Nations have armed forces for two reasons: 1) to kill people and 2) to break things.  The tools a society provides its warriors are things like rifles, machine guns, howitzers, tanks, guided missile cruisers, fighters, and so on.  It is critical that a nation's warriors are proficient at using these tools to kill the enemy and break his things.  Gaining and maintaining this proficiency is a full-time job.  If the armed forces do not have this competence, the nation may perish.

The focus of this Department of Defense on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) distracts from building proficiency at killing people and breaking things.  One doesn't have to go far to find examples.  Defense secretary Lloyd Austin has testified to the Department's focus on DEI.  He appointed a new senior adviser on the issue.  The Navy has been in the news for releasing a training video on the proper use of sexual identity pronouns.  The Army released a controversial animated recruiting ad that features a woman growing up with two mothers seeking her own adventures.  The Marines issued a statement supporting Gay Pride month that featured a helmet adorned with bullets painted in colors of a Gay Pride flag.  The Air Force stood up its first ever office for DEI in February 2021.  There are credible reports of Critical Race Theory being taught "uncritically" at West Point.  Because a handful of the January 6 riot participants were veterans, Lloyd Austin ordered a stand-down for the armed forces to purge white supremacists from the ranks.  (The logical connection is mystifying.)  None of this contributes to the reasons for having armed forces.

A more compelling issue is the relationship of its warriors with society.  Having spent a career as a soldier, I will include myself in this discussion.  We are different from the rest of you.  We can seem "normal."  We can work in an office, live in your neighborhood, send our kids to the same school, have a mortgage, and walk our dogs.  But a soldier's ultimate duty is to conduct violence at the risk of life and limb.  The nature of what we have to do well requires some separation from society.  We must practice using the tools you provide us.  We need to shoot the rifles, machine guns, howitzers, and tanks.  Bombers need to practice dropping bombs.  Fighters need dedicated airspace to practice aerial combat.  Fighters based on aircraft carriers need to take off and land on the carriers.

The question is, "how much separation is healthy?"  Is it better for warriors to have a stake in the society they defend or to be hired guns?  My answer is it would be better for warriors to participate in society so that they are defending their own society.  This affects policy questions like the draft and military compensation.  There is not a perfect answer to maintain the balance between proficiency and connection to society, but a society needs to keep the issue under review.

In World War II, between 9% and 10% of the population was under arms.  The entire society was involved in the war effort.  The connection between the military and society at large was solid.  Because of the decision to fight the Vietnam War without calling up reserves, about 2% of the population was under arms.  There was a conscious decision not to involve the nation in the war effort, and there was estrangement between the military and society.

One small personal story can highlight this.  I went to Vietnam in December 1970.  On the way to the airport, I saw people buying Christmas trees, obviously unconcerned that I was going to war.  On the plane to Seattle, I sat with businessmen who were concerned about traveling so close to Christmas and the location of their hotels with regard to their business.  My biggest concern was that I might very soon get shot.  There was estrangement here.

In our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the percentage of the population under arms dwindled to less than one percent.  While most of us went about our normal lives, those on active duty returned to combat multiple times.  This led to some morale problems as a tiny portion of the population led lives of continuous difficulty and danger.  There was some effort not to repeat some of the awful treatment of the military during Vietnam, but some estrangement by a soldier might be understood after four deployments, one wound, and one divorce.

This issue can be studied and debated rationally, and far more productively, than promoting racial division and safe spaces for gender identity feelings.  Because there is no reason to field armed forces that aren't good at their job and solidly tied to the society they protect.

Image: Picryl.