One doesn’t become a general without being, at least in part, a “political general,” and being a “political general” means being ready to recite the religious dogmas of the ruling class. Gen. George Casey had it down pat. Immediately after last year’s jihad-motivated Ft. Hood shooting, he announced that having a homogeneous, Euro-American military would be worse than mass murder. Said Casey:
Our diversity, not only in our Army, but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse.
(I suspect that Gen. Stanley McChrystal couldn’t take the PC demands anymore and decided to go out swinging.)
There remains a mystical bond between conservative Americans and the U.S. Armed Forces, as the Tea Partiers see them as the last bastions of honor and manhood. This certainly represents a healthy instinct on their part. But it’s hard for me not to see the military institutions as infected by PC just as thoroughly as the Department of Education -- if not more so. The dirigiste natural of the military has, in fact, put it on the vanguard of social engineering: the armed forces were desegregated by executive order four years before Brown vs. Board of Education, and 14 before the Civil Rights Act.
Today, the Navy advertises itself as a “Global Force for Good,” led by a multiculti crew of men and women who seek to “soothe” the “anguish of those less fortunate.” Lacking a recruiting slogan with such sweep, the Army has nonetheless succeeded in becoming multicultural in fact, a deed accomplished through year’s of affirmative action and the dumbing-down of entrance exams to embarrassing levels.
The Army “looks like America,” or rather like various images of multicultural equality dreamed up by the media. This is most obvious in the slovenly dress worn by its soldiers -- the characteristic baggy fatigues -- which are donned even by active generals making television appearances.
The military aesthetic of hierarchy and pomp ….
…. have given way to egalitarian ugliness.
The above Getty photo, taken in the aftermath of the last year’s Ft. Hood massacre, displays an army of out-of-shape, slouching, prolish men and women yammering on their cell phones; one petite female “soldier” cries at the sight of blood and is comforted by her Pooh-Bear commander. One wonders whether such troopers could conquer their way out of a paper bag.
(It's been reported today that the Army's sack-of-potatoes appearance can be altered if a foreign-born soldier decides to add various touches of religious flare.)
Ultimately, the “post-modernization” of the U.S. armed forces affects not only aesthetics but who lives and who dies. During the height of the Iraq War, hawks and doves argued ferociously over the morality of calling up National Guard reserves from the various states and sending them off to fight and bleed in the Middle East.
Few pointed out the absurdity of the fact that the Army, which has half a million in “active” personnel -- the armed forces having three times that many -- was unable to find enough men to fight and had to rely on weekend warriors whose Constitutional duty is to defend their states from invasion.
The reason, of course, is that much like every other bureaucracy, the Army is filled with the likes of “intelligence specialist Alvin Greene." For the unproductive, talentless, and stupid, military service is the equivalent of guaranteed employment. For those patriotic volunteers whom the Army actually trusts with a gun, Diversity kills.