Too Many Whites, Men Leading the Military?

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by afchic

... but I also feel there is a strong case for nurture vs nature...

I always found this line of reasoning devoid of logic for one simple reason, the child has no choice in the "nature" or the "nurture." All he/she can do is to rise above whatever genetic or environmental limitations were placed on them. Which of course then puts their offspring in the same position.

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by afchic

Never said it was. But if you were to put women in an environment where they had to fight for their survival or perish, I am sure environment would overrule those pesky hormones

I respectfully disagree. But I won't state my reasons in the open.

[Richard]

Experience has taught me that we should never assume people are going to behave as we expect them to.

Richard

[The Reaper]

Originally Posted by afchic

I helped my dad rebuild the engine to his willy when I was 12.

Ahem.

I believe you mean Willys.

TR

[frostfire]

Originally Posted by Broadsword2004

I think it is a combination of nature/nurture.

um...nature, nurture, then choice. Choice can and has overruled nature/nurture in many instances.
For example, afchic made her choice and has been grinding axe since then

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Ahem.

I believe you mean Willys.

TR

He had more than one? Gives me willy envy.

[akv]

History has seen motivated women combatants from antiquity, through guerilla movements or major pitched battles like Stalingrad, a recent example was that gal who won a silver star in Iraq. I would defer to vets on unit cohesion, mission requirements etc. Though my divorced friends tell me their ex wives are every bit as predatory, ruthless, and dangerous as a lioness. I have always bought the Heinlein view, women have more range than men, the good ones are much better, and the bad ones much worse than men.

[1stindoor]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Ahem.

I believe you mean Willys.

TR

And there goes yet another perfectly good keyboard.

[afchic]

Originally Posted by The Reaper

Ahem.

I believe you mean Willys.

TR

Well color me embarrassed. God I hate auto correct

[Dusty]

Originally Posted by Richard

Experience has taught me that we should never assume people are going to behave as we expect them to.

Richard

Experience has taught me that liberals always behave as expected-as imbeciles.

This is just an example.

[Sigaba]

Dennisw--

Originally Posted by dennisw

Maybe I'm being dense, but I don't see how Scooterdude's comments in any way are in agreement with the MLDC's key recommendations.

I don't think you're being dense. I think the final report needed more scrubbing for editorial consistency and narrative cohesion. It reads too much like a document cobbled together from individual pieces written by subcommittees. This characteristic results in a report that is, at times, conflicting, even contradictory.

In any case, scooter's barb is, IMO, in agreement with many of the MLDC's recommendations because the MLDC wants to move beyond previous and existing policies that insist upon representation to policies that broaden opportunities for inclusion. By my reading, this desire is borne out by pages 13 and 14, especially Figure 2.1. in Appendix C, Recommendations

• Recommendation 4 (b);
• Recommendation 6 (c);
• Recommendation 7;
• Recommendation 8;
• Recommendation 10;
• Recommendation 13; and
• Recommendation 16.

To me, the most important point of the report is the MLDC's belief that only by embracing broadly defined concept of "diversity" will the armed services remain viable political institutions in the digital century. Yes, the report can be read as a call to resuscitate/revitalize/strengthen affirmative action programs. However, I see the report more as a plan to enable the armed services to expand the ways to identify, to mentor, and to develop qualified individuals to have the opportunity to build careers defending the nation.

Originally Posted by dennisw

Both the above comments address a concern that our military is out of touch with mainstream America and that the cause is our current military policy.

I think you may have misread my comment and Weigley's quote. During the Gilding Age, the widening gap between the army and "mainstream" America [if such a thing existed in the late nineteenth century] was due to the approach some reformers took to reorganization and to modernization. They had a vision how how the army should look. They were unwilling to compromise that vision. This approach meant they'd not engage in political negotiations even though horse trading may have opened other opportunities for reform down the road. My concern is that certain trajectories of opposition to the MLDC's report (and other controversial issues, such as DADT) will lead the armed services--especially the army--down this path again.

Originally Posted by dennisw

However Requiem points out in post# 41 that the numbers are consistent with percentages of Fortune 100 board seats.

I think this comparison is not germane to the discussion of the MLDC's report for several reasons. First, the MLDC wants the leadership of the armed services to reflect more closely the demographic makeup of American society--not America's board rooms. Second, the comparison implies that corporate America is a meritocracy. This notion is highly debatable given the vast damage a number of large corporations (Time Warner and HP come to mind) have inflicted upon America with their "strategies." Third, I do not think that it helps the discussion of military affairs to compare the armed services to civil society. We civilians need to work harder to understand the men and women in the armed services in their own terms, not ours. (YMMV.)

Originally Posted by dennisw

So I have to ask, why do you believe the military is moving away from civil society?

I am inclined to think it is the other way around: civil society is doing most of the moving. In a nutshell, the 1970s and 1980s saw more and more discussion of military affairs taking place in political culture and mass popular culture. That is, instead of Americans getting information about war from warriors, they turned more and more to politicians, pundits, journalists, eggheads, and folks who work in the TMZ.

IMO, this dynamic is currently spiraling in directions that I find vindicating in a historiographical sense yet very disturbing as a citizen. I have seen evidence that the services themselves are giving things a bit of a push. And as a citizen, I'm immensely concerned that the push is becoming a bit more insistent.

Originally Posted by dennisw

Assuming this gentleman knew what he was talking about, how will the MLDC's recommendations change this situation?

By my reading, the recommendations will lead to a different types of outreached based upon a re imagining of what makes a warrior a warrior and where aspiring warriors can be found.

The key word in this re-imagining is "diversity." The MLDC defines diversity so broadly that it goes beyond the boundaries of race, ethnicity, and gender. [Which is why I continue to ask some members if they've read the report or just the news article. The diversity being criticized in this thread is only part of what the MLDC has in mind.]

The MLDC believes that the inculcation of diversity into the DoD's culture, will lead to a wider range of qualities to consider in addition to the established ones when it comes to the recruiting, selecting, grooming, training, and mentoring, of the armed services' future leaders.

Originally Posted by dennisw

I personally think it's a mistake to allow women in combat arms. I believe it will destroy esprit de corp and diminish the effectiveness of our combat units, and I do not get a warm fuzzy feeling from reading the various reports issued by the MLDC that they have properly researched this issue before recommending a drastic change.

Per a post TR published some months back, I shall stay in my lane on the topic of women serving in combat arms and the impact on operational effectiveness.