By Shawn Fleetwood | The Federalist
The main mission of the U.S. military is to protect American lives and interests domestically and abroad with the most capable personnel available.
But what happens when that objective gets sidelined in favor of advancing a neo-Marxist agenda?
According to a recently published report by Will Thibeau, director of the American Military Project at the Claremont Institute,
the U.S. military’s embrace of radical left-wing orthodoxy is hampering its overall readiness and ability to respond to an increasingly volatile geopolitical environment.
Titled, “Identity in the Trenches: The Fatal Impact of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion on U.S. Military Readiness,” the analysis explores how the military’s heightened obsession with racial and gender politics is contributing to these growing problems.
“The United States Armed Forces were once the envy of the world, in large part because we selected the best of the best, and instilled in our fighting men an unshakeable military ethos,” the report reads.
“Both the ethos and the selection, however, have been in steady decline as the Department of Defense succumbs to a dangerous ideology: that of group quotas, or forced outcome equality for identity groups based on race and sex.”
While many Americans have come to associate the military’s modern embrace of radical DEI politics with policies enacted under the Biden-Harris administration, the infiltration of neo-Marxist ideology into America’s armed forces began decades prior.
What started as a seemingly good-faith effort to eradicate racial discrimination in the military during the Truman administration later devolved into a drawn-out ploy by race-obsessed leftists to “quickly plant[] the seeds of more aggressive racial policies,” according to the report.
Citing policies implemented under Democrat presidents, from Lyndon Johnson to Joe Biden, Thibeau noted how the left-wing “transformation” of America’s military “cannot be blamed entirely on progressive presidents.”
“Civil Rights-era Supreme Court decisions, racial conditions on funding imposed by Congress, initiatives by the military bureaucracy, interference by outside activist groups — all these and more were essential to turning the merit-based force that won two world wars into an identity-centric institution that has not seen a major victory since 1991,” he wrote.
And it’s not only Democrat administrations during which this radical reimagining of the armed forces took place, either.
The analysis specifically details a 2008 report published by the Army’s “Diversity Task Force” under the administration of Republican President George W. Bush that provided reasons on why “diversity” — a term weaponized by leftists to justify discrimination based on their preferred identitarian standards — is critical in the development of military policy.
In a section labeled, “Accessions,” for example, the task force regurgitated leftists’ racialist worldview by claiming the Army “must understand America’s diverse citizenry and be able to recruit across that diversity to bring in the talented people we need.”
It also argued that, “Valued, inspired employees working in an inclusive environment will help deliver a positive message to prospective Soldiers, Civilians, and their influencers.”
The assumption by the Army, Thibeau contends, is “demographic change will make race-based recruitment practices a necessity” and that DEI “will prevent our force numbers from falling off a demographic cliff.”
Given the recruiting shortfalls in the years since the Biden-Harris administration accelerated the military’s implementation of such policies, however, that claim holds little weight.
While it’s true the Army, Navy, Marines, and Air Force all (barely) met their recruiting targets this fiscal year, many of these branches had to lower benchmarks traditionally required to qualify for military service.
As The Federalist previously reported, in 2022, the Army and Navy gutted certain academic requirements in their respective branches for potential recruits seeking to join the service. Meanwhile, the Air Force lowered its entry standards last year by “allow[ing] applicants to have a greater percentage of body fat,” according to Military.com.
“[The promises of 2008 notwithstanding, the effect of DoD’s diversity-centric recruitment strategy has been fewer enlistees, at lower levels of competency, at demonstrably higher cost,” Thibeau summarized.
The Claremont scholar concluded his analysis by calling for the military to return to its “rigorous standards” that made it the most revered fighting force in the world.
To accomplish this, Thibeau recommended the Pentagon to “end all consideration of race and sex in the evaluation of personnel, contracts, and programs” and “put aside” ideology “in the interest of developing an optimized fighting force.”
“As President Donald Trump discovered in his first term … the implementation of policy is contingent on an effective bureaucracy that follows the orders of politically accountable civilians,” he wrote.
“To this end, a number of important structural reforms in the Pentagon should accompany targeted efforts to dismantle the DEI bureaucracy at the Department of Defense. Without these changes to the way in which the military operates, even perfectly sound policy would be impossible to implement — and, therefore, meaningless.”
Shawn Fleetwood is a staff writer for The Federalist and a graduate of the University of Mary Washington. He previously served as a state content writer for Convention of States Action and his work has been featured in numerous outlets, including RealClearPolitics, RealClearHealth, and Conservative Review. Follow him on Twitter @ShawnFleetwood
Leave a Comment