The Few, the Proud, the 'Woke' as Military Merit Is Dismissed

[Peter1469]

At a time of increasing Great Power competition, the hard left demands that the Military get Woke. This is dangerous.


The Few, the Proud, the 'Woke' as Military Merit Is Dismissed

Making a SEAL team used to mean cutting the mustard. It meant being one of the minority who are even accepted for training to make it through training.
It will soon mean being a minority. A face. A color. A pair - or not. And what you do with what you've got in your shorts.



Not whether you can run 1.5 miles in less than 10 minutes and 30 seconds. Or swim 500 yards in less than 12 minutes and 30 seconds. Do at least 50 pushups and ten pull-ups.


That’s to get into the SEAL training program.


Once accepted - to make it through the program - you must be able to do at least 70 push-ups and swim 1,000 yards in 20 minutes or less. Not many people can do that, regardless of the color of their skin and irrespective of their equipment.


A SEAL candidate must successfully endure Hell Week - during which the candidate must be able to remain awake and alert for 20 hours at a time, getting only four hours of sleep over the course of five-and-half days; to stand in frigid surf to the point of hypothermia. To work as a team with a group of other candidates without being a liability to the group.


To understand and follow orders no matter how you feel about them.


The training is so winnowing that fewer than 30 percent of those who qualify to be trained ever make it through training and qualify to be SEALs.

America’s enemies are no doubt very glad to hear that America’s special ops and elite troops - Torres-Estrada will also oversee “inclusion and diversity” for the Delta Force and Green Berets - are to be Woke rather than ready.

U.S. Special Operations Command Tweeted (something that sounds like a thing done by 12-year-old girls, not hardened warriors) that it “welcomes” Torres-Estrada and “look(s) forward to his contribution in enhancing the capabilities and effectiveness of (special forces) through diversity of talent,” helping us recruit the best of the best.”


Problem is, the special forces were already doing just that - recruiting the “best of the best.” And rejecting those who weren't - regardless of their skin color or equipment.


Unless, of course, Torres-Estrada believes - as is implied - that current SEALs, Green Berets and Army Rangers are somehow less than “the best.”


And how does “diversity” enhance talent, exactly?


Is a soldier more - or less - capable on account of skin color, sex or sexual orientation? Doesn’t the winnowing of training, the measuring up - or not - to standards that apply toeveryone accomplish that purpose?


Or is the actual purpose a political purpose - i.e., to Wokishly bean-count the special forces as corporate America Wokishly bean-counts its hires and refuses to fire, if the “bean” at issue is Woke?


Just what America needs when the need arises for people who can cut the mustard.

[stjames1_53]

At a time of increasing Great Power competition, the hard left demands that the Military get Woke. This is dangerous.


The Few, the Proud, the 'Woke' as Military Merit Is Dismissed

"The Nation that makes a great distinction between its scholars and its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools."
- Thucydides

[Peter1469]

How the Navy’s push for diversity and inclusion threatens unity in the ranks

The U.S. Navy says it has a new mission: to create a more diverse group of enlisted sailors and officers.

In February, a Navy task force made dozens of recommendations to accomplish this mission. The broad goal is laudable and draws no objection from the honorable service members I represent.


But the proposed means of reaching that goal threaten to create division in the ranks that distract the Navy from its core mission, which is to “defend freedom, preserve economic prosperity, and keep the seas open and free.”


I say “threaten” because, so far, the Navy’s plan is still a work in progress. The details of how the Navy will start “embracing Inclusion and Diversity (I&D)” still need to be worked out. However, the task force did lay out some ideas that could be a problem.


For example, the report includes a pledge taken by task force members that reads, in part, “I pledge to advocate for and acknowledge all lived experiences and intersectional identities of every Sailor in the Navy.” It’s not clear if all sailors will be required to take this pledge, but press reports have said they will.


Will sailors be required to “advocate” for others with different “lived experiences?” Who decides which “lived experiences” are worthy of advocacy, and how does a sailor prove to leadership that this task has been accomplished?


The report recommends a “whole person evaluation” that reduces the importance of standardized test results when promotions are considered. Instead, the Navy would lean more heavily on characteristics displayed by successful “diverse” Navy officers.


How much less weight will be given to test scores, and how much more weight will be placed on race, gender, and ethnicity?


The report calls for a stipend for college students who apply for the naval officer program as a way of boosting minority applicants. Does that mean this stipend will not be available to nonminority applicants?


These are just a few of the recommendations, but the potential problems seem obvious to us. Sailors may be encouraged to advocate for some shipmates, but not others. Promotions will be easier for some, but not others. A stipend will be created for some, but not others.


This plan runs the risk of creating what the task force set out to avoid: a Navy within a Navy. The key to any effective fighting force is morale, and we shudder to think at the potential morale problems that may be generated by such a bifurcated system.


A related problem may be on the horizon in the Marine Corps.