You Can Dictate Acceptance; Respect Has To Be Earned
Gary Anderson
At the present time, sailors in Japan, and probably elsewhere, are undergoing Transgender Awareness Training. This is obviously a leftover from the dubious legacy of Ray Mabus, who is thankfully no longer the Secretary of the Navy. Mabus went out of his way to create a kinder and gentler Navy. Congress has dictated that LGBT people be allowed to serve. The next obvious step was to celebrate them; that has now happened. The question is what’s next? LBGT people may be born predisposed to their sexual orientation; their argument is that they should be accepted for that fact. Being celebrated for your race, sex or color has become something expected in the US government - as long as you are not a straight white male.
The problem is that straight white males will continue to provide the vast majority of the yeomanry that defends this country. Despite the hype, LGBT people are not flocking to the colors, nor are women storming the gates of our infantry schools. Minus a reinstatement of the universal military service that includes women, which is very unlikely, we will never see a truly representative mix of women, racial minorities, and LGBT people in the military.
The need for hyphenated American celebrations is a throwback to the bad old days of the late sixties and seventies of the last century. In the wake of Vietnam, when racial tensions ran high, there was a belief that “human relations” training would ease tensions. It did not; they generally got worse when soldiers, sailors, marines, and flyers were forcibly encouraged to love and understand each other. By the early seventies racial tensions were epidemic. As Commandant of the Marine Corps in the mid- seventies, General Louis Wilson frankly told the Marine Corps that it would be a quality organization if all that was left was he, the Sergeant Major, and the Marine Corps Colors. Malcontents of all races were summarily discharged. Discipline reasserted itself. The other services followed in turn. The Navy got itself purged by John Lehman who, as Navy Secretary, reversed the reforms of the touch-feely Admiral Elmo Zumwalt.
That said, special celebrations for African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, and etcetera have survived. Today, LGBT-American days are being planned in virtually all branches of government. However, there are no Scottish/Irish or Scandinavian-American days. Those people, and others generally classified as “white males” (most of whom are straight) are considered to be the people who need to be re-educated.
We need to be honest here. Some white straight males owned slaves, many are still bigoted against minorities and LGBT people. Attitudes are changing in the country, but this is evolutionary. However, in the military, no-one cares about your personal feelings. When an order is issued, you obey it; there is no debate. You may not like the man or women you are teamed with, but if you fail to accomplish your given mission, you are replaced and probably disciplined. If you don’t like it, don’t re-enlist or (in the case of officers) request resignation. No debate, no appeal. LBGT people are in the military, deal with it. Orders are orders.
In my view, this is the way to deal with the integration of women into the combat arms and openly LGBT people into the military in general. Acceptance can be mandated, but respect has to be earned. If a woman can lead her platoon through an arduous military exercise, she will be accepted as a leader. The same goes for a transgendered or gay person. No amount of sensitivity training is going to overcome the fact that, if you do not trust the man or woman in the foxhole with you to protect you competently while you are not on watch, you are going to be marginalized. The same holds true in the Navy; if you can handle the hose on a damage control party, you are in the club. If you can’t, you are considered to be a liability.
When I was a Marine Corps battalion commander on Okinawa in the late 1980s, I would occasionally take my battalion officers to the Kadena Air Force Base officers’ club for happy hour. One of my Captains fell in with a female Air Force navigator whose call sign was “Wildebeest”, as she was a fairly famous body builder. They apparently got into an argument over weightlifting. They repaired to the base gym to settle the argument. The next morning at our staff meeting, I asked him how it went. “She hurt me bad Colonel; she’d make a fine addition to the battalion.” No amount of sensitivity training can trump that.
About the Author(s)
Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corps Colonel who has been a civilian advisor in Iraq and Afghanistan. He is an adjunct professor at the George Washington University's Elliott School of International Affairs.
Comments
The military is one of the greatest cauldrons for progress in America. Unlike most private enterprises, the U.S. military gives minorities, women and lower socioeconomic citizens a chance to succeed and thrive. For living up to our national ideal, and helping create it, the military knows no peer.
But it has been and is a hard fought battle. The history of racism and integration of the military is a long and dark one. LGBT members have always been in the military, but have had to serve in silence. Even under "don't ask, don't tell" they were silenced, and many good soldiers who did their job were drummed out, losing all benefits, for no crime other than being gay. Today, women are facing tough opposition to their attempts to fight for their country.
Anderson's arguments are the same each has heard. But it is the white, heterosexual male that sets the standard that all are judged by. His parting story, for example, sets that the only way the woman gained respect was in a boxing ring. Men set the mark to be measured. Deviate or question and it shows not only weakness (in the mind of the majority), but of being unfit to serve.
Most women face sexual harassment regularly. The structure for dealing with this is lacking, in part because the males in charge don't see a problem. The need for sensitivity training is because too many members of the military struggle to put themselves in the shoes of their fellow soldier. Many are in command positions. Many of those same people who complain about the training demand that others see and adhere to their point of view without question.
It can be isolating. True, new members to the armed forces need to show they belong, but the military should also be open to those willing to serve. While LGBT and female citizens might not be beating down the doors, that may because they have traditionally not been given a chance, much less acceptance once they prove themselves. These are moves towards change.
One successful strategy for making small groups feel part of the larger is a celebration of identity. White straight males are already part of the large group (they are the majority), although it can feel like a loss of identity when others join the club--is not of white or straight identity, though, but a loss of power. By celebrating smaller groups, they are empowered to join the larger.
The military does this especially well by celebrating units, branches, bases, tours and the like. Celebrations of Scots, members from Ohio or those a certain age would certainly add to this. But celebrations of the majority that dictates most of the culture already only serves to isolate and marginalize others.
The military has a very real concern about unit cohesiveness. They are trying hard to make that happen. With each victory--of minorities to integrate, of LGBA members (who have always served) to serve openly, and now women--the military gets stronger and becomes the ideal of the nation it serves. Let it continue to lead the way.
I agree with Col. Anderson's well-worn maxim that respect is to be earned not granted.
However, I am not sure that the proponents of identity politics are seeking respect. On the contrary, they seem to be seeking to be celebrated on the basis of natural and involuntary characteristics.
Yet the legal-political bedrock of liberal democracy is predicated upon individual rights, liberties and obligations, not group ones. Although no society can be completely communitarian or completely individualistic in practice, the fact is that communitarianism and individualism are opposed in a zero-sum game. Therefore, dividing society among communities rather than individuals is only possible in semi-democracies (early constitutional monarchies, socialist democracies) or non-democracies (communist, fascist and theocratic states; absolute monarchies).
The sheer irony of "progressive" identity politics is sickening. Rather than struggling for a legal leveling to benefit all individuals, these "social justice warriors" are merely struggling to reverse what they perceive to be a "white capitalist supremacist hetero-patriarchy". In doing so, they have bought into the concepts of racial, class, gender and orientation struggle promulgated by those they seek to overthrow and replace. In essence, these SJWs are more akin to the Bolsheviks than the Provisional Government.
However, in deference to historical wrongs (slavery, segregation, sexism, Homophobia, etc.), I would also put forth what I call the "metal ruler analogy". If a metal ruler is say bent in the middle, you cannot straighten it by flattening it out on a flat desktop. You will find that the bend remains as a hump, and no matter how much you stack weight on the ruler, it will still have a slight bump where the bend was. The only way to truly flatten it is to bend it the other way. This will reverse the bend the other way, necessitating decreasing back and forth pressure to finally straighten the ruler.
Perhaps political correctness, welfare payouts, multiculturalism, and cultural relativism were a necessary push against the cultural legacy of past injustices? If so, then clearly Trump's election is part of a smaller pushback. We might then experience smaller and smaller pushes and pushbacks until there is an overall sense of a level playing field.
Identity politics in the military is a luxury afforded only by America's unmatched capabilities. However, one can recall the 1920s and 1930s, when the French armed forces suffered from the culture wars of various political factions, and how that left them in 1940, despite their significant numbers of quality tanks, aircraft, artillery, warships and mechanized transport.
What will happen is that after a few years it will be noticed that "Target Group A" is under represented at a given rank level and steps will be taken to remedy this obvious sign of systematic discrimination. The author's position that competence is what counts is out of touch with the current wave of identity politics.