically the new diversity and inclusion initiatives.
Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter separately stated that in order to succeed in our mission of national security, we cannot afford to cut ourselves off from half the country’s talent and skills. We must continue to benefit from the best people America has to offer. I totally agree. Therefore, “diversity” should never be our number one priority for the military. We must have the best and brightest. That used to be our standard and it must be restored.
Political correctness is not limited to the social engineering and ROE mandates. Since Mr. Obama refuses to identify the enemy — Islamic supremacists — or associate Islam with terrorism, the national military strategy currently being developed by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will most likely be flawed but politically correct. In an October 3 article by Jed Babbin, he points out that the U.S. Special Operations Command wants the new strategy to reflect the threat of Salafist Islam. It’s what provides the ideological underpinning of the global jihad movement reflected in atrocious acts by the Islamic State. Salafist Islam accurately reflects the authoritative doctrinal Islam of the Koran and Sunna and rejects all modern norms, especially democracy, because democracy places manmade laws above Islam’s Shariah. It’s what drives Muslims in the global jihad movement to achieve the “submission” of the world to Islamic law — Shariah.
Our national military strategy must accurately address all threats including Islamic supremacists that drive the global jihad movement as well as Iran, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the Muslim Brotherhood. Such an all-inclusive strategy must be devised that reflects the best military advice. In so doing, the Joint Chiefs of Staff must all understand that their oath of office is to the Constitution, and not to the president. While our military leaders submit to civilian control, the Constitution is the country’s rule of law.
Likewise, they are duty-bound not to follow any order that is illegal or immoral. The mandate is clear. Political correctness should have no place or impact on developing a military strategy that will protect the national security of the country. It must be firmly rejected.
This column was originally published at The Washington Times.