Posted on Apr 15, 2016
Obama’s top generals are mostly white men. Could the system picking them change?
31.8K
98
46
6
6
0
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 23
Just the liberal Washington Compost stirring the shit pot again. The job of protecting its citizens should not be a feel good rainbow of diversity, it should just be best man or woman for the job. Mentoring has been going on for decades, sometimes individual performance should be the bar for selection to position and command. The crack about minorities not believing they could not attend West Point is total bs. If anyone has ever spent 5 minutes at USMA can see that it is a true slice of all races and genders. One thing, just because you want to go there doesn't mean you can. You have to earn it.
(11)
(0)
Sir, as you state, most of the top ranking generals do in fact come from the combat arms branches. So if you want diversity at the highest ranks, we could start by allowing fully qualified female officers to branch in the combat arms. Then they would have the opportunity to demonstrate that they have the intellectual and physical prowess to compete for positions of higher rank and responsibility with their male peers. The system now precludes that by categorically denying any female, regardless of capabilities and potential, the opportunity to compete.
But the select group of white male generals will continue to perpetuate the system that brought them to power until forced to change by a higher authority. Fortunately we have a president who can see the benefits of allowing all citizens to compete as their personal capabilities allow, and is willing to upset the entrenched interests of the powerful. So we are in fact finally taking those first difficult steps towards a true equality of opportunity. If every president had followed the advice of his generals, we would still have separate black and white units, no active duty female marines at all, women limited to a very few Army MOS, and all LGBT people, regardless of abilities, denied service. While there are some that may look at that as the good old days, any reasonable person would conclude that inclusion has benefited both the military and the society it draws people from.
But the status quo dies hard, and is staunchly defended by the vested interests, just as horse calvary was defended in the face of the development of the tank.
But the select group of white male generals will continue to perpetuate the system that brought them to power until forced to change by a higher authority. Fortunately we have a president who can see the benefits of allowing all citizens to compete as their personal capabilities allow, and is willing to upset the entrenched interests of the powerful. So we are in fact finally taking those first difficult steps towards a true equality of opportunity. If every president had followed the advice of his generals, we would still have separate black and white units, no active duty female marines at all, women limited to a very few Army MOS, and all LGBT people, regardless of abilities, denied service. While there are some that may look at that as the good old days, any reasonable person would conclude that inclusion has benefited both the military and the society it draws people from.
But the status quo dies hard, and is staunchly defended by the vested interests, just as horse calvary was defended in the face of the development of the tank.
(8)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SrA Edward Vong - I agree with you, with stipulations. The objective should be to treat everybody exactly the same and, as such, diversity should not even come into play. To use your example, the only time I think "diversity" should be a tie-breaker is if the qualifications of those being considered are exactly equal and there is a "shortage" in a particular category, say female, Black, Hispanic, or whatever criteria are tracked (Of course, that assumes there are "quotas", which I think are wrong, but, realistically, will never go away). Other than that, diversity should not be the tie-breaker, but some other non-discriminatory method, like date of rank, first number of last four of the SSN, first letter of name, or whatever.
The current system actually bypasses better-qualified male Caucasians to select less-qualified minorities to meet quotas (or "targets"). That is BS and, to me, discriminates against those passed-over.
The current system actually bypasses better-qualified male Caucasians to select less-qualified minorities to meet quotas (or "targets"). That is BS and, to me, discriminates against those passed-over.
(2)
(0)
SrA Edward Vong
COL Jean (John) F. B.
I feel in the early days when we were first out of segregation minority laws can apply, in today's world, it is most qualified.
On a different note though, my organization (and many tech firms) hire because of diversity. The individual is of course qualified based on the standards but there may be those that are better qualified. These organizations seem to grow and do well. I understand applying this to military might be scary as the operations are different.
I feel in the early days when we were first out of segregation minority laws can apply, in today's world, it is most qualified.
On a different note though, my organization (and many tech firms) hire because of diversity. The individual is of course qualified based on the standards but there may be those that are better qualified. These organizations seem to grow and do well. I understand applying this to military might be scary as the operations are different.
(1)
(0)
COL Jean (John) F. B.
SrA Edward Vong - Yes, many companies hire based on diversity, but that does not make it right. It may be "right" to the minority person selected, but it is wrong to the non-minority applicant, especially to one better qualified. Is it fair to right a wrong by wronging a right? At what point does it stop? Will enough time to "right past wrongs" ever be reached?
Reminds me of a story I heard where a minority employee was being terminated. He told his boss, "You are firing me because I am Black". The boss replied, "No, I hired you because you were Black. I'm firing you because you are incompetent."
Yes, organizations grow and do well when they have diversity, but they would probably do just as well if they did not. I support diversity, but I do not support giving minorities advantages over non-minorities. Everybody should be treated equally, based on their individual qualifications, merits, work ethics, experience, attitude, etc... but not given an advantage based on the color of their skin, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Neither should they be discriminated against because of race, sex, etc.
Bottom line is that I am not a supporter of playing the race/sex/diversity card in any form. Selecting a person because of his/her race or sex is just as wrong as not selecting someone because of his/her race or sex. Anybody who thinks it is OK is a hypocrite, in my opinion.
Reminds me of a story I heard where a minority employee was being terminated. He told his boss, "You are firing me because I am Black". The boss replied, "No, I hired you because you were Black. I'm firing you because you are incompetent."
Yes, organizations grow and do well when they have diversity, but they would probably do just as well if they did not. I support diversity, but I do not support giving minorities advantages over non-minorities. Everybody should be treated equally, based on their individual qualifications, merits, work ethics, experience, attitude, etc... but not given an advantage based on the color of their skin, sex, sexual orientation, etc. Neither should they be discriminated against because of race, sex, etc.
Bottom line is that I am not a supporter of playing the race/sex/diversity card in any form. Selecting a person because of his/her race or sex is just as wrong as not selecting someone because of his/her race or sex. Anybody who thinks it is OK is a hypocrite, in my opinion.
(2)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
LTC (Join to see) The point about females is a new and interesting one for the future, but the issue now, that comes out every time the command board results are released is a shortage of minority officers, namely African Americans in maneuver branches - command positions. In order to fix the perceived imbalance, if it needs to be fixed, we have get more minority officers into these branches from the get go. I have have read more than one study that explains why they choose other branches at a hire rate. Nevertheless, the best qualified should be in charge... Not a good demographic representation... unless the pool of candidates is balanced as well. As MSgt C Madd stated, many of these articles tell only part of the story... I agree with COL Jean (John) F. B. too, as both he and I knew when we chose our branches (if we were even thinking about it then) we would most likely never be a general, command a division, or be a CINC... Heck when I branch transferred from Armor to Military Police in 1987, my Brigade told me as much... He said "you are a fine Armor Officer, but if you move out of Armor branch your opportunity to command a brigade and become a general will be very limited."
(2)
(0)
Race has no place in the military. I am not stating that racism does not exist (with certain individuals) but ones origin should never come into play when selecting the right person for the job. There is much scrutiny throughout the military selection process. As for the CINC he or she should always be able to select exactly who they wish as their Chairman or Chiefs of Staff in the Military, the CINC makes some mighty decisions and needs to have the comfort that he or she has enlisted the right person to advise.
(6)
(0)
COL Charles Williams
CSM Darieus ZaGara No it does not... but it comes up all the time. Especially when board results are results or selections are made... Or when the press needs something to stir the pot with.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next