Compare and contrast: two competing visions of what the US military should be

 

The first is from retired Marine Lieutenant-General Greg Newbold, who analyzes what he calls "Critical Military Theory".

Many Americans, particularly our most senior politicians and military leaders, seem to have developed a form of dementia when it comes to warfare. The result is confusion or denial about the essential ingredients of a competent military force, and the costs of major power conflict. The memory loss is largely irrespective of political bent because all too many are seduced by a Hollywood infused sense of antiseptic warfare and push-button solutions, while forgotten are the one million casualties of the Battle of the Somme in World War I, or the almost two million in the Battle of Stalingrad in World War II.

This “warfare dementia” is a dangerous and potentially catastrophic malady, because the price for it could alter the success of the American experiment and most assuredly will be paid in blood. The condition is exacerbated and enabled when the most senior military leaders — those who ought to know better — defer to the idealistic judgments of those whose credentials are either nonexistent or formed entirely by ideology.

. . .

1.  The U.S. military has two main purposes — to deter our enemies from engaging us in warfare, and if that fails, to defeat them in combat. Deterrence is only possible if the opposing force believes it will be defeated. Respect is not good enough; fear and certainty are required.

. . .

2.  To be true to its purpose, the U.S. military cannot be a mirror image of the society it serves. Values that are admirable in civilian society — sensitivity, individuality, compassion, and tolerance for the less capable — are often antithetical to the traits that deter a potential enemy and win the wars that must be fought: Conformity, discipline, unity.

. . .

6.  A military force’s greatest strengths are cohesion and discipline. Individuality or group identity is corrosive and a centrifugal force.

There's more at the link.  Highly recommended reading.

The second is a report about remarks made by Bishop Garrison, the senior advisor to the secretary of defense for human capital and diversity, equity and inclusion.

Garrison said the need for diversity, equity and inclusion to be a consideration or a part of all decisions in the military.

"I would hope that as many leaders and members of the total force as possible see [diversity, equity and inclusion] efforts as a force multiplier," he said. He wants them to see the program as a way to make the U.S. military more successful in achieving critical missions and in making forces more lethal.

Bringing in more talented infantry personnel or military intelligence analysts is the goal for any program, he said. When the military gets recruits from diverse backgrounds, there will be more innovative thought, more innovative solutions to incredibly complex and complicated problems that are facing the national security apparatus today, he said. "I want people to see [diversity, equity and inclusion] as another tool in the toolkit and another way of solving these problems.

Again, more at the link.

I can't imagine two more diametrically opposed views on what the US military should strive to be.  Furthermore, I can't imagine a situation where one view is manifestly so right, and the other manifestly so wrong, as to be self-evident.  I speak as a combat veteran, and I can assure you:  if I have a choice between one of Bishop Garrison's "diversity, equity and inclusion" soldiers (who won't be so much force multipliers as force disintegrators), or one of Lieutenant-General Newbold's cohesive, well-disciplined fighting men, in the foxhole next to me . . . guess who I'm picking?

I can only hope and pray that my enemy will have listened to Bishop Garrison rather than LtGen Newbold.  If they have, we'll walk all over them with hobnailed boots.  If, on the other hand, we have . . . we're toast.

Peter