Posted on Mar 30, 2016
Has the military become too PC to fight the nation's wars?
12K
89
74
10
10
0
Ralph Peters, the loud and opinionated Fox News military analyst posits that the Army has leveraged its war-fighting ability for political correctness and soft handed measures to appease its civilian leaders and the social norms of today. Is he right? http://insider.foxnews.com/2016/03/23/ralph-peters-how-us-can-defeat-isis-radical-islam
Posted in these groups: 
Warfare
Political Correctness
Warfare Political Correctness
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 26
11
11
0
COL (Join to see) I don't think there is any question that the military is becoming too PC. While I am certainly a proponent of good order and discipline, nondiscrimination, and the military representing the social norms of our society, I am not a supporter of the liberal social engineering of the military that causes a reduction in readiness or negatively impacts the ability to accomplish the mission.
(11)
(0)
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
CPT L S Once again, you spin the truth. There is no proof that Alexander was bisexual, only conjecture.
http://www.writersreps.com/feature.aspx?FeatureID=16
also
http://www.forbes.com/sites/booked/2011/02/10/alexander-the-great-gay-or-straight/#2e6034d8e118
http://www.writersreps.com/feature.aspx?FeatureID=16
also
http://www.forbes.com/sites/booked/2011/02/10/alexander-the-great-gay-or-straight/#2e6034d8e118
Alexander the Great was a prodigy of warfare. A lethal fighter, before his 30th birthday he personally led the Macedonian army to conquer the Persian empire, the largest and most successful empire in Near Eastern history. His military tactics, logistics, and strategic vision will be relevant as long as human beings fight wars.But was history's greatest warrior also gay?Oliver Stone's movie depicts Alexander having affairs with two men in his...
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
MSgt Mike Mikulski - Reminds me of a story I heard a few years ago...
A CSM was asked why he had retired and he stated, "When I first joined the Army, being homosexual was illegal in the military. Then, when Clinton was elected, it became optional. Now that Obama is president, I am getting out before it becomes mandatory." :-)
A CSM was asked why he had retired and he stated, "When I first joined the Army, being homosexual was illegal in the military. Then, when Clinton was elected, it became optional. Now that Obama is president, I am getting out before it becomes mandatory." :-)
(0)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
MSgt Mike Mikulski - I agree, buddy. Too many things in today's military that I would have issues with. I do not question LGBT personnel's patriotism or ability to serve, but my gut just tells me that it can't help but be disruptive and that it was better to keep DADT, not allow serving "in the open". Not a "progressive" attitude, I know, but, to me, it is a realistic one.
(0)
(0)
8
8
0
Sir-I think most of us would agree that 'PC' has damaged every aspect of American culture-to include our warfighting capability. However, I sincerely believe that when it comes down to it, there's still a lot of the traits that served us well from Lexington and Concord to Khe Sanh inside the U.S. military.
(8)
(0)
6
6
0
War is the application of power to destroy your enemies will to fight. There are a lot of ways to do that, from killing people and breaking things to destroying infrastructure to blockades to propaganda.
"PC" leadership takes some of those tools off the table, and that has a number of consequences:
1. It makes the conflict last longer, costing more lives and treasure.
2. It muddies the water on desired end state, an absolute toxin to a military mission.
3. It gives the enemy who is not bound by such restrictions local superiority in the areas we do not want to engage them in. The direness of this is borne out in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
In order to beat these ISIS bastards, we need to break their will. They are laughing at us.
That doesn't mean bluster about "carpet bombing" and the like. It means that if our political leaders feel it is in the interests of the United States to give them hell, we give them HELL.
They need no hope of winning.
"PC" leadership takes some of those tools off the table, and that has a number of consequences:
1. It makes the conflict last longer, costing more lives and treasure.
2. It muddies the water on desired end state, an absolute toxin to a military mission.
3. It gives the enemy who is not bound by such restrictions local superiority in the areas we do not want to engage them in. The direness of this is borne out in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya.
In order to beat these ISIS bastards, we need to break their will. They are laughing at us.
That doesn't mean bluster about "carpet bombing" and the like. It means that if our political leaders feel it is in the interests of the United States to give them hell, we give them HELL.
They need no hope of winning.
(6)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
What do you mean by "PC leadership"? Following the law of land warfare? Abiding by our obligations in international treaties?
(1)
(0)
1SG (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see) - You know exactly what I mean by PC leadership.
We do not need to compromise our values to win.
I would argue the half-assing that we've done on recent conflicts is worse, since it has only led to destabilization in a half-dozen nations and much more humanitarian issues than would have been the case of we'd have left it alone or gone in hard.
We do not need to compromise our values to win.
I would argue the half-assing that we've done on recent conflicts is worse, since it has only led to destabilization in a half-dozen nations and much more humanitarian issues than would have been the case of we'd have left it alone or gone in hard.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google