As a general statement, the more diverse a group, the more effective it will be, because we are all products of our environments and our culture and we just think in certain ways. So the more different perspectives a team can bring to problem solving, the more successful they will be, generally.
Of course, diversity is not itself divine, nor the answer to all situations. The driving factor is always—mission accomplishment; get the job done. And for military organizations, the mission is combat readiness. Now, what combat readiness means to each military organization depends on the group’s mission. A military purchasing and contracting office is much different than a cargo aircraft wing, which is very different that an infantry brigade or a SEAL team.
The purpose of close combat units is to kill people and break things– up-close and personal. No cannon fired or bomb dropped from miles away—no, these units must be prepared to and will sometimes have to get face to face and hand to hand with our enemies. The consequence of failure is not a lawsuit about a goofed up contract for more bullets—but bloody and horrible death. Close combat units must always be combat ready—and that can never be sacrificed—even to nice things like diversity, equal opportunity, or political correctness.
What has make American close combat units so effective throughout history is what is often called the “band of brothers bond.” The members of the team bear all kinds of hardship together, bleed together, literally put their lives on the line daily for the others. They fight together, cry together, laugh together and absolutely trust each other. An organization like that can regularly beat much larger enemy forces that do not share that bond.
Now it’s time for me to shock you. There is a difference between men and women—no, really. Our bodies are quite different—whether it’s bone density, muscle mass, or bone shape—they’re different. Women’s less-dense bones will wear out faster in tough wearing situations—so should we allow women to be in infantry units and special ops units, like our military has now been directed to do? You know, even if the women can keep up with the men, they won’t last as long as they’ll wear out faster. But that’s not my point, just now. My point is that sexual tension absolutely destroys the band of brothers bonding.
The allowing of homosexuals to serve openly in our military has created a form of sexual tension and has resulted in a huge number of male-on-male rapes every year. What do you think that does to military unit morale and trust?
Then, when men and women are in the same unit and are out in the woods for months at a time with no privacy and lots of pressure— would you be surprised if troops in their late teens and young 20s don’t find interest in their peers of the opposite sex? Then we have the “does he like me,” “does she like him more than she likes me,” “she broke up with me—I hate her,” and similar emotions running through this close combat unit. Sexual acts will occur, and rape will occur; how could it not? Any team could end up with sub-teams as individuals pair off and these sub-teams could conflict with each other. This kind of thing is hard enough to deal with in high school kids when you’re a parent, but when you’re a combat leader and this happens you’re looking at mission failure and dead and wounded soldiers. Yes, if, it’s not obvious, pairing by homosexual is would be equally damaging.
Oh, the Pentagon’s solution is to educate the troops not to be sexually active. That’s the only option left to them. Wanna guess how effective it is? Right. Zip. Zero. The sexual drive, especially in people of that age is just very strong. That’s why rape is a big issue today in our military; the problem is no bigger there than in similar civilian groupings, but the risk to our nation of rape at a college campus is tiny compared to rape in a foxhole—and the enemy hearing it and attacking. Or the rapist getting shot the next time the team is out on patrol. This is very, very serious and is a major degradation in the effectiveness of our close combat units.
As a former infantry rifle platoon and rifle company commander in combat—this thought tears me up. It’s not just the death of my men—but the net result could be that our nation loses the war.
Pro football doesn’t allow women to play on their teams. I’m sure any team owner would love to have a woman or two or more on his team if they could hold their own—the publicity would be worth millions of dollars. But there are no women playing in the NFL—or the NHL—or the NBA. I consider these contact sports, especially at the pro-level, to be real close combat—okay, non-lethal combat. But women can’t meet the standards. But now our national leaders have said it’s fine for women to be in lethal close-combat. Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb.
Remember this rape of and in our military as you’re considering your vote for president.
