Social engineering in the military

Posted on Updated on

“And through all this welter of change and development your mission remains fixed, determined, inviolable. It is to win our wars. Everything else in your professional career is but corollary to this vital dedication. All other public purpose, all other public projects, all other public needs, great or small, will find others for their accomplishments; but you are the ones who are trained to fight.Yours is the profession of arms, the will to win, the sure knowledge that in war there is no substitute for victory, that if you lose, the Nation will be destroyed, that the very obsession of your public service must be Duty, Honor, Country.” ~General Douglas MacArthur


There’s a disturbing trend in today’s military: it has become a petri dish in which all sorts of ideas can be experimentally added in the hopes that the idea will gain a wider acceptance in the civilian world. What  better a place than the military environment in which to shape the views of future generations? A Soldier cannot refuse to do what he’s been ordered to do. He must attend all training, he must dress a certain way, address fellow Soldiers and officers in a particular manner. The retention rate in the military after the first contract is only about 25%, so the Soldier is soon the citizen again. All the better for the Social Engineer.

Since graduating from Advanced Individual Training, I’d estimate that I’ve received 10 times the amount of Equal Opportunity, Sexual Harrassment, and sundry of sensitivity training, as actual occupational training. Many Soldiers deploy to war zones having never done their actual military jobs, and yet none of them I dare say, deploy without sensitivity training. While our enemies tirelessly study the Koran and the finer aspects of guerilla warfare, many of our Soldiers deploy to war zones only knowing they can get in trouble for making inappropriate comments to a female Soldier. Or that different cultures don’t find all jokes funny. And of course, allowing homosexuals in the military is much more about social engineering than about making a better army. It’s about making life better for gays, not for better preparing our fighting force.

It is a fortunate thing indeed that the American Army boasts the best NCO Corp in the world. There is Big Army, and then there’s the small team leader, who stresses learning the basic soldiering skills, keeping all of his platoon fit and helping them to master the responsibilities of serving in history’s greatest army. Our NCOs are trusted to keep every Soldier in the charge up to snuff. When the Soldier fails to meet the standard, it’s as much the NCO’s fault as the Soldier’s fault. But Big Army is the Politically Correct Army. It is the Army that is willing to throw Soldiers into the fray with too little training or experience. And no amount of statistical truths can dissuade this Big Army away from its headlong and destructive path to a military that offends no one. I could give particular instances that I know of, in which the current Army train-up for perishable and technical skills are severely lacking because of high turn over and lack of experience. Combine this with the fact that too much training time is taken up with training that has nothing to do with being a Soldier, and suddenly you have an Army that’s more worried about a single Private who missed a sexual harassment training block than the fact we’ve been fighting a war for more than 10 years that we should have won 5 years ago.

By allowing those that have no knowledge of  military operations to have too much say in how the military is run, we play in to some of these people’s beliefs. By removing the Army’s martial atmosphere and focus and replacing it with politically correct mantra, the military’s  resultant ineffectiveness becomes proof to the liberal elite that our military is comprised of unintelligent stooges.

Big Army is run by a bunch of disconnect bureaucrats and civilian social scientists whom wish to remake the military in to a perfect society. But no organization whose job it is to kill people, could ever be a perfect society, at least not in the sense that a progressive civilian would see it. We ask our military to do things that we do not ask of our civilians. We arrest Soldiers who refuse to fight in combat, who run away in time of war; in essence, the military throws people in jail who refuse to die for their country. Does this sound like a civilian creed? But to the most effective armies throughout history, it is the soldier’s creed that wins fights. And sometimes our enemies have mastered this winning formulae better than we have: Witness the tremendous beating the German Wehrmacht received and yet still it retained its fighting capacity until the bloody end. It was the idea of a soldier’s honor that carried the German army.

It seems that a necessary attribute of freedom is a long slide toward softness. The free begin to take for granted the rivers of blood that flowed in order to gain that freedom. Our cultural elites avoid military service because, as the most recent appointee to Marine Commandant said when questioned about his feelings on gays in the military:

“They should remember they join us, we don’t join them.”

The elite hate that idea. They don’t think they’re equal to everyone else, only that they’re entitled to make the rules for everyone else. It’s why they despised Robert Heinlein’s, Starship Troopers so much. In that book, Heinlein explained the Soldier’s mind–and it offended many whom peeped from the slits of their Ivory Towers, or peered through plumes of burning cannabis smoke. In Starship Troopers, the military was the elite. How….aweful.

Every Soldier should receive ten times the amount of training for actual fighting as he does being reminded that dirty jokes are insensitive. But for now, it remains to the NCO Corp to manage the training of his soldiers. It is every Sergeant’s duty to ensure his Soldiers receive as much training as possible, and they are capable of meeting the demands of the modern battlefield. All level one Warrior Battle Drills should be continuously drilled on a weekly basis. I’m not advocating ridding the service of sensitivity training. Heck, I think soldiers should be given classes in what being “Soldierly” means. I’d start with basic table manners that apprently most parents don’t teach their kids anymore. But perhaps I should have been born during Frederick the Great’s time, instead of my own.

While outside influencers try to remake the army in their own image, the NCO must remember the Soldier’s Creed, which is an alien creed to many progressives: Especially this line:

“I stand ready to deploy, engage, and destroy, the enemies of the United States of America in close combat.”


 In the end, many of the experiments are the self-serving chimeras of trouble makers. They do not seek to ensure the survival of the soldier, only the survival of their ideas. Ah yes, the hallmark of the elite: Ideas are more important than people.


4 thoughts on “Social engineering in the military

    Royce said:
    November 15, 2010 at 1:59 pm

    I haven’t been on active duty for way too many years but I assure you if I could I would take pride in serving once again. I can tell you that I HATE THE DON’T ASK DON’T TELL policy. I had gay soldiers under my command although there was no real way to tell — just suspicion. However those soldiers were some of my best troops. There have been homosexuals in every army since there were armies and they have done their duty. I have no idea how the average soldier would accept an openly gay comrade, but I suspect some would accept it while others would object. As an (former) officer I think openly gay troops would create more problems than they would solve. It is my personal opinion if a man (I am not greatly in favor of women in the combat arms) wants to be a soldier he should be allowed but not at the expense of having his comrades endorse a life style that some find offensive. From my perspective the American Army has acquitted itself with distinction from 1776 until today and it has done that with some percentage of gay troops but those troops have placed their desire to serve ahead of their desire for acceptance of a controversial life style. I do not think permitting openly gay soldiers is going to do anything other than create problems for the officers and NCO’s who must maintain morale and a disciplined unit.

    magus71 responded:
    November 15, 2010 at 4:42 pm

    My main arguments against it are this:

    The gay movement seems to be a movement that loves to embed itself in organizations that it knows will create the most controversy. It seems to target the Catholic priesthood and and Boy Scouts because activist leaders within the gay community know that any kind of attention is good attention. The squeaky wheel gets the grease. So I find much of the “outrage” over the issue to be false and pretentious. I believe that most of the people that display this outrage want nothing to do with the military; like with gay marriage, they only want another door open for gays.

    Every change we make in the military should be utilitarian. It’s not about justice or social equality. Afterall, we don’t allow 50 year old men to enlist, or women in combat, or people in wheel chairs. If we do not find that it helps us fight better in an existential crisis, we should not do it. And since we don’t have problems recruiting enough people to fill our ranks, I think it’s an unneeded expriment.

    Amos Volante said:
    November 19, 2010 at 2:42 am

    As you know, I am a car guy.

    Many consumers have been pissed off at auto manufacturers in the last 5-8 years because they have focused so much on fancy nav systems, driver interfaces looking hi-tech, and other glitzy techno features, that they have slacked on the basics: Engine, suspension, transmission, weather seals, seat quality, & all of the other criticals that make a car valuable.

    If your car has the world’s greatest computer gizmos, but won’t get you to the grocery store, what good is it?

    I see no difference here.

    As long as choppers crash, army captains can’t get the stuff they need for their troops, and officers are scrambling to figure out the best strategy to combat a versatile enemy, then this issue will never be worth wasting any time on.

    If you’re gay and don’t like the current policy: So what?

    I like sports cars. Will the Army start a special program for sports car enthusiasts? If so, is it more important than all the other things the army needs to be doing, or even as important?

    Amos Volante said:
    November 19, 2010 at 2:48 am

    In response to Royce’s excellent post:

    I served under two very skilled West Point grads during my enlisted tour from 89-92. I loved those guys as gifted officers and smart leaders, but I also knew them to be gay. They kicked ass, worked hard, and didn’t involve their personal business in the army’s business. Nobody hated or resented them, and you’d be surprised to know they didn’t seem to give a hoot about gay recognition.

    They knew nobody cared where they liked to poke their pokers. They did their jobs, did them well, and probably, when the opportunity arose, made sure others gays weren’t unfairly treated.

    I’m glad they were my superiors and respected their excellent service, but I also respected that they knew the army’s mission was so incredibly challenging that they did not see gay rights in the military as a priority.

    For this reason, I don’t see that anyone else should either, considering that the current policy offers necessary protection anyway.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s