Joe Arbuckle
Climate change has become a quasi-religion with cult-like followers across the globe. Children are being indoctrinated in schools to believe they will die in the not too distant future if people do not take drastic steps to combat runaway climate change. This climate change paranoia is pushed by the globalists who use climate change fear as a tool to unite nations into world-wide programs to control resources and budgets. Underpinning the climate change movement are groups advocating for a One World Government including the WHO, the WEF, and the UN.
The climate change cult-like movement has sunk deep roots into our education system and government. It is especially harmful when forced into our military where climate change is now called a “crisis” and being identified as a “national security threat”; the Secretary of Defense called the climate crisis an "existential threat.” A large and costly bureaucratic structure has developed within the Department of Defense (DoD) to develop a strategy, plans and policies to deal with the "climate crisis” and “national security threat.”
The DoD has not defined what constitutes a climate “crisis.” Our nation has had a military since 1775 that has trained, operated, and fought in all kinds of extreme climate conditions around the world beginning at Valley Forge during a terrible winter. What suddenly constitutes an existential climate crisis? Answer: politics. Leftist politicians have labeled it as a crisis and our military is pressured into supporting the climate change agenda and accompanying hysteria.
If climate change is indeed a crisis and a threat to national security, then logically we should marshal military forces to combat the climate change threat. Obviously, that is not happening and is not possible. The climate has been changing in fairly predictable cycles for billions of years and will continue to change with or without mankind. The actions listed in the DoD climate change plans deal with reacting and adapting to climate change, which we have done successfully for 248 years. The only thing in the DoD plans to possibly influence climate change is the reduction of fossil fuel use in favor of electric powered vehicles which, at best, will have only a minuscule effect on the climate.
The Climate change push has a lot in common with Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). The military’s top leadership supports DEI, and it has also adopted the climate change crisis mantra. Both are politically driven--the common denominator is politics.
DEI is a spin-off of Critical Race Theory (CRT), and is firmly rooted in Marxism, which divides people into identity groups, mostly based on race, and pits them against each other as oppressors vs the oppressed identity groups. By design, DEI is divisive. Those who do not recognize these linkages simply have not studied the issue, opting instead to believe a blatantly refutable narrative invented by academics who not only have never served, but whose very ideologies are antithetical to the concept of team cohesion which is based on total trust and confidence in each other—the core component of a strong fighting force. Our top military leadership has adopted the DEI political agenda and is actively pushing it down through the ranks as virtuous. The same holds true for the climate “crisis” being proclaimed as a national security threat.
The climate change plans found in DoD's national security documents are apparently designed to appease climate activists and politicians. As with DEI, the top DoD leadership is implementing political agendas that have nothing to do with warfighting readiness. In fact, they harm it by taking DoD’s eye off the ball, its reason to exist, which is to fight and win our nation’s wars.
If senior officers today are asked questions about strictly military matters like the number of aircraft, ships, and combat vehicles that are operational or questions about deployment capabilities, etc., an honest answer will most certainly be provided. But, if the same senior officers are asked if “wokeness” is affecting recruiting, or if DEI is harmful to unity and teamwork, or if the covid vax is illegal, etc., their answers will commonly be evasive or false.
The consequence of senior officers being placed in a situation where they must defend social programs like DEI, is often damaged integrity which can be traced back to one source—politics. This politically correct (PC) influence began in earnest in 2008 with the Obama administration and has ballooned under the current administration.
Politically driven social programs put military leaders into an integrity box. If they express their true beliefs, careers are adversely affected; therefore, many feel compelled to make statements and take actions in support of programs like DEI which has as a disingenuous theme, “diversity is our strength”. Over time, it appears many convince themselves such programs are acceptable to justify their actions. This is evident with many at the top of the DoD. Rhetorical question: Would the top leaders in the DoD be in their positions if they rejected DEI and other social programs like the climate change crisis?
Conclusion
When PC policies, coming from the administration and its civilian appointees, are forced onto the military, the first and most damaging casualty at the top is often integrity. When senior officers believe they will not be promoted or selected for key positions unless they support harmful PC policies and they do so, their integrity is affected. How do senior leaders who place value on integrity rationalize such an action? Those who adopt the political agenda apparently convince themselves it is the right thing to do based on perceived duty to the CINC/President., seemingly over their oath “…bearing true faith and allegiance…” to the Constitution. They appear to adapt the attitude of “going along to get along” thinking that if they stay within the system, they can help make a positive difference. Then, there are others who are ideologically aligned with DEI, climate change, and support such PC programs without reservation. Which category is the most corrosive, those who buy into “political correctness” or those who just go along to get along? As with any ideology, the most damaging are those who buy into the political narrative and become true supporters of things like DEI and the climate change crisis. They are the ones, seemingly for the most part, who are now at the top of the military chain of command.
Politics has always influenced our military based on who the president is and who he appoints into top DoD civilian positions. The difference today is political agendas like DEI and climate change are much more extreme than previous PC policies like “don’t ask don’t tell”. These extreme political policies do great harm to our military as they erode trust and confidence service members have in their leaders. Our servicemen and women are among the best and the brightest from our nation; they know a political agenda when they see one. Confidence in their leaders, especially at the top of the chain, is shaken when they see emphasis being placed on differences in skin color and genders vs. emphasizing warfighting training and readiness.
The greatest damage caused by this PC infusion into our military has degraded war fighting readiness. Every social engineering program does real harm to warfighting. Our military must get back to its battle tested roots with equal opportunity for all service members and meritocracy to guide how people are treated. Putting service members into various categories of identity groups by race, gender, or ethnicity, and labeling some as oppressors and others as oppressed, is toxic to the warrior ethos which is based on total trust and confidence in each other for their very lives.
It is time to eliminate the bureaucracies costing untold millions of taxpayer dollars; largely staffed by DoD civilians and contractors, that have grown and become the power base for social programs like DEI, climate change, promoting pride week, and transgenders in the military. It is time to again hold commanders responsible for the health, morale, and welfare of their personnel without bureaucratic organizations dictating to commanders how to treat their people. We must take the extreme politics out of our military; let our military do what it does best—train as one color blind, meritocratic, homogenous team to fight and win our nation’s wars.
No comments:
Post a Comment