.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
If ‘Diversity Is Our Strength,’ Why Is Our Military So Weak?
By: Elaine Donnelly
Race-conscious ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ (DEI) policies are worsening the U.S. military’s personnel shortages.
+++
+++
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| . |
Thursday, April 4, 2024
Get off Israel's Back. Good Intentions Never Won A War. Neither DEI Nonsense! Israel Consul Update. More.
Biden's constant warnings increases uncertainty, plays into Hamas' hands and weakens BIBI.
Israel does not need to be reminded every day to take care in their military actions not does Bibi need to be lectured by radical Democrats or by wild eyed Israeli liberals and Orthodox. who evade service because they believe the power of praying is more powerful than bullets.
Once again, save me from the do gooder's because well intentions and stupidity never won a war. Truman understood that as did IKE.
Stay tuned.
+++
If we sprinkle incompetents among the best then we will lose everything. If we deploy incompetents in their own units we will probably lose those unit.
Seems to me an easy choice.
I daresay, no one would pay to attend a football game where incompetents were allowed to play on the team, much less protect the quarterback unless they were psychopaths'.
Then why penalize the nation and those who want to serve and aybe survive and who volunteer to protect our nation by enlisting in the. military? The Army, Navy, Airforce, Marines, Coast Guard and Space Force are not social organizations.
The liberal idiot who came up with this DEI idea either want's America to lose wars or is a certified nut case.
+++
Our military is in trouble. Chronic recruiting shortages are forcing the Army to cut 16,500 occupational positions, most of them vacant. The Air Force has proposed a reduction of 8,000 troops after missing recruiting goals for the first time in over 20 years. The Navy is short 9,000 sailors, forcing longer deployments for others.
Race-conscious “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) policies are making personnel shortages worse. Minority recruitment has remained steady or increased, which is fine, but a steep decline in white recruits almost entirely accounts for the ongoing recruiting crisis.
According to Military.com, in fiscal year 2018, the Army recruited 44,042 new white recruits — 56 percent of the total. In 2023, that number plummeted to 25,070, or 44 percent. In the Navy, white recruit losses accounted for an overall drop of about 9,000 new recruits.
Does National Security Depend Upon Incoherent and Irrational Stereotypes?
So, what are senior military leaders doing to fix this? They keep claiming without evidence that “diversity is a strategic imperative.” Race-conscious practices, they say, are essential for military readiness and national security.
The argument is absurd, especially since the Supreme Court’s 2023 landmark ruling ending racial preferences in higher education. The military service academies were not parties to Students for Fairness in Admissions v. Harvard and the University of N. Carolina, but the court ignored the government’s objections when it applied its ruling to the civilian universities’ ROTC programs.
In its opinion, the court also exposed the flimsy premises behind decades-old racial categories, describing them as “imprecise … overbroad … arbitrary … undefined … underinclusive … incoherent … [and] irrational stereotypes.”
Justice Neil Gorsuch noted that racial categories such as black, Hispanic, Native American, Pacific Islander, Asian, or white, were devised not by anthropologists or sociologists, but by “bureaucrats.”
The same bureaucrats cautioned in the 1978 Federal Register that their arbitrary racial categories “should [not] be viewed as determinants of eligibility for participation in any Federal program.” But they are.
Changing the Paradigm of Military Values
The Department of Defense validated racial preferences when it established the 2011 Military Leadership Diversity Commission (MLDC). By taking the advice of nonmilitary organizations and corporate business consultants favoring DEI racial categories, the MLDC turned military values upside down.
Consultants help private enterprises to please customers, but they know little about military combat operations, such as fighting and destroying an enemy force. Nevertheless, the MLDC report listened to business “experts” in writing that “although good diversity management rests on a foundation of fair treatment, it is not about treating everyone the same.”
The report added, “This can be a difficult concept to grasp, especially for leaders who grew up with the EO-inspired [equal opportunity] mandate to be both color and gender blind.”
This inexplicable shift away from non-discrimination, meritocracy, and “treating everyone the same” contradicted the oath every officer and enlisted person takes to “support and defend the Constitution,” which takes a colorblind approach to race upheld in numerous Supreme Court rulings.
The MLDC report also stated: “Cultural assimilation, a key to military effectiveness in the past, will be challenged as inclusion becomes, and needs to become, the norm.”
This astonishing proposal disregarded military requirements and culture, which requires identical treatment of personnel to build cohesion and mutual trust for survival in combat. Instead, the MLDC relied on a 1996 Harvard Business Review article advising corporate managers on how to stress differences, not unity.
The MLDC also recommended high-level “chief diversity officers” (CDOs) to ensure compliance with DEI mandates. Servicemembers were put on notice that at every step of their careers — from recruitment to promotion to three- and four-star rank and service chief levels — they would be “held accountable for their performance in diversity management and rewarded for their efforts” (or penalized for lack of them).
Like the Wizard of Oz, an intimidating diversity-industrial complex rules the Pentagon with billowing smoke, noise, and hot air. Unlike the fictional wizard, however, high-level DEI advocates are weakening our military in ways that could cost lives.
DEI Quotas and Mandates are Weakening Our Military
In August 2022, Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall and then-Chief of Staff Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. co-signed a memorandum calling for a reduction in white male officers from 64 percent to 43 percent. Many mid-career officers, told they were no longer wanted, pleased their families by moving to the commercial airlines. Now the Air Force has a shortage of experienced pilots.
Military DEI strategic plans lack solid data to support exaggerated claims about race-based diversity categories. The 2021 Task Force One Navy (TF1N) report, for example, published equivocal, misleading quotes from civilian sources and handbooks that did not include the words “military” or “armed forces” even once.
Thanks to chronic recruiting shortages, the Navy has begun accepting the lowest category of aptitude testing — a high-risk option that could worsen a rash of mishaps at sea.
The Heritage Foundation’s 2024 Index of Military Strength rates the Air Force as “very weak” on readiness, and the Navy and Army rated “weak” or “very weak” in different categories.
According to the latest annual Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute Survey, public confidence in the All-Volunteer Force has declined from 70 percent to 48 percent since 2018. And a recent Gallup poll reported a drop in confidence in the military from 81 percent to 60 percent since 2010.
The latest Blue Star Families survey reported that only 32 percent of military families would recommend service in the All-Volunteer Force.
So, what has the Army done? West Point officials are removing the historic words “Duty, Honor, Country” from the U.S. military academy’s mission statement, dropping “Country” and obscuring “Duty” and “Honor” in a wordy separate statement of “Army Values.”
Diversity Metrics Over Meritocracy
Civilian and military leaders seem stuck in a time warp, conducting DEI business as usual. Policies that replace color-blindness with race-consciousness define wokeism, which takes progressivism to extremes, even if it hurts the institution.
True diversity, equality, and appropriate inclusion are good things, but DEI programs that divide and demoralize are not. A ship that is steered two degrees off course, without correction, eventually winds up in the wrong ocean. With national security at risk, Congress must intervene to change the military’s course and restore sound priorities before it is too late.
US unwilling to supply weapons requested by Israel
++++
Biden is now doing what he said he would never do: harm Israel’s capacity to wage war.
By Daniel Greenfield, Frontpage Magazine
It used to be a Bidenite mantra: we may disagree with the Israelis on some policies, but we would never make our military aid contingent on Israel submitting to our demands.
But that was then, and this is now, when the Bidenites are furiously signaling to voters in Michigan and a few other states with large Arab and Muslim populations, that don’t worry, we hear you, and you can see us getting tougher on Israel by the minute.
Confirmation of this came on March 28, when the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, addressing the Defense Writers’ Group, for the first time openly admitted that some weaponry requested by Israel was not being provided.
Presumably that was done to pressure Israel not to invade Rafah, or not to go to war with Hezbollah, or possibly both.
Biden is now doing what he said he would never do: harm Israel’s capacity to wage war.
More on this appalling development can be found here: “US refused to give Israel some weapons for Gaza war, general says,” Reuters, March 28, 2024:
The United States’ top general said on Thursday that Israel had not received every weapon that it had asked for, in part because US President Joe Biden’s administration was not willing to provide at least some of them.
Washington gives $3.8 billion in annual military assistance to Israel, its longtime ally. The United States has been rushing air defenses and munitions to Israel, but some Democrats and Arab American groups have criticized the Biden administration’s steadfast support of Israel, which they say provides it with a sense of impunity.
“Although we’ve been supporting them with capability, they’ve not received everything they’ve asked for,” said General Charles Q. Brown, the chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff.
“Some of that is because they’ve asked for stuff that we either don’t have the capacity to provide or are not willing to provide, not right now,” Brown added while speaking at an event hosted by the Defense Writers Group.
The Israeli offensive prompted opposition from within Biden’s Democratic Party, leading thousands to vote “uncommitted” for him in recent party presidential primaries.
US Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin met with Defense Minister Yoav Gallant in Washington earlier this week, and the Pentagon said that security assistance for Israel had been discussed.
There are several ways to look at this announcement, none of them good.
Biden administration criticizes Israeli officials for hindering aid distribution
One is that the Bidenites are not really withholding anything of importance, but want to give the appearance of doing so, in order to win back support from Muslim and so-called progressive voters.
It seems unlikely that that will do the trick; nothing short of the Biden administration demanding an immediate and permanent ceasefire in Gaza is likely to win them back.
Even that may not be enough.
Much more likely is that some weapons are indeed being withheld from a loyal ally, just as that ally is in the middle of a war that it did not want and did not cause.
This is the fourth war for the Jewish state’s survival, after those of 1948, 1967, and 1973. Withholding of weapons requested by Israel has obvious consequences.
Israel now must feel it cannot fully count on Washington’s military support, just as it can no longer count on its diplomatic support — that is, the use of the American veto — at the UN Security Council.
This means Israel will not only ramp up its domestic manufacture of weapons that until now it has bought from the Americans, but will also be more willing to consider other weapons it never thought it might have to employ, including tactical nuclear weapons
Imagine, for example, that the IDF is still fighting Hamas in Gaza, and at the same time Hezbollah has attacked the northern Galilee, launching ten thousand missiles every day (Hezbollah has 150,000 rockets and missiles), hitting Tel Aviv, Dimona, ten of Israel’s military airfields, while the Houthis are still firing on ships in the Red Sea to prevent Israel’s shipping of goods to and from Asia.
At that point, might the state of Israel decide that it needs, by way of a demonstration meant to frighten Iran and all of Israel’s Iranian-backed enemies — Hamas, Hezbollah, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, PFLP, and others — to drop a nuclear weapon in the Iranian desert?
Have the Bidenites considered how its other allies must be reconsidering their reliance on American weaponry, if even such a close ally as Israel can be denied weapons that the IDF says it needs?
If you were Taiwan, for example, wouldn’t you be wondering whether you can continue to rely on American assurances of military support should China try to invade?
It’s hard to know what weapons the Americans are withholding from Israel’s wish list, but I suspect they might have decided not to resupply the IDF with the bunker-buster bombs that it had delivered early in the conflict.
IDF kills terrorist who organized Oct. 7th attacks
According to reports, the US has supplied 100 BLU-109 penetrating bombs to help the Israeli military destroy the deepest tunnels that have been dug, some 50 meters underground in the 500-mile network of terror tunnels that Hamas built under Gaza.
But the destruction of those tunnels also leads to the collapse of many buildings just above.
Perhaps the Bidenites want to discourage the IDF’s continued use of bunker-busters. It won’t discourage the Israelis — they are determined to destroy those tunnels, whatever the cost — but it will make that task much more difficult.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Israeli Consul Report.
Israel indivertibly killed some aid people and the world is going bananas. Tragedies happen in war but Israel gets blamed for anything and everything.
Israel has carried out most every moral responsibility in this war and yes, Gaza lays in shambles because that is what Hamas wanted.
Propaganda is Hamas's most valuable weapon since they cannot win militarily. They takes hostages, they occupy facilities they should not, the use Palestinians as shields and they did not expect Israel would act with a vengeance.
When you are fighting animals you have very little leverage beyond killing the beast. War will end when Iran is no longer willing and/or capable of being the Islamist Terrorists' banker.
Until that happens it would e wise to get off Israel's back.
+++
+++
Pipes has a plan:
+++
+++
My Six-Step Plan for a Two-State Solution
by Daniel Pipes -Boston Globe
Common ground exists that offers a way to move the topic forward.
Has the time come to implement the two-state solution – that is, to recognize the semi-sovereign Palestinian Authority (PA) as a state, as "Palestine," alongside Israel?
Netanyahu (R) and Biden once got along.
President Biden says yes – "the only real solution is a two-state solution" – and 19 Democratic senators call for "two states for two peoples." Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says no – "Israel will continue to oppose unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state" – and Republicans, in the words of The Washington Post, "hug Netanyahu tighter." This high-profile clash threatens to damage both countries' interests. Fortunately, common ground exists that offers a way to move the topic forward. It has two components.
First, the U.S. and Israeli governments have both publicly accepted a Palestinian state in principle. President George W. Bush did so in 2002 and Netanyahu himself did in 2009. Admittedly, Netanyahu subsequently changed his mind, but the outside world will not let him undo a decision already on the books for 15 years. Attempting to backtrack on this agreement amounts to a doomed rear-guard effort.
Beyond that agreement, an eventual Palestinian state has become inevitable. True, a century ago, "Palestinians" meant Jews, not Arabs; but Palestinian Arabs do today constitute a people. Pretending otherwise smacks of futility. True also that reestablishing Jordanian and Egyptian rule in the West Bank and Gaza from 60 years ago is a more attractive alternative than a two-state solution; but both Amman and Cairo vehemently rebuff this idea. Israel ruling all of those territories protracts one of the world's most vicious and lengthy conflicts. So, Palestine it is.
But what sort of Palestine? There lies the second area of agreement between Washington and Jerusalem. Each accepted it on condition of a complete overhaul of Palestinian conduct. Each posited three prerequisites. Bush offered "American support for the creation of a provisional state of Palestine ... if Palestinians embrace democracy, confront corruption and firmly reject terror." Netanyahu itemized Israel's conditions as a "guarantee regarding demilitarization and Israel's security needs," plus recognition of Israel "as the State of the Jewish people."
Together, these demands – which remain as central today as when first expressed – require a transformation of Palestinian attitudes and actions. (Still, they remain partial and other demands should be added; an end to PA vilification of Israel, recognition of Jerusalem as its capital, and a full normalization of relations.)
Unfortunately, those six conditions have virtually disappeared from the collective memory. Forgetting them, the United States and Israel engage in a useless "yes or no to Palestine?" argument. With them, the two governments can engage in a pragmatic and constructive "has the PA met the prerequisites?" discussion.
The PA, which turns 30 next month, has an extensive record on which to be judged. Here's a summary assessment on each of those six U.S.-Israeli requirements:
Establish democracy: PA leader Mahmoud Abbas is in the 20th year of his 4-year term and spurns even the rigged elections typical of tyrants pretending to be democratic.
Reduce corruption: Ghaith al-Omari, a former advisor to Abbas, finds that "a staggering 87 percent of Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza believe that the PA is corrupt."
Reject terror: The PA brazenly celebrates the murder of Israelis. For example, a televised sermon declared that "All weapons must be aimed at the Jews." It also bragged about its role on Oct. 7.
Demilitarize: The PA has over 83,000 security personnel on which it spends one-third of its budget, making it (along with Hamas) the most militarized society in the world. (Only North Korea matches that percentage.)
Guarantee Israel's security needs: The PA last year endorsed an intent "to blow up all of the Zionist entity's cities."
Recognize Israel as the Jewish state: Abbas adamantly rejects this, taunting Israelis: "You can call yourselves whatever you want, but I will not accept it."
As the PA fails every joint-U.S.-Israel condition, Washington and Jerusalem have their work cut out. Time to end their useless squabble and focus on getting Abbas and his regime to fulfill those common-sense requirements, for example by reducing the PA's hyper-militarization. Accordingly, some humble advice to each government.
Israel Victory: How Zionists Win Acceptance and Palestinians Get Liberated will be published in June 2024.
Jerusalem: Stop re-litigating what you already conceded. Direct Biden's attention to the six unfulfilled conditions. Insist that they be accomplished to your – and not the Americans' – satisfaction.
Washington: Stop ignoring that the PA has made none of the requisite changes. Put the onus of change on Palestinians. Challenge them to prove worthy of a sovereign state.
And how might the Palestinians be pressured to make those changes? Through what I call Israel Victory: convincing them that they have lost their long fight with Israel and the time has finally come for them to come to terms with the Jewish state. Specifically, this means Israel's ending the rule of two foul organizations, the PA and Hamas, the first through financial starvation and the other through destruction, as is now underway in Gaza. Then, Israel empowers those many Palestinians ready to live in harmony with it by funding them, giving them a voice, and including them in governance.
Daniel Pipes is president of the Middle East Forum and author of Islamism vs. The West: 35 Years of Geopolitical Struggle (Wicked Son, 2023). © 2024 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment