It is early morning, and I have had my first cup of coffee. My dismay at the SECDEF appointment hasn't gone away, but let me try to be a bit less snarky though a bit more pedantic in my reasoning.
@sgt_zim is correct in that DEI is an issue in the US military. After approximately three years of implementation, it has risen to the point of mild annoyance at Brigade and below in the ground forces and Wing and below in the Air Force. And no, DEI officers are not assigned to unit level. Though a training officer and NCO will have been given the unenviable responsibility of ensuring the unit meets whatever annual briefing/training is required - just like a host of other non-combat related briefing/training requirements units are directed to receive ranging from suicide prevention to substance abuse.
The real danger with DEI is that it would eventually pollute the promotion system and adversely affect the perception of the Armed forces as a merit based institution. The former has not yet occured. No centralized promotion board in any service has a DEI-based quota. There have been some changes. For instance, the files used by US Army officer promotion boards that select officers for promotion, schooling, and command no longer contain any race or ethnicity indicators. The official photograph was eliminated. For a meritocracy, perhaps that is not an altogether bad idea.
Public, even intra-service perception has been a very different issue. Political appointees in suits and dresses (whatever their gender)
created the initial recruiting campaigns that have failed so spectacularly for the Army in particular. That is why over the last year you have all seen the resurrection of the "Be All You Can Be" recruiting slogan and much more focus on soldiers being soldiers.
But, DEI is far from being the primary reason for a shortfall in recruiting. Across much of the nation, recruiters were not operating in most of the nation's high schools for the better part of two-years thanks to the pandemic. Also, unemployment is at historically low levels. Additionally, the percentage of obese high school graduate age young men and women has risen dramatically over the last decade.
Recruiting is also a regionally, and thus politically, driven effort. In the old Confederacy and lower Midwest, the military remains a highly respected institution, and those regional goals are being met - even exceeded. But on the highly populated coasts, reflecting a very different political climate, all uniformed service (including the police) have suffered a significant decline favorable opinion.
Simply firing a few generals and ending an annoying program are not going to fix those conditions.
Let's also reflect on that for a bit. We live in a democracy where the military responds to civilian control. Whenever a new administration comes into power with a new set of priorities, however nonsensical, the leadership salutes and does its best to comply and it happens with both parties.
For instance, I was in the pentagon when the Bush administration and Rumsfeld arrived. Our most recent combat experience had been the Balkans and Rumsfeld had decided the nation no longer needed a large standing army organized for high intensity conflict. in the future we could do it all with air-delivered "shock and awe." We were directed to begin studying how to bring force structure down by two divisions, and how to reorganize two others into peace keeping commands. The Army leadership, however reluctantly, saluted and began studying how that might be accomplished.
However, our enemies have a vote in these things, and the reality of 911 quickly brought a screeching halt to those plans.
That deference to civilian leadership is why I have a really hard time with these comments by Hegseth reference DEI and the military leadership on a podcast.
“First of all, you’ve got to fire the chairman of the Joint Chiefs. Any general that was involved, any general, admiral, whatever, that was involved in any of the DEI/woke shit has got to go.”
Setting aside the sophomoric syntax, if implemented, this would be a true political purge of what has been a remarkably apolitical institution throughout its history. It would also inject a political bias into the selection of senior leaders that previous administrations and the institution has always sought to avoid (that meritocracy thing).
Finally, if we compare ending the "woke shit" to all the issues on the plate of a SECDEF to the human body, eliminating DEI is equivalent of trimming the nail of the little finger of the left hand. I see absolutely nothing in this man's background that indicates he is remotely prepared to make decisions about running the largest and perhaps most critical enterprise on the planet. He is no George C. Marshall, Cap Weinberger, James Schlesinger, or Robert Gates. Assuming this actually happens, I hope the senate has the courage to fully exercise its responsibilities to advise and
consent.
