{"id":266832,"date":"2023-03-26T08:10:09","date_gmt":"2023-03-26T08:10:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=266832"},"modified":"2023-03-28T06:09:52","modified_gmt":"2023-03-28T06:09:52","slug":"an-army-of-none","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.thetruthseeker.co.uk\/?p=266832","title":{"rendered":"An Army of None?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Gregory Hood \u2013 The Unz Review March 24, 2023<\/strong><\/h1>\n

Suppose they gave a war and nobody came? The United States is gearing up for a possible war with China, but it faces a serious recruitment problem. The nation\u2019s youth can\u2019t meet basic standards.<\/p>\n

Earlier this year, the Council for a Strong America reported<\/a> that 77 percent of 17- to 24-year-olds are ineligible for service. About 44 percent of young Americans can\u2019t serve for multiple reasons. More than 20 percent are simply too fat.<\/p>\n

The Council didn\u2019t have any good ideas. It discussed the benefits of the SNAP food program and suggested that policymakers \u201cpromote healthy eating, increased access to fresh and nutritious foods, and physical activity for children.\u201d A country whose citizens are too stupid to feed themselves without the government both paying for it and telling them what to eat has problems.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe poor are the first to fight\u201d is a lazy slogan that suggests social hierarchies are illegitimate because the elite won\u2019t fight the wars it starts. Historically, that isn\u2019t true. The very poor and the lumpenproletariat <\/em>don\u2019t make good soldiers.<\/p>\n

The aristocracy bore the burden of combat well into the 20th century. Vanity Fair <\/em>reported<\/a> in March 1916 that more than 800 titled men died in the first 16 months of World War I, a butcher\u2019s bill higher than that in \u201cthe Great Rebellion against Charles I.\u201d \u201c[A] whole generation of the nobility will have been wiped out by the time peace is declared.\u201d Even the Irish Times <\/em>marveled<\/a> at the willingness of the highest levels of the aristocracy to die for King and Country. Twenty-four peers died<\/a> in the war, and the British aristocracy arguably never recovered. Officers died<\/a> at a higher rate than enlisted men.<\/p>\n

The United States lacks a responsible aristocracy. In 2006, just a few years after 9\/11, fewer than 1 percent of Ivy League graduates joined<\/a> the military and about 1 percent of Congressmen had a child in uniform. ABC reported that many upper-class Americans didn\u2019t want to support an \u201cimmoral\u201d war in Iraq or Afghanistan. In 2015, just 20 percent of elected officials had<\/a> military experience and a 2021 Pew poll found the proportion of veterans in American society was declining<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Georgetown University students hold a \u201dDie In\u201d protest on the school\u2019s campus in Washington, DC. For about 25 minutes student pretended to be dead. Wednesday, October 23, 2002. (Credit Image: The Washington Times\/ZUMAPRESS.com)<\/p><\/div>\n

Today, the American military relies<\/a> heavily on the middle class, especially from the South. Sixty-four percent of recruits come from neighborhoods where households make between $41,692 and $87,850. Just 17 percent come from neighborhoods that are better off than that. A roughly equivalent share come from poorer neighborhoods. The South is overrepresented<\/a>, producing more than 40 percent of all recruits. New England and the West Coast are underrepresented. South Carolina is the most overrepresented; DC (if we count it) is the least.<\/p>\n

Behind all these other problems lurks race. The Army<\/a> is 54 percent non-Hispanic white and almost 70 percent of officers are white. According to the 2021 Demographics Report<\/a>, 68.9 percent of all active-duty military are white, including 67.5 percent of the enlisted. However, these figures do not break out Hispanics, many of whom are counted as white. In the Selected Reserve, 73.1 percent are \u201cwhite.\u201d About 17 percent of all active-duty military are black, including 19 percent in the ranks.<\/p>\n

The more non-whites, the happier our leaders are. In a press release about the dismal Council for a Strong America report, undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness, Gilbert Cisneros, Jr., was upbeat. The report showed a commitment \u201cto ensuring our ranks are inclusive and reflect the country we serve.\u201d Deputy assistant secretary of defense for military community and family policy, Patricia Montes Barron, added<\/a>, \u201cThe information in the report ultimately highlights our diversity and supports the well-being of the military community.\u201d<\/p>\n

The military may go further down market. The Congressional Budget Office is considering<\/a> ways to cut healthcare costs. One option was to \u201cmeans-test VA\u2019s Disability Compensation for Veterans With Higher Income,\u201d which would save an estimated $253 billion over 10 years. On an annual basis, this would save less than the amount the United States has already spent on the war in Ukraine: about $32 billion<\/a>. A cut in disability payments would also remove an incentive for the middle class to serve.<\/p>\n

Tradition is probably more important. The military no longer celebrates the white Southern military spirit, despite the continued overrepresentation of Southerners. During the 2020 racial revolution, Democrats and cowardly Republicans defied President Donald Trump and required that all bases named for Confederates get new names. \u201cWe\u2019re the party of Lincoln, the party of emancipation, we\u2019re not the party of Jim Crow,\u201d said<\/a> Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE). \u201cWe should be on the right side of this issue.\u201d Nine names would go, including Robert E. Lee, A.P. Hill, and George Pickett.<\/p>\n

The Defense Department is very clear<\/a> that this was a repudiation of the South \u2014 and Donald Trump \u2014 and part of George Floyd hysteria:<\/p>\n

Some Army bases, established in the build-up and during World War I, were named for Confederate officers in an attempt to court support from local populations in the South. That the men for whom the bases were named had taken up arms against the government they had sworn to defend was seen by some as a sign of reconciliation between the North and South. It was also the height of the Jim Crow Laws in the South, so there was no consideration for the feelings of African Americans who had to serve at bases named after men who fought to defend slavery.<\/p>\n

All this changed in the aftermath of the police killing of George Floyd in 2020. Many people protested systemic racism and pointed to Confederate statues and bases as part of that system. Congress established the commission in the National Defense Authorization Act of fiscal 2021. Then-President Donald J. Trump vetoed the legislation because of the presence of the commission, and huge bipartisan majorities in both houses of Congress overrode his veto.<\/p>\n

Black Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin praised<\/a> the Naming Commission\u2019s efforts to \u201cremove from U.S. military facilities all names, symbols, displays, monuments, and paraphernalia that honor or commemorate the Confederacy,\u201d instead choosing names that \u201cecho with honor, patriotism, and history\u201d and will \u201cinspire generations of Service members to defend our democracy and our constitution.\u201d Those turn out to be names of insignificant non-whites.<\/p>\n

One exception is Fort Bragg, named for General Braxton Bragg, which will become Fort Liberty. The name change will cost more than six million dollars<\/a>. Officials say<\/a> this bland name \u201cconveys the aspiration of all who serve.\u201d Fort Bragg is also renaming<\/a> all the streets named after Confederates. No doubt this will cure the base\u2019s problems: 31 fatal drug overdoses<\/a> from 2017 to 2021, 41 suicides<\/a> in 2020 and 2021, and 11 soldiers murdered or charged with murder from mid-2020 to September 2022.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>

Fort Bragg, N.C., home of the 82nd Airborne<\/p><\/div>\n

Since President Trump left office, the military has been trying to purge \u201cextremists.\u201d On February 5, 2021, Secretary Austin signed<\/a> a \u201cstand-down\u201d order for all officers to grill their personnel about \u201cextremist or dissident ideologies.\u201d The New York Times <\/em>cheered<\/a> efforts to \u201croot out far-right extremism in the ranks,\u201d though it accused the military of \u201cdownplaying white nationalism and right-wing activism\u201d in the past. The SPLC wants<\/a> more prohibitions on social media posts as well as \u201cscreening, education, and training to prevent recruitment of extremists into the military, to inoculate against radicalization for active-duty personnel throughout their military careers.\u201d This will mean careers for activists who have an interest in expanding the definition of \u201cextremism\u201d indefinitely.<\/p>\n

The military realizes there is no good definition of \u201cextremism.\u201d In a May 2022 report, DoD recommended<\/a> a more explicit definition as well as more data from the Office for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion. However, even before the brass figure out what is extreme and what isn\u2019t, it has started its own extremist indoctrination.<\/p>\n

In June 2021, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley justified<\/a> teaching critical race theory at West Point<\/a>: \u201cI want to understand white rage,\u201d he said. \u201cAnd I\u2019m white.\u201d He said he wanted to know what \u201ccaused thousands of people to assault [the Capitol] and try to overturn the Constitution of the United States of America.\u201d General Milley obviously would rather demonize whites than understand them. About two months later, he presided over the fall of Kabul. He didn\u2019t have the integrity to resign.<\/p>\n

In June 2020, Air Force Chief of Staff Dave Goldfein said he was outraged over the death of George Floyd and was moved to denounce \u201cracial prejudice, systemic discrimination and unconscious bias.\u201d \u201cAs leaders and as airmen we will own our part and confront it head on,\u201d he said<\/a>. A colonel, Ben Jonsson, wrote<\/a> an article called \u201cDear White Colonel\u201d that concluded by telling people to read White Fragility <\/em>by Robin DiAngelo. That book explains that all whites are racist no matter what they do<\/a>. Fighting racism is a military priority now, so whites are on the defensive throughout their careers.<\/p>\n

Internal training materials warn<\/a> of many threats, including \u201cPatriot Extremism.\u201d \u201cThis ideology holds that the US government has become corrupt, has overstepped its constitutional boundaries or is no longer capable of protecting the people against foreign threats,\u201d it said. All races may become infected with \u201cEthnic\/Racial Supremacy,\u201d but \u201cthe vast majority of these groups hold white supremacist views.\u201d Among the symbols listed as \u201cextremist\u201d are the Oath Keepers logo, Pepe the frog, the Three Percenter logo, the Proud Boys logo, and, remarkably, the slogan \u201cCome and Take It\u201d with a rifle. Identity Europa was an extremist group.<\/p>\n

White identity politics is pathological, but blacks<\/a>, women<\/a>, Hispanics<\/a>, Asians<\/a>, homosexuals<\/a>, and even transgenders<\/a> get praise<\/a>. In 1999, the Triangle Institute for Security Studies found<\/a> that those in the military were far more likely to call themselves Republicans, want a ban on homosexuals in the military, and support school prayer. One professor at the National War College called this \u201cscary.\u201d He can be happy now; those views could get you a discharge.<\/p>\n

Yesterday, before Congress, military leaders passionately defended<\/a> wokeness. \u201cDiversity, equity, and inclusion are essential to unit cohesion and trust,\u201d claimed undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness Gil Cisneros. Officials from the Army, Navy, and Air Force made similar claims. When Republicans criticized DEI, Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV) explained idiotically that it was needed because veterans were in the January 6, 2021 riot.<\/p>\n

There were questions about Kelisa Wing, the former head of the Department of Defense\u2019s school system. She had tweeted<\/a>: \u201cI\u2019m so exhausted at these white folx in these [professional development] sessions this lady actually had the CAUdacity [Caucasian audacity] to say black people can be racist too.\u201d Miss Wing wasn\u2019t fired; she was moved to a new job just three hours before the hearing began. Unlike \u201cextremists\u201d ejected from the ranks, she\u2019ll keep getting a paycheck. \u201cI have a feeling that has to do with the fact that we [Republicans] have shined light on this,\u201d said<\/a> Rep. Elise Stefanik. There are surely far more like her who either are wiser about social media or have deleted their tweets. In any case, what she said is no different from what White Fragility <\/em>teaches.<\/p>\n

The Army had a recruitment target of 60,000 last year but it missed it by 15,000. The Army wants more than 500,000 active-duty soldiers, but may have fewer than 450,000 next year. The Air Force is expected to miss its target; the Navy missed its target for officers. Only the Marine Corps made its quota.<\/p>\n

I suspect \u201cwokeness\u201d hurts recruitment, but the collapse into drugs, crime, and obesity may have more to do with it. Senator Jack Reed (D-RI) denied<\/a> that an obsession with diversity hurts recruitment. \u201cDiversity and inclusion strengthens our military,\u201d he said. \u201cBy every measure, America\u2019s military is more lethal and ready than it has ever been. It is also more diverse and inclusive than ever before. This is not a coincidence.\u201d What\u2019s his evidence for this?<\/p>\n

The Army\u2019s head of marketing said<\/a> the real problem is that the service isn\u2019t \u201crelevant\u201d to most Americans. I wonder why not.<\/p>\n

In The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, <\/em>Samuel Huntington explored the relationship between the military and the society it defends. While the two can\u2019t be too distinct without risking disaster, they can\u2019t be equivalent. \u201cMilitary institutions which reflect only social values may be incapable of performing effectively their military function,\u201d he wrote<\/a>. The armed services, one of the few institutions that most Americans still think is functional and competent<\/a>, are always a tempting target for politicians who want to \u201cprove\u201d that racial integration and leftist values work. The risk is that soldiers become social workers with rifles.<\/p>\n

Some would say that\u2019s what we already have.<\/p>\n