Spook86 at In From the Cold ("Musings on Life, Love, Politics, Military Affairs, the Media, the Intelligence Community and Just About Anything Else that Captures Our Interest") addresses military diversity.
Money quote(s):
"The U.S. military has a problem, according to a DoD advisory panel.
And no, we're not referring to the demands of two on-going wars (and the toll on those who serve); escalating personnel costs, a shrinking fleet, aging nuclear forces and combat aircraft that are equally long-in-the tooth. The group wasn't asked to address those pressing concerns.
Instead, the panel was asked by Congress to look at diversity in our military. In fact, the Military Leadership Diversity Commission spent two years looking at the issue and released their final report earlier this week. You can probably predict their findings without reading this Associated Press article."
No real surprises. Just like recent recommendations about, for instance, DADT.
"It's tempting to dismiss the report as little more than PC drivel. But the commission's chairman, retired Air Force General Lester Lyles, has a reputation as a straight-shooter and an outstanding leader. It's hard to imagine that he would simply compile the usual rot and sign off on it. If General Lyles is willing to stake his reputation on the report, then it's probably worth a look."
"The armed forces need to train and promote the best and brightest, regardless of their ethnic background or gender. The advancement of minority and female officers has been slow, but no one can dispute that more members of those groups are reaching senior ranks in the U.S. military.
Which leads us to another point: the commission (and elected officials) say they want an officer corps that reflects America. That's a worthy goal, but are you willing to trade mission effectiveness to achieve it? Among its various recommendations, the panel urges DoD to "open additional career fields and units involved in 'direct ground combat' to qualified women."
Trouble is, the vast majority of military women will never qualify to serve in such positions, the result of physiology--not discrimination.
Almost 20 years ago, columnist Fred Reed published results of an Army study, comparing fitness levels among male and female soldiers. The data reaffirms that most women simply lack the upper body strength and endurance required by an Army infantryman, a Marine rifleman, or most special forces MOS's."
Insert obligatory blather about how many jobs don't require upper body strength and enduranc (ignoring the fact that we're talking about some specific jobs that actually do).
"(W)hat's a chief diversity officer supposed to do (don't laugh--the commission recommends creation of that very post, reporting directly to the SecDef). Water down the standards so more women will qualify for combat service, removing that "barrier" to reaching the flag ranks? Or create some sort of double-standard, allowing females to punch their resumes in the right places and continue their climb to the stars. Either approach is unacceptable, yet some sort of "modification" is inevitable, to open up more combat billets to women."
The goal is apparently to allow women to become chair-person of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, no matter the "unintended" consequences. This caters to the roughly one-percent of female military members who are trade-school types (i.e., military academy grads) resentful of a presumed glass ceiling.
"General Lyles insists that military performance and effectiveness remain the real bottom line, but if the commission's recommendations are fully implementing, the armed forces will be walking a very fine line.
No one disputes the benefits of more flag officers who are women or members of minority groups. But the real emphasis should be on demanding excellence from all who aspire to flag rank, and promoting those who meet--and exceed--a very high bar. Some of the "remedies" outlined in the Lyles report seem closer to social engineering, particularly when you introduce the notions of "measurement" and "metrics." "
2 comments:
Consul, maybe the wrong question is being asked. Not "should women be allowed to become maneuver-branch officers so that they can then be CJCS?", but "Why do only maneuver-branch officers become CJCS?"
For example, would you, as an MI soldier, ever want an MI officer to be a division CG? MACOM CG? Army CoS? Regional warfighting CG? CJCS?
If you can envision an MI officer ever holding these positions (and as a former maneuver officer, I can - MI types are enemy-focused, which is often hard to do in big infantry units with all the housekeeping), then you can envision a female officer holding these positions.
Not to mention that the ship and plane drivers who rotate into regional commands and CJCS/DCJCS slots would barely be considered maneuver officers in the Army (our ship drivers are still Transportation Corps, aren't they?).
JSM
(word verification: disci - are you disci'n me??)
@JSM: You raise an interesting point that calls into question a sacred cow that passes for prevailing wisdom.
Nice!
I don't have the answer; perhaps you could pose the question over at the SWJ blog. Lots of very thinky folks over there.
Post a Comment