two additional comments on the AVF

DEI, assumptions, and readiness

I received two further responses, three total, on Monday’s column regarding the All Volunteer Force and its recruiting problems. Interestingly, each writer is a retired military officer I worked with over the years. The purely veteran responses may indicative of leery civilians inexperienced or uncomfortable commenting on the armed forces yet we ask those same armed forces to put their lives on the line for us. These retired 0-6s, colonels or captains, responded, coincidentally from the Air Force, Marines, and Navy.

Napoleon’s Colonel offered the following:

“Cynthia, another prescient and important topic you've covered down in your ACC forum. There is not shortage of data and anecdotal observations that highlight the lack of proclivity of our youth to undertake what can only be described as an honorable vocation / profession (depending on how long you decide to stay). There are some structural issues, no doubt and our professional recruiters are the ones far more capable of addressing these than me...but I cannot help but comment on the profound impact on the AVF and current recruiting malaise arising from our recent wars, poor policy choices, and the shameful showing during the Afghan war topped off by a national humiliation three years ago. Given the changes in our more polarized society and, as Cliff notes, the social implications of DoD policies on the Services, it is no surprise that young people look at the Armed Forces and think twice and look no further than their phones and see what great alternatives there are. We can and need to do better. Finally, the fundamentals of military service and realities of combat - that is, a focus on combat readiness, killing our enemies, and applying organized violence - mandate strict adherence to the principles of warfighting over creature comforts and other social norms being held up by socially righteous policymakers over the cold hard realities of creating military cultures that promote steely eyed warfighting formations - they are out there but not in the required numbers we need. Nothing new under the sun), such as a maniacal focus on COMBAT readiness in our formations: esprit, cohesion, realistic training, lots excellent equipment (that works), and, most importantly, well-grounded and professional leaders that know what combat is all about (read: a professional NCO and officer corps). This is what the Marines try to do and may be part of their success (the "Rose Garden" that they don't promise anyone)...and maybe the "secret sauce." But, alas, your clarion call about the necessity of a "serious national conversation" on the matter will, sadly, only come too late. It's not a matter of "if" at this point but "when" and that "when" is upon us...our enemies are looking on at our current plight with glee. Thank you. Keep moving forward.”

The final response I received will remain anonymous, which is the individual’s privilege. I want people to weigh in so I am fine if they don’t want their names used but am quoting him directly.

“As I drift into and out of my current covid affected consciousness I have to push back on this. {the response I posted Tuesday-cw}

There is this unspoken and wholly unvalidated idea that 'woke' and 'DEI' have eliminated merit-based competition or more insidiously any measurement of performance. Which is patentedly not true in the military. Can you honestly imagine a ship's crew, air force squadron, or army company where leaders have said, 'nope, we aren't tracking performance anymore and we refuse to recognize merit anymore. Only historically underrepresented groups will be rewarded for promotion and pay until further notice.'

I suspect you can't imagine that, because it is ludicrous.

Let's study it. Let's send out a survey of all first term military members (< 4yrs, or whatever their minimum contract is). Let's see what they say. I'd be shocked if by percentage the overrepresented groups say their opportunities are more repressed than the underrepresented groups. 

Because here's the truth. While we would all love to wipe our hands and claim victory there is clearly still a rump of people and behaviors that stifle underrepresented groups. In 2017, in Arlington VA, our foster child neighbor of mixed race was suspended from high school for three days because a white parent was on campus during the lunch hour and called a student the n-word. Resulting in a fight and law enforcement response. In 2017, in nearly in the heart of supposed the most woke city in the country.
Move forward to the Montgomery County Alabama brawl of a few years ago or the recent tragic loss of Roger Fortson's life in Okaloosa County FL and there is clearly still work to be done. 

It's interesting how the Air Force has data saying the non-judicial system is skewed against blacks

Consistent, widespread racial disparities hurt Black airmen, IG study finds (airforcetimes.com)

And the one Air Force officer that addressed it continues to have his career manipulated.

Dear white colonel … we must address our blind spots around race (airforcetimes.com)

Just one promotion remains blocked due to officer’s views on diversity (militarytimes.com)

With three 20-something young men dating or engaged to three 20 something women including significantly underrepresented populations I can report no person in the group sees the world quite so zero sum as if a minority makes progress it comes at a direct cost to the majority. 

I made this comment to someone about abortion as the primary cycle was gearing up. It's probably best for white men over 50 to just not talk about women's bodies anymore. We've had our time. We've said our piece. Our input isn't needed. And in fact, it's probably jet fuel on the bonfire.

That's probably true of racism, DEI, and woke too. We can hand over the pulpit. Let go of the microphone. Our voice has shaped the narrative for long enough. There is no cost to letting go. Actually, there might be a huge benefit to just shutting up for a while. 

My two cents anyway.” — Anonymous

I will add that I too have said my piece so I will welcome your thoughts but understand it’s a hot button issue for so many from different perspectives. We are a nation of 350 million so multiple deeply held views is no surprise on anything. Americans laud meritocracy and embrace various procedures to protect everyone involved to assure the best leadership and recruits, among other issues, but in fact have long used a range of measures to determine who gets promoted or who gets even hired. This is not a new problem nor is it one likely to disappear soon.

Voters elect an administration for the four or perhaps eight year term it’s in office. That is why we have checks and balances to assure it works in our interests but few of us today accept the notion of compromise that the constitutional system sets into motion. Much food for thought in the days ahead as we move into an administration without the incumbent.

This column was just for the armed forces recruiting but I would argue similar problems manifest elsewhere, in businesses, educational institutions, prisons, and everywhere else. It’s easy to say we want the best but how are we defining that, in practice? Actions and consequences, of course, interject themselves into the mix.

Thank you for reading Actions. I hope more of you will send comments but deeply appreciate these three notes with relevance from quite different perspectives and experiences. The endgame of Actions is precisely this kind of discussion which I want to sustain, rather than have too late to address ramifications as the second writer stated.

Thank you to the subscribers as you provide resources allowing me to read the widest array of materials to bring to this newsletter. I welcome all readers, however.

Be well and do be safe. FIN