Ideological Transformation of the Armed Forces

Replacing Military Realism with Social Engineering


A recent news release claimed that China now has more naval ships than the United States. While this is true, the United States still has an advantage over China in global sea power.

USS Gerald R. Ford CVN-78, newest  active U.S nuclear supercarrier. Wikimedia commons photo

China is now the world’s leading naval ship builder, but most of the People’s Liberation Navy’s new ships are smaller coastal defense ships. Although smaller and shorter range, they are equipped with the latest technology in radar and cruise missiles. In terms of firepower as reflected in naval tonnage, the Chinese Navy has 2.0 million tons, whereas the U.S. Navy has 4.8 million tons and still has technological superiority.

The U.S. is  still the world’s foremost sea power, but China is coming up fast and extending the size, flexibility, and range of surface ships. China now has at least 77 destroyer and cruiser class surface ships, and their latest ship-launched missiles have a range of 4,000 nautical miles, capable of striking Hawaii, Alaska, and the Western U.S. coast. The U.S. has 85 destroyers and cruisers with generally greater firepower.

The Chinese also now have two aircraft carriers, although this is not competitive with 11 U.S. carriers, more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined. China has 60 submarines, of which most are diesel, but they are building more nuclear attack and missile subs. About 85 percent of the Chinese Navy fleet is modern. The U.S. has 52 nuclear attack and 18 nuclear missile submarines, the latter carrying the majority of American nuclear strike power.


While the U.S. is still the greatest military power in the world, Russia is second, and China is third.  Russia is third in naval power, but outranks China in total military power because of her air force and tank forces. It should be noted that Iran and North Korea also have formidable armed forces.


These rankings are based on hardware, technologies, and manpower. Without highly capable, trained, skilled, and motivated manpower; technology, hardware, and numbers are not enough to secure peace, freedom, and prosperity.  One thing our potential enemies have in common is that they are tough-minded realists.  In fact, the most capable of our allies tend to be tough-minded realists. In all history, battles and wars are mostly won by tough-minded realists, given they also had the logistics, maneuverability, hardware, and manpower.  Replacing tough-minded realism with social engineering, especially “woke” social engineering, is a quick slide to military disaster.


Yet the Biden Defense Department’s focus is on ideological transformation of the Armed Forces by social engineering, prioritizing identity politics brands of diversity and inclusion. It is altogether right and necessary that all military personnel have reasonable assurance of respect and fairness, but the 15 recommendations recently approved by the Defense Department’s new Diversity and Inclusion Board may have the opposite effect. It does not take much reading between the lines to see strong indications of cultural Marxism, leftist ideological indoctrination, and political transformation that would be divisive rather than cohesive, threatening rather than inclusive, and debilitating rather than strengthening. There is a grave danger that it will replace merit and traditional American patriotism, virtues, and courage with obsequious political correctness and identity obsessions.


It is obvious from a February 26 DoD memo mandating unit commanders determine security threats by personnel aligned with extremists, and specifically “white supremacists,” that Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin may have extremely politicized and perhaps prejudicial objectives. No mention was made of the Marxist aligned Black Lives Matter or Antifa. No mention was made of jihadists or members of the Muslim Brotherhood, who have written plans to overthrow American Constitutional government and Judeo-Christian culture. Austin seems to have dismissed the November 2009, Fort Hood, Texas, massacre of 13 soldiers by a jihadist U.S. Army officer as “workplace violence.” The memo also mentioned “anti-government violent extremists,” which may be an indictment of anyone who attended the January 6 rally for Trump in Washington. The memo also mentions those suspected of “encouraging discrimination and hate,” but the whole tone of the memo seems hateful and potentially discriminatory.


Congressman Michael Waltz (R, FL), a former Green Beret and Army Reserve colonel, has rightly expressed his concern:


“The overall focus on race and skin color is antithetical to our merit-based, mission-focused military.”

     Recommendation 1 deals with recruiting and emphasizes racial, ethnic, and gender demographic goals. There is a danger here that we forget we are recruiting soldiers, sailors, and airmen rather than political activists or social workers or reducing unemployment rolls. We do not need to repeat the Lyndon Johnson Project 100,000 error of the Vietnam War, where recruits of limited mental capacity or marginal behavioral histories were accepted and then unsurprisingly turned out to be bad soldiers creating many burdensome problems.


Recommendations 2 and 3 target demographic changes in the officer corps and especially higher leadership.  There is a danger here of imposing reverse discrimination, especially against non-minority men, thus discouraging the retention of many capable officers. Even performance evaluations are likely to be contaminated by political correctness.


Recommendation 4 is among the most troubling. It calls for removing aptitude test barriers that adversely impact diversity. This means we are lowering standards for skills and promotions. You can bet the Chinese and Russians will not be lowering any standards to meet social engineering goals. This could be disastrous.


Recommendations 5 and 6 suggest that assignments and promotions will be highly politicized with respect to race, gender, and various woke goals.


Recommendation 7 establishes a Diversity and Inclusion Center of Excellence. I believe this could set a troubling precedent for overshadowing merit with race and gender diversity objectives.


I actually like Recommendation 9, which called for STEM (science, technology, engineering, and math) scholarships for high school ROTC.


Recommendation 10 is to develop a separate Diversity and Inclusion organizational structure. This reminds me of the Soviet Union assigning authoritative political officers to combat military units. It was a significant factor in the disastrous Soviet strategies, logistical failures, tactics, and casualties during the Russian attempt to invade Finland in the “Winter War” of 1939-1940.


Recommendation 12 is an indoctrination scheme for social engineering, emphasizing diversity and inclusion.


Recommendation 13 seeks to increase transparency of promotion selections and career opportunities,  Although the Board rightly wants to improve transparency, the measures of Recommendations, 2, 3, 5, and 6 may in reality result in far less transparency and more efforts to cover up bad policy.


Recommendations 14 and 15 deal with military discipline and changes in the Uniform Code of Military Justice in regards to racial, ethnic, and inclusion issues. Precaution is needed here. If the hysteria created by identity politics and such “educational” programs as the 1619 Project and Critical Race Theory are allowed to flourish in the new military, the results will be something like the Salem Witch Trials and will severely weaken the readiness and effectiveness of the Armed Forces.


Some of the other recommendations were acceptable, and one was good, but the overall context and tone gave excessive priority to diversity and inclusion. There is nothing wrong with diversity and inclusion until you over-emphasize them.  Then you are headed for a Project 100,000 disaster at a minimum and more likely military failures and defeats that could jeopardize the very liberty and future of the United States.  Many of the 15 proposals do not bode well for American military strength or for American freedom. The overall general tone of the proposals and that of the Biden Administration suggest we are on a road with dangerously misplaced priorities, where fanciful ideologies trump tested lessons and tough-minded realism.


These recommendations may be laced with fanciful idealism, but their underlying tone suggests a ruthless purge and debilitating transformation of our Armed Forces that could adversely affect personnel quality, morale, and discipline.  The American military has in the past been a bulwark of anti-leftist patriotism. The Left knows they must change the military to fully implement the tyranny that will prolong their One Party Rule.


Accounts of FBI harassment of a retired Navy Chaplain who attended the January 6 Trump rally corroborates an overall Biden Administration style of intimidation, bullying, and outrageous propaganda.  All this is also ruthlessly supported by a main-stream media (ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and MSNBC) without journalistic integrity or moral compass. BigTech and other Corporatist giants now act as political correctness enforcers. Who really is the Biden Administration?


“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”—George Orwell, 1984.


These are hard times for truth, realism, freedom, and right.







Show More

Related Articles

Check Also