Wokeness And Our Military

1. 84

   Sharlee01posted 18 months ago

   
   
   "Complaints by veteran soldiers about younger generations who lack discipline and traditional values are as old as war itself. Grizzled veterans in the Greek phalanx, Roman legions, and Napoleon’s elite corps all believed that the failings of the young would be the ruin of their armies. This is not the chief worry of grizzled American veterans today. The largest threat they see by far to our current military is the weakening of its fabric by radical progressive (or “woke”) policies being imposed, not by a rising generation of slackers, but by the very leaders charged with ensuring their readiness.
   
   Wokeness in the military is being imposed by elected and appointed leaders in the White House, Congress, and the Pentagon who have little understanding of the purpose, character, traditions, and requirements of the institution they are trying to change. The push for it didn’t begin in the last two years under the Biden administration—nor will it automatically end if a non-woke administration is elected in 2024. Wokeness in the military has become ingrained. And unless the policies that flow from it are illegal or directly jeopardize readiness, senior military leaders have little alternative but to comply.
   
   Woke ideology undermines military readiness in various ways. It undermines cohesiveness by emphasizing differences based on race, ethnicity, and sex. It undermines leadership authority by introducing questions about whether promotion is based on merit or quota requirements. It leads to military personnel serving in specialties and areas for which they are not qualified or ready. And it takes time and resources away from training activities and weapons development that contribute to readiness.
   
   Wokeness in the military also affects relations between the military and society at large. It acts as a disincentive for many young Americans in terms of enlistment. And it undermines wholehearted support for the military by a significant portion of the American public at a time when it is needed the most.
   
   In 2015, then Secretary of the Navy Ray Mabus rejected out-of-hand a Marine Corps study concluding that gender-integrated combat formations did not move as quickly or shoot as accurately, and that women were twice as likely as men to suffer combat injuries. He rejected it because it did not comport with the Obama administration’s political agenda.
   
   That same year the Department of Defense opened all combat jobs in the U.S. military to women, and Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter committed to “gender-neutral standards” to ensure that female servicemembers could meet the demanding rigors involved in qualifying for combat. Since then, the Army has been working for a decade to put in place the gender-neutral test promised by Carter. But after finding that women were not scoring as highly as men, and under fierce pressure from advocacy groups, the Army threw out the test. Now there is no test to determine whether any soldier can meet the fitness requirements for combat specialties.
   
   In 2015, near the end of his second term, President Obama initiated a change to the Pentagon’s longstanding policy on transgender individuals in the military. Before that change could take effect, the incoming Trump administration put it on hold awaiting future study. Subsequent evidence presented to Secretary of Defense James Mattis—including the fact that transgender individuals suffering from gender dysphoria attempt suicide and experience severe anxiety at nine times the rate of the general population—raised legitimate concerns about their fitness for military service.
   
   This led the Trump administration to impose reasonable restrictions on military service by those suffering gender dysphoria. But only hours after his inauguration in January 2021, President Biden signed an executive order that did away with these restrictions and opened military service to all transgender individuals. Since then, the Biden administration has decreed that active members of the military can take time off from their duties to obtain sex-change surgeries and all related hormones and drugs at taxpayer expense.
   
   Along similar lines, the Biden administration has recently ended support for a longstanding policy prohibiting individuals infected with HIV from serving in combat zones. The policy had been based on sound science tied to the need for HIV medications and the danger of cross-infection through shared blood.
   
   Physical fitness has long been a hallmark of the U.S. military. But in recent years, fitness standards have been progressively watered down in pursuit of the woke goal of “leveling the playing field.” The Army, for instance, recently lowered its minimum passing standards for pushups to an unimpressive total of ten and increased its minimum two-mile run time from 19 to 23 minutes. The new Space Force is considering doing away with periodic fitness testing altogether.
   
   Back in 2016, Navy Secretary Mabus decreed that Navy sailors would no longer be known by traditional job titles such as “corpsman,” adopting instead new gender-neutral titles such as “medical technician.” The resulting blowback was so severe from enlisted sailors who cherished those historic titles that the Navy was forced to reverse the changes. But wokeness has a way of coming back, and last year the Navy released a training video to help sailors understand the proper way of using personal pronouns—a skill Americans have traditionally mastered in grade school. The video instructs servicemembers that they need to create a “safe space for everybody” by using “inclusive language”—for instance, saying “hey everybody” instead of “hey guys.” Can the return of gender-neutral job titles be far behind? " Please take the time to finish this interesting article.
   https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/the-rise … -military/

   replyreport
   1. 95

      wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      You read the article, huh?  I showed it to my son (a vet) and he about had apoplexy over the reductions in physical fitness.  At 72 years old, and badly out of shape, I could probably meet those anemic requirements myself.  Can anyone possibly think I would make a good soldier from a physical standpoint?
      
      I liked the "safe space" thing, too - almost identical to those universities that found it necessary to hire more counselors and create "safe spaces" for distraught children (they certainly were not adults) that saw VOTE TRUMP scrawled on the sidewalk with chalk.  Remember that?  That's what Biden wants, and will get, for our fighting force.
      
      Yes, Biden is destroying the strongest military in the world, just as he waves his stick about, antagonizing other countries.

      replyreport
      1. 75

         Ken Burgessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

         I read the article and commented on it in the other thread.
         
         Even in my time, and I left around 20 years ago, the PC, WOKE agendas had infiltrated most of the military.
         
         I fortunately didn't have to contend with that much, as I was Combat Arms, so I only saw it beginning to creep into my domain at the very end.
         
         But I will tell you this, it ruins cohesiveness, combat effectiveness and combat readiness of any unit it touches.
         
         What the hell are you going to do to toughen a soldier up?  To weed out the weak?
         
         I used to march all day long with over 70 pounds of gear and weapons, and when I say all day long, I mean all day long... 30+ hours with nary a break.
         
         Running 12 miles a day for PT was nothing, going 30 days without a change of clothes or a shower was the norm when deployed outside the US on a real mission.
         
         I have to believe they have a much tougher time today maintaining a solid core of elite units capable of deploying into hostile territory and defeating the enemy in close quarters.

         replyreport
         1. 95

            wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            I feel confident we have some elite units that can deploy in small numbers.  A few hundred or thousands.
            
            Whether we have the soldiers to fight a war is another matter.

            replyreport
            1. 75

               Ken Burgessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

               Those soldiers that fill the elite units come from the larger pool of the general military.
               
               
               
               “In a historic first, five women qualify for Army Ranger school”  2015
               
               When I attended Ranger School in the 1990s there were four phases (Benning, Mountains, Swamp, and Desert) and it lasted 96 days with only one meal per day.
               
               Now there are only three phases (with Desert removed in the ’90s) and it lasts 61-plus days with two meals per day. Maybe it is even easier, its been a while since I checked.
               
               No one can tell me that the new requirements, which help facilitate  women graduating, aren’t political. I personally saw the decline in standards, and with it the decline in significance of earning the Ranger Tab.
               
               No woman could have ever passed what was required of men prior to the watering down and woke requirements allowed today.  Most men could not pass it, that was the point, to only have the hardest, toughest, meanest sons-of-bitches allowed to wear that tab.

               replyreport
               1. 95

                  wildernessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Of course it is political.  As is the rest of the garbage being forced onto the military today. 
                  
                  My son, in the 82nd Airborne, tried out (3 times, I think) for the Rangers.  Each time he passed the tests to be allowed to train, each time he was rejected in favor of someone else.  He finally said to Hell with it and quit trying.  That would have been in about 1999 or 2000
                  
                  Now I wonder if it was just another case of "affirmative action" in operation.

                  replyreport
               2. 85

                  tsmogposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                  Please correct me if I am wrong. Did the standards for the Rangers, Seals, or etc change? Or, was it only the general PT standard that cause was not only women, but aged members of the military? [Edit: Also the discussion of MOS]
                  
                  Secretary approves implementation of revised Army Combat Fitness Test - U.S. Army March 23, 2022
                  https://www.army.mil/article/254875/sec … tness_test
                  
                  Edit: The Rand Corporation was asked to help research the Army Combat Fitness Test. The following link shares how they went about doing that with conclusions and 
                  
                  More Evidence Needed to Support Performance Goals of Current Army Combat Fitness Test; Women, Other Groups Pass the Gender-Neutral Test at Lower Rates by Rand Corporation published Mar 23, 2022.
                  https://www.rand.org/news/press/2022/03/23.html
                  
                  To help me with understanding it I sought its history discovering below among others.
                  
                  History of the APFT by Mountain Tactical Institute. There is a timeline of the testing beginning with 1852 for its changes.
                  https://mtntactical.com/knowledge/history-of-the-apft/

                  replyreport
                  1. 75

                     Ken Burgessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                     Of course it has changed, drastically.
                     
                     These changes began in the mid-90s.
                     
                     They slowly weeded out of training the things that couldn't be done by women in every branch and every classification.
                     
                     They slowly changed the culture, in much the way we have seen our overall culture changed today.
                     
                     As I said, when I left over 20 years ago, I was a relic, during the 12 years I was in the army it went from weeding out the weak minded and physically unfit, to the early stages of protecting the weak minded and making exceptions for the physically unfit.
                     
                     They went from four corners and a wool blanket bed in spartan barracks, to apartment like living conditions better than most college dorms or european apartments... for privates.
                     
                     They went from privates being treated like worthless garbage having to work their way up and earn their respect, to privates being coddled and NCOs being told to nurture them and be understanding of their needs.
                     
                     Popular cadences were cancelled, because they were considered offensive, traditions were cancelled because they weren't inclusive to the opposite sex, and on and on.
                     
                     I lived it, I watched how the creeping disease infested the Army, I can only imagine how far things have gone by now, and how many men like myself, and those I respected, now turn away from serving because of it.

                     replyreport
                     1. 85

                        tsmogposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                        I see. Thanks for replying.

                        replyreport
                        1. 75

                           Ken Burgessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                           Another way of explaining it can be shown in military ads from two eras:
                           
                           1990 Army Ad:
                           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ms9pxvEbILs
                           
                           2020 Army Ad:
                           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MIYGFSONKbk
                           
                           These changes contribute largely to their inability to recruit today.
                           
                           Also the changes to who is allowed to join makes a substantial difference.  I went in during the days when judges still gave young men a choice, join the military or go to jail.
                           
                           The best Team Leader I ever had was given that choice, he was a former Arizona State Running Back that got into an accident while DUI, the judge gave him a choice, serve in one of two ways. Jail or the Army.  In my 12 years he was the only soldier I had that had the potential to be better than I was if given enough training.
                           
                           If a person chose the military vs. jail this was a great thing, if they were able to make it through Basic and MOS training, they went from being a malcontent or potential liability to society to serving our society and perhaps becoming a better person in society.
                           
                           Today any type of criminal record will disqualify you, DUI is one that many young kids may get charged with, that ruins their chances to serve.  Credit problems is another disqualifier, so a college student that drops out of school or a young worker that loses his job may have bad credit history.
                           
                           On top of this, they currently target with their Ads and announcements, Lesbians, Transgenders, and the like.  For many Americans, this is something they don't want to deal with, certainly not on a day-to-day basis. So, by targeting this small percentage of Americans you may be alienating a larger more capable group of Americans.
                           
                           https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H7S1Oweqto0

                           replyreport
                           1. 85

                              tsmogposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                              Interesting, however I have never seen either. Maybe that is because I live in San Diego area with Camp Pendleton and the Naval Base San Diego and there are a lot of Marine and Navy commercials that I have seen. I have seen Army commercials, yet not the latter you shared. Recently is one where a group of uniformed soldiers are playing pool together. Link following. Yet, it may also attribute to your point.
                              
                              https://www.ispot.tv/ad/btlx/us-army-fr … everywhere

                              replyreport
                              1. 75

                                 Ken Burgessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                                 I added onto that comment, some additional insight.
                                 
                                 IMO Ads and recruitments are targeting the wrong group of people. 
                                 The very woke and PC and 21st century.
                                 
                                 But I, and those like me, are not very woke, PC nor do we choose to embrace those Progressive ideals. 
                                 
                                 I guess its a matter of what you want your military made up of, and who you want fighting your wars for you.

                                 replyreport
                                 1. 85

                                    tsmogposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                                    Thanks for video. I found it to be a pretty fair assessment to a problem. Seems it is in a sense an economics issue regard personnel. Supply is not meeting demand meaning how many are needed in our armed forces. So, possibly that is the focus.
                                    
                                    That reinforces an earlier post I did inquiring about everyone being in the military after high school graduation or reaching the age of 18. Whether that be a six month enlistment to two years as other countries are doing is debatable.
                                    
                                    I am familiar with Sweden's Total Defence Service linked next
                                    https://www.krisinformation.se/en/hazar … ce-service
                                    
                                    Countries with mandatory military service with a list of time to serve
                                    https://worldpopulationreview.com/count … ry-service
                                    
                                    But, that does not speak to wokeness in the military. Seeking more the following article seemed objective, while there will be those who challenge the source - Slate.
                                    
                                    What Critics of the “Woke” Army Don’t Understand
                                    Military commanders have long felt their personnel should understand the country they are defending.
                                    https://slate.com/news-and-politics/202 … illey.html
                                    
                                    I have no position on the argument if it is or not becoming woke especially from personal experience. Except, I am a military brat where I jokingly say I served in the Marine Corp for twenty years as my dad was a career Marine for 24 years. But, I did go through the Devil Pup program.
                                    
                                    Devil Pups
                                    https://devilpups.com/

                                    replyreport
                                    1. 75

                                       Ken Burgessposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                                       Well now the premise of that Slate article was an interesting point.
                                       
                                       "Military commanders have long felt their personnel should understand the country they are defending."
                                       
                                       Maybe that is the problem, and what I am trying to convey in my posts.
                                       
                                       The country has changed and those changes I, and many like me, have no interest in defending or supporting.  In fact, given the choice many would fight against them.
                                       
                                       There are many who do not support transgenders being mainstreamed and accepted into society, nor do we support children being given puberty blockers, hormones, or operations to change their sex.  We do not support the exploitation of children or even debating the idea that pedophilia needs to be accepted in any form in our society.
                                       
                                       We don't support equity or reparations, we don't support white people are born evil, and we don't support that our children should be punished because of what happened centuries ago.
                                       
                                       We don't support anything that falls under woke progressivism today. 
                                       
                                       So there lies a part of the problem, if that is what the military today embraces and supports, then there is no place for men like me in it.
                                       
                                       Young men of today recognize this just as easily as I do... which is why many don't join.  The other reasons I gave in previous posts also contribute, but they are also a sign of today's "standards" that doesn't want macho men, toxic masculinity, or to give second chances through service in the military.
                                       
                                       My Uncle held the highest Non-Commissioned rank achievable in the Air Force, my father served, I served, I have many friends who served.  To say we don't support the current government or its woke agendas, nor would we serve to defend them, would be an understatement.

                                       report
                                       1. 85

                                          tsmogposted 18 months agoin reply to this

                                          I appreciate that position while wonder if my dad is turning over in his grave. So, it comes down to this question in my mind now. Is the Constitution a blessing or a curse?

                                          report
   2. 88

      GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

      I read the thread first. I have such a 'confirmation bias' buzz that I can't think of anything new to add.
      
      So I'll criticize the author for 'keyword stuffing'. The first couple 'wokes' (woke, wokeness, etc.), were enough. Because of the content, they gave him 'site authority'.  Better writing would have used some variety. ;-)
      
      GA

      replyreport
      1. 84

         Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

         I appreciate the fact you read the article, it was very long. I can agree perhaps more variety would have made for better reading.

         replyreport
         1. 88

            GA Andersonposted 18 months agoin reply to this

            C'mon Sharlee, that was a joke, sheesh
            
            That's bad for me, it means you think I would criticize a non-buddy writer like that.
            
            I'm wounded*
            *that was a joke too. ;-)
            
            GA

            replyreport
   3. 79

      Credence2posted 18 months agoin reply to this

      What is wokeness to rightwing kinds of people? Is it acknowledging that "fairness" matters in not only the armed forces but in every aspect of Government and life in general? That this is a concept and its pursuit is worth our time and effort.
      
      I am a veteran and I do not approve of reducing military standards to accomodate anyone male, female, black, white, etc. no one should be excluded from anything based on superficial observations. I am sure that there are not many women that can qualify for the Army Rangers or Navy Seals, but there is no reason to exclude women them outright if a small amount can meet the rigorous requirement and I am sure that there is an Amazon or two that could.
      
      The standards need to relevant to skills actually needed in proper performance of duties. Push-ups and other frequent tests of upper body strength are relevant, for example, while being disqualified because one does not have male genitalia is not.

      replyreport
2. 69

   abwilliamsposted 18 months ago

   Well, I had a comment completed, posted it, but suddenly, apparently, I wasn't signed in and the post is m.i.a. ???
   
   Is "yes sir" still allowed in today's military? Just curious, if so, those days are numbered.
   
   I have never wanted U.S. military standards to be lowered in order to accommodate women (aka: females} nor have I ever thought it wise...to weaken our overall strength, in order to be an all-inclusive military! This isn't p.c. woke crap, it is about securing this Nation!!!
   While this is happening, women {aka:females} are the ones POINTING OUT that men {aka:males} and women are built very differently, for different purposes and that there is a reason for women's sports!
   It is sad to see what is happening and this proper pronoun, P.C., woke, leftist crap is to blame!

   replyreport
   1. 84

      Sharlee01posted 18 months agoin reply to this

      Could not agree more... I know if I was fighting for my life, I would want a man next to me.

      replyreport
      1. 69

         abwilliamsposted 18 months agoin reply to this

         Hear, hear Sharlee, a REAL man, not today's version of what a man must be or should be.....no thanks!

         replyreport
3. 69

   abwilliamsposted 18 months ago

   Oh gosh now someone will be on me about what is that supposed to mean A B, your version of a man isn't everyone's....LOL. I need to go clean my house.

   replyreport