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

COL (Join to see) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 ?

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.

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.

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.

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!