Quote Originally Posted by Bill Moore View Post
I think the Army had that ratio about right when I entered. We probably had quite a few minor and not so minor sociopaths (I probably fell in that category myself at that time). These same individuals not only worked hard, they played hard and that was viewed as politically incorrect, so there was an asserted effort to reform the military and make it more politically correct.

The leaders pushed to have a greater percent of our soldiers married, and then they pushed Christian values on the force to the extreme, and after the Cold War the Army assumed the role of social engineer, and equally important when you add it all up we did everything possible minimize risk and started 15-6 investigations for every relatively minor incident.

Is it any wonder we're attracting more sensitive types?

The Army's core purpose is to win our country's land battles, or in more simple terms to be successful in combat. Everything else must secondary, and we risk an identity crisis if that isn't the case. Not every problem can be resolved with combat operations, but the Army's contribution is primarily combat, security operations, or helping others with that role.

If you recall the Army was considering giving an award for not shooting in OIF, fortunately that idea died. The intent was understandable, but good training and experience will enable soldiers to determine when to shoot and not shoot. Good training is the answer to 85% of our problems, it will also weed out those who aren't suitable.
Your points are good Bill.

I tire of all this political correctness which seems to distract US, Brit and European armies while seldom affecting any of the recent enemies. It wastes too much time and distracts from purpose over insignificant detail.

Take the case of dear-old Prince Charlie. In the 80s Charlie,who BTW has no risk of PTSD, decided to go public with his deep concern about the Brigade of Guards having no black faces on parade. ( see here )

In good old British fashion all British subjects - especially the senior officers in the military - fell over themselves to address this Royal concern. A spokesman for the prince indicated that he himself employed 'one or two' blacks. But the spokesman failed to indicate how many gays, lesbians and transgender people the good prince had on his staff.

Which raises the issue (which I am currently addressing elsewhere) of whether the military must mirror society. It seems it doesn't matter who actually wants to be a soldier, all that matters is whether the military reflects the demographics of the nation.

The military probably has a defined role in terms of the constitution and/or statute ... they should be able to comply without micromanagement from politicians. Not going to happen so get used to it.

Ah... courageous restraint, I wonder who thought that one up. We (being the old and the bold from my war) have discussed this at some length and are glad we are beyond the reach of this insanity.