I’m not sure what you mean by “jello” - undependable? That’s how I view the problem.
If “our” unit is strung thin in defense and I’m in love with the woman at the left flank, I’m not dependable: my unit’s in danger from a circumstance my commander doesn’t know about. There’s a very real chance of me abandoning my position and going to her aid if it gets heavy over there. Likewise, if she’s killed I’m going to be worse than worthless, I’ll be emotionally explosive and a “revenge at any cost” danger to my unit.
I don’t see how this policy could end up with anything other than needless deaths. It’s truly “murder by misrule.”
Instinct runs deeper than love. Nor can instinct be trained out.
I have used a similar argument against having homosexuals in the military. The leftist argument is that it is more important to have homosexuals in the military than it is to have those who are “homopsychotic”. Wrong again.
Again, possibly with the rare exception, homosexuals will never be good warriors. As such, having an entire company or battalion full of homosexuals is worth less than a squad of real warriors in a fight.
So what the left is saying is simple: “Diversity in the military is more important than either mission accomplishment *or* protecting the lives of military personnel.”
This is no surprise, given their contemptuous attitude that “people join the military because they are too dumb for minimum wage jobs.” And its axiom, that any ghetto gang-banger scum can be given a Glock .40 and ammo, and be *just* as effective as a trained soldier.