Has the military become too PC to fight the nation's wars?

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:19:23 -0400

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

'Warfare Is About Death and Destruction': Peters Says We Can't Fight a PC War on ISIS

Winning the battle against ISIS has been made more difficult by the U.S. military being overtaken by political correctness, Lt. Col. Ralph Peters (Ret.) said on "America's Newsroom" today.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Mar 30 at 2016 9:23 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:23:23 -0400

Not a fan of the title "Warfare is about Death and Destruction". While true, the general idea of war or conflict is to stop the enemy from gaining a strategic advantage. Death and destruction is the unfortunate event that comes from that.

The article doesn't get into specifics of what PC they mean. Maybe they can elaborate. I hear PC being thrown around a lot, but examples shown are usually so extreme and from a small part that doesn't matter.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Mar 30 at 2016 9:23 AM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:23:52 -0400

Next they'll take away the real weapons and give our boys and girls paintball guns! God forbid we actually hurt somebody, least of all the enemy, while waging war.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Mar 30 at 2016 9:39 AM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:39:41 -0400

COL Private RallyPoint Member 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.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 9:42 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:42:49 -0400

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.

Response by 1LT A. Uribe made Mar 30 at 2016 9:56 AM

1LT A. Uribe — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:56:12 -0400

I think it has, I still remember my first Battalion Commanders weekly formation. He was a hard charging tanker, if anyone would state some of the things he would say today, they'd be a shit storm everywhere.

Response by 1LT A. Uribe made Mar 30 at 2016 9:56 AM

1LT A. Uribe — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 09:56:13 -0400

Response by SSG Carlos Madden made Mar 30 at 2016 10:03 AM

SSG Carlos Madden — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:03:57 -0400

It depends on what "PC" means in this case. In warfare we used to have much stricter rules then we do now. I'd argue that in many ways we're far less "PC" now than we used to be.

Response by SSgt Jim Gilmore made Mar 30 at 2016 10:17 AM

SSgt Jim Gilmore — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:17:14 -0400

IMO, every flag officer on AD is playing the PC game to the max. They are all walking on pins and needles for fear they utter the wrong word their career is over. That my brothers and sisters is BULLS***!!! Yes, it is a good policy to have the military answering to the civilian leaders but those military leaders need not fear being fired because they piss someone off.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 10:36 AM

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:36:37 -0400

Death and destruction IS the byproduct of war. It is the reality of war which has been constant from the age of the shield and spear to today's age that includes concepts like EW and nuclear weapons. It is foolish and irresponsible to think otherwise. In today's sheltered society our culture conditions civilians and in some cases our military personnel to believe otherwise.

We must also recognize that our society has changed over the course of the last half-century. If that is a good or bad change it has to do a lot with personal preference however the Armed Forces had always and will always have one primary mission: Find the enemy, engage the enemy and destroy the enemy.

Anything that deters them from doing that is counter to the mission.

EO policies are a result of situations that occur in the force and are in need of addressing, sometimes those policies will disrupt the force, but it is our responsibility to make sure that the force will adapt without losing the ability to perform the mission. You can have all the policies in the world and you can still fail in addressing an issue, your policy can be subverted, distorted and used against the very spirit that it was created for. There is one key element that has to do with how those policies are implemented, interpreted etc. and it is the human factor.

If we don't train our NCOs and officers to be critical thinkers that stand for what is right and wrong, if we don't encourage them to speak against the wrong and the bad , if we cannot demonstrate that actions have consequences, if we allow people to use regulations to hide behind, then our will further deteriorate in a false sense of security and wishful thinking that has zero to do with the reality of the world.

In reality the world is not a fair place, the battlefield is not a fair place, not everyone plays by the same rules and certainly not our enemies.

The Army has changed, the Army is changing since it was created and it will be going through changes till the end of times, yes it has become more politically correct, yes that is a dangerous concept when you pit it vs the realities of the world, but it is not irreversible and it's not something that either has to be gray or white.

Our policies need to be zeroed in and our groupings tightened, that's how you avoid collateral damage and that is how you remain combat effective and true to your mission.

As a society we have the moral obligation to stay true to our founding fathers core beliefs, those beliefs are what separates us from any other country on the planet.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 10:54 AM

SPC Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:54:52 -0400

Yes. He is right.

Response by SSG Robert Webster made Mar 30 at 2016 10:58 AM

SSG Robert Webster — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:58:57 -0400

WOW! This discussion went off topic and south pretty quickly.

SSG Carlos Madden, Please explain what you meant by "In warfare we used to have must (much?) stricter rules then we do now."

Response by Maj John Bell made Mar 30 at 2016 10:59 AM

Maj John Bell — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:59:02 -0400

You signed up to protect democracy, not participate in it knot head. IF the Marine Corps ever wants your opinion you'll be promoted to Cpl. -- SgtMaj Kacjewski to a Pvt that thought he was too smart to be left out of the decision-making process.

Response by CPT Mark Gonzalez made Mar 30 at 2016 11:16 AM

CPT Mark Gonzalez — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:16:43 -0400

I agree and I can say at least for me politics in the number one reason why I am leaving the military.

Response by SGT Philip Roncari made Mar 30 at 2016 12:07 PM

SGT Philip Roncari — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:07:48 -0400

I am far too old 70,been out of the military far too long,Vietnam but am very interested by the responses there seems to be no middle ground then again I guess I answered my own query since there was no such thing as PC back in the Stone Age of my youth

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 30 at 2016 12:39 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:39:25 -0400

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.

Response by SPC David S. made Mar 30 at 2016 1:01 PM

SPC David S. — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:01:45 -0400

I think the term 'politically correct' is very miss leading - as its origins is a description of a politician not offending anyone in their rhetoric. Behind the 'politically correct' veil there is still a person who's not being honest, presenting a false patina of who they really are and what they truly believe in - in fact the manifestation of a lie

I wonder if the real problem is that we make war to palatable. With things like the GC and other ROE's we try to mitigate the true nature of war. All the while knowing deep down the real truth is that we are capable of much worse as a race and that scares the shit out of us. We always say stuff like war is the result of failed policy when in fact the policy that failed was the result of a war.
Yet we still try to measure the space in between Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the holocaust.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Mar 30 at 2016 1:54 PM

COL Ted Mc — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:54:59 -0400

COL Private RallyPoint Member - Colonel; Left to implement the changes on its own the military will do just fine. The majority view is that PROVIDING that they can ACTUALLY MEET the existing standards then anyone should be allowed the chance to do any job in the military.

Given that attitude amongst the majority of "military leaders" the situation will shake down in time PROVIDED that those who don't know what they are talking about keep their mitts off.

Response by MCPO Roger Collins made Mar 30 at 2016 2:03 PM

MCPO Roger Collins — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:03:37 -0400

I seriously doubt that Peters was speaking of the performance of our fighters, but the limits placed on them. Our people have performed at a stellar performance, given decisions by the administration.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Mar 30 at 2016 2:39 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:39:24 -0400

We are not good at fighting insurgencies. It's more than IED, it's about understanding people.

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Mar 30 at 2016 3:30 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:30:19 -0400

This subject gets me fired up!

PC stands for personal Courage, having enough of it to do your mission in combat and garrisson....the social experimentation and political correctness so as to not offend some jackwagon is down right ridiculous!

I heard a DA Civilian employee bitching and complaining today "the window shades need to remain closed" this is after the same jackwagon made it their mission to compete for and move into the "prime location within the office space" as to take ownership of having a view - are you f'in kidding me man? Another employee stated that it would be beneficial to let sunlight in the office, that is would help bring up the spirit and productivity of all the employees.....the jackwagon got onto their feet and stated loudly "I should not have to work with the window shades open, it gives me a bad headache, I should not have to" Then another civilian employee interjects, "I don't like working in a hostile environment". What a f'n clown show...this is fear of hurting someone's feeling is getting way out of hand - why, because I don't want to hurt someone's feelings.....I wonder how much the families of victims of the latest suicide attack in Belgium appreciate the political correctness of their society?

Could it get any better, well hell it can! You ready for this - so as I am heading out the door to go to another location for a meeting, I see two LTC's sitting on a bench speaking to one another, I render a crisp hand salute and offer the greeting of the day....one of the Officers immediately stands to the position of attention and returns the salute and replies with a courteous reply, the second LTC decides to get to his feet and returns the salute ("hi Sergeant Major") as I am walking away I hear a comment "what's wrong with him, why he wont let us be in the E-4 Army"....my thoughts "OH-HELL NO!" So I turn around and engage them in a conversation about personal courage and instilling the spirit to achieve and win in todays military.....the first LTC that stood at the position of attention and returned the salute approached me as if to draw me away from the other Officer.....he admitted "my buddy has a ------- problem"....thing is that I know their Brigade Commander on a professional and personal level (for more than 15 years)....would it be pertinent (to display personal courage and political correctness) to inform the Brigade Commander of that is going on in his ranks?

Response by SGM Mikel Dawson made Mar 30 at 2016 9:24 PM

SGM Mikel Dawson — Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:24:20 -0400

The military is not a place for social engineering experiments. Why are we having people going to court because they can't have a beard, wear "their own head dress"? Our military is a reflection of our political and civilian influence - getting more liberal all the time. What ever happened to doing what your told, when your told and how your told? What ever happened to the response of - a hand salute followed by "Yes Sir / Ma'am ?

Response by SPC David Hannaman made Mar 31 at 2016 7:51 AM

SPC David Hannaman — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 07:51:50 -0400

YES! Ever since Truman was (in the words of Rodney Dangerfield) "too much of a pussy wimp to let McAurther go in there and blow out those commie bastards".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKBfT--rwmc

Sam Kinison - "Back To School" - Prof Terguson - 1986

Sam plays the "dedicated" history Professor Terguson

Response by SGT Jerrold Pesz made Mar 31 at 2016 8:36 AM

SGT Jerrold Pesz — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:36:13 -0400

Yes.

Response by SSG Robbie McBride made Mar 31 at 2016 1:59 PM

SSG Robbie McBride — Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:59:26 -0400

As I read through all the opinions, his point is made load and clear. Every one is picking up their "individual" concern! Our politicians are more concerned with public opinion opposed to defeating the enemy! As far as PC, it appears today's soldier has a little Lawyer sitting on their shoulder. This causes one to second guess everything they do. Being indecisive is the demise of success!

Response by TSgt Marco McDowell made Apr 1 at 2016 9:10 AM

TSgt Marco McDowell — Fri, 01 Apr 2016 09:10:03 -0400

My uncles and cousins say the same about Vietnam. The key word is political. When the policy makers get too far involved that it hamstrings the warfighter, you then have issues. It's not the military that's PC, it's the civil authority that's PC and thus a trickle down.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2016 3:24 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:24:35 -0400

I do think the military requires better focus and direction from the leaders in the Pentagon and the White House when it comes to fighting the Nation's wars