The Demoralization of the Military
[Reprinted from Issues & Views Fall 1996]
Of the many painful consequences brought on by the surrender to political correctness, the demoralization of the United States military is surely among the saddest. First, force young men, who already face the challenge of bringing their unruly spirits under the control of rigorous military discipline to face the even greater challenge of reining in their urgent, natural drives-while living, dining and sleeping in close quarters with women. Then mix in the young women, who, while ostensibly pursuing military careers, are expected to suppress their visceral drive to capture lifemates. And what do you get? Confusion, and a lot of pregnancies.
What loss of common sense could ever bring a government to purposely introduce into its fighting forces the element of sexual interplay, which inevitably brings with it romantic ramifications with which we’re all familiar-hurt feelings, periods of anxiety and brooding and, sometimes, even vengeful behavior? The fear of this type of disruption is one of the reasons military leaders fought so hard, in 1992, against approving openly acknowledged homosexuals. But what the “gay” lobby lost, the feminists won. And we may all pay dearly for it some day.
Retired Army Lt. Col. Robert R. Maginnis researches and writes about this latest concession to the P.C. mania that is gripping America. He cites the facts of life in today’s Navy: the Navy now ignores longstanding screening standards to accommodate the limited physical ability of women; even after significant training, the strength of women does not improve and they suffer up to three times as many back injuries as men; Navy policy embraces pregnancy as an “acceptable” readiness problem (although almost half of pregnant “sailors” never return to their crews); fraternization among male and female crew members aboard ships contributes to serious morale problems; sexual harassment charges have become the favorite tool of some women to promote their own agendas.
Maginnis points out that a lack of physical strength, especially for lifting, can often decrease the chances for survival in a ship disaster. Strength can be the difference between life and death for other crew members. (These are facts that civilian policemen and firemen are forced to live with.)
Perhaps most shocking of all is the degree to which so many of today’s military women appear hell-bent on becoming “single moms.” For many, this seems to be a more overriding ambition than the career they supposedly set out to build. Maginnis writes, “At any given time, up to 18% of Navy women are pregnant and a study of two ships showed a pregnancy rate as high as one in three. That’s nearly 8,423 women, or enough to crew almost two aircraft carriers.” And in a less than well-kept military secret, Maginnis reveals that “During Desert Storm, 1,145 women on ships needed to be reassigned because of pregnancies, at an average of 95 per month.”
Maginnis cites data about the USS Eisenhower, which was the first combat vessel opened to female crew members, where pregnancies grew from five to 39 in just a couple of months. “In all, 13% of the female crew became pregnant.” And, needless to say, in each case, the “sailor” had to leave her shipboard duties.
Maginnis shares the observations of a chief petty officer who supervised women aboard his ship. From his direct experience, this officer got the impression that many women become pregnant, in order to avoid deployment. He believes that many of them have entered the Navy primarily for the education offered and to search for husbands. When he refused to tolerate close fraternization between male and female crewmembers, he encountered uncooperative behavior from the women.
In an article in the Seattle Post Intelligencer, Bruce Chapman writes that the military is now being treated “as some kind of social laboratory.” The armed forces are now “pinned down by an arch-feminist fusillade of charges and policy demands.” He attributes the suicide of Admiral Jeremy Boorda, not to the superficial stories about campaign ribbons, but to the pressures of a changing Navy. On the one hand, Boorda was under fire from the government to enforce new, illogical policies, “while, on the other, he was incurring increased criticism for failing to defend the honor of his officers and the effectiveness of the service.”
Chapman also tells of the 53% of Navy aviation commanders who have left the service, rather than continue under current conditions. “These were the cream, the very future of the Navy, officers who had performed for two decades in a manner that marked them as potential Admirals.”
The Center for Military Readiness is an organization that monitors military policies and analyzes their impact on military effectiveness. It is described as an alliance of civilians and military “to defend sound personnel policies in the U.S. Armed Forces.” The Center publishes a newsletter and other relevant materials. Its mission statement has this to say: “Throughout its history the military has taken the lead in promoting positive social changes, but the counter-cultural agenda being promoted now is quite different. Social engineering policies being imposed on the military today are designed to benefit only a few, at the expense of the many, regardless of the negative effects on unit strength, deployability, morale, recruiting, retention, and overall readiness.
“The situation is complicated by a proud military tradition: Once decisions are made, good soldiers are expected to carry out orders, not debate them. This means that civilian activists, who will seldom have to live with the consequences, are free to impose extraordinary burdens on men and women who are not truly free to express their own opinions.”
For a demoralized military it's been doing pretty well for itself in Afganistan and Iraq.