Reader response: Contrary to Sullivan's claim, Pentagon has to address social issues to advance recruitment

The Alaska newspapers that eliminated reader comments on stories did so because they admitted they were powerless over the infinite supply of con artists promoting the easy money to be made at home, the generous rich people trying to give away millions and the people addicted to spreading lies and BS.

I appreciate the readers of this blog who have taken the time over the years to provide thoughtful responses that consist of more than yelling at people, claiming that someone sucks or spewing nonsense.

While the comments here are not always what I wish they would be and I’ve tried to limit use of the delete button, the comment sent in by a regular reader in response to this blog post Thursday was a model of how a contributor can advance a discussion far beyond what was there before. It is by a reader who posts under the pseudonym “Alexandra Duane.”

Several readers suggested, and I agree, that the “comment” below would be good material for Alaska newspapers to provide the bigger audience this thoughtful and well-written essay deserves.

It was in response to the complaint on Twitter of Sen. Dan Sullivan, who said, “I've been a Marine Corps infantry officer for almost 30 years and have never seen a Pentagon’s civilian leadership focus so much on social issues that have nothing to do with warfighting or lethality.”

Here is her full response:

"... social issues that have nothing to do with warfighting or lethality."

Sullivan couldn't be more wrong. The number one factor in warfighting and lethality is recruiting and retention of troops. I know there's been a lot of uproar about AI lately, but I'm pretty sure that we're many years away from AI and robots being anything more than an adjunct to actual human troops.

Recruiters from all branches of the service have had an increasingly hard time finding enough qualified people to fill their quotas. A recent House Armed Services Committee hearing featured Army, Navy, and Air Force leaders stating that they would all be thousands of recruits short of their goals this year.

The reasons for the shortfall are multiple and complex. They range from poor performance in physical and intellectual evaluations of potential recruits, low pay in the military, and better job opportunities in the civilian sector, to more socially oriented concerns over racism and sexism in the military, disagreement with US foreign policy, and poor treatment of Veterans who are physically and mentally harmed during their time of service.

While there may be some potential recruits deterred, as Sullivan alleges, by the perceived "woke" (a word that has no concrete meaning) nature of today's military, those are most likely men who have an unrealistic picture of military service as a macho, blood-and-guts pursuit. Career military members, and even short-timers, understand that, first, it takes ten support troops to place one trigger-puller on the front lines. The infantry is referred to as the "tip of the spear" - how much use is a spear point without the shaft that supports it and delivers its lethal power?

And, second, that troops have lives to live outside of their duties. They have spouses and families, who often need to live in military housing and send their kids to on-base schools, and always need access to medical care through the military system. Troops want to know that they and their families will not be subjected to discrimination based on race, religion, national origin, or - and this is apparently where Sullivan gets a burr under his saddle - sexual orientation.

Even if, as is extremely unlikely, the military were to go back to excluding LGBT people from enlistment, military families will always have members who are part of the LGBT community. LGBT people exist; they are born into even the straightest, most conservative families.

Sullivan is a white man from a well-to-do family (and by the way, check out his family's company, RPM International, and their history of having to pay a $61 million settlement in 2013 for overcharging the GSA for roofing materials, and supplying substandard materials, for military buildings).

Possibly it's hard for him to understand that someone who is not white and wealthy, who was not Ivy-League educated, who did not get a direct commission and then serve the minimum active duty time required, whose subsequent activation from Reserve status did not consist of a cushy job at a staff level, and whose service in Afghanistan lasted more than a whole six weeks, might be concerned about how they would be treated in the military.

Perhaps it's difficult for Sullivan to comprehend that Veterans who occupied less lofty positions than he did are out here telling the truth about military service. We're telling the pool of potential recruits what really goes on in the military.

As a female Veteran, I get asked occasionally for my point of view on whether a woman should enlist. The very first thing I tell potential female recruits is that just by raising your right hand and taking the Oath, you pretty much double the chances that you will be sexually assaulted. Statistics bear this out.

I tell them that you will be harassed and ridiculed on a regular basis. You will have to demonstrate your fitness to be in the military in everything you say and do, in ways that male troops don't. When you are placed in leadership positions over male troops, you will have to deal with subtle and not-so-subtle insubordination; and when you do deal with it exactly as a male leader would, you'll be called a feminazi and worse.

You will have to constantly make the choice between being seen as weak, and being seen as a bitch. (Guess which choice I made.) If you can keep on battling these kinds of nonsense, you'll have opportunities and adventures you never imagined. But you have to go into it with your eyes open. So, yes, social issues definitely impact the recruitment of women.

Social issues, contrary to Sullivan's clueless rant, ARE warfighting and lethality issues, because the military will continue to fall short of recruitment and retention goals as long as potential troops see the military - accurately, unfortunately - as a career in which privilege is more important than job performance, and private, personal issues such as sexual orientation are squawked about by right-wing legislators as detrimental to military service.