Ok, I’m going to try to attempt something a little different here: inject an opinion that tries to avoid emotional bias and instead tries to look at all the issues involved from a logical standpoint.
First off, I’ll say this upfront, and this is strictly MY OPINION (so base rebuttals exclusively to countering this as an opinion); Congress would like to see a more diverse representation in our military leadership. Guess what, so does the current military leadership. I heartily support this as a GOOD thing, we NEED to bring all of the vast and the various experiences the entire spectrum of America has to offer to best support our military’s future. I applaud their efforts to make America’s military leadership more representative of the entire American spectrum, it WILL make us better, and give a better example for the troops we lead.
But I will add this caveat: this is a good thing ONLY if we simultaneously ensure that while we push diversity amongst the ranks, we are also ensuring standards aren’t lowered to achieve that diversity: the job we do and the responsibilities we have are too important to allow accepting less. From my own experience, I would say this is the case for the vast majority of the under-represented populations discussed here: females and minorities (especially AA males in leadership positions). I have served with, and served under, both. Honored to do so, and it has been proven to me time and again that if the individual has the proper training, attitude, and drive, they can easily succeed in gaining the requirements necessary to become effective leaders, even at the highest levels of the services. But I have also seen examples where these requirements were either ignored or forgiven, with the greater emphasis on advancement IN THESE INDIVIDUAL CASES being placed on the criteria of their being a part of an under-represented minority.
Bottom Line: I’ve had excellent female and minority peers and leaders, I’ve had average female and minority peers and leaders, and I’ve had less than the standard female and minority peers and leaders. And just like the majority, you will have a mix of all three throughout the ranks, usually in the same percentages; it becomes the duty of the military to identify, groom, and promote those in the first category as early in their careers as possible.
But this discussion above doesn’t address the findings and recommendations currently presented in this report: the lack of diversity at the leadership levels of the military NOW. Please allow me to provide some context, as I see it. I’ll start with the low levels of female representation in the General Officer ranks of our military services…
But before I begin that look, it first helps to set the stage as to “how does one eventually get to the rank of General?” Time to face facts here, people. In the AF, this usually means you are a flyer. In the Navy, this means you’re either a SWO or aviator. Army and Marines? You probably have combat arms experience. Granted, there ARE opportunities to make GO without these qualifications, but they are the vast exception, and not the norm. Second, it takes at least 25 years to get to your first star; this means the stars today entered the services in the late 70s, early to mid 80s.
Now, as to your female population: well, until only about a generation ago, the female population was VERY small in the military (we didn’t even have female cadets at our academies until the late 70s), and it has been playing catch-up to get to a better % of representation since (with it generally being around the 20% pt now). So, as of RIGHT NOW, there is a very limited number of females even AVAILABLE at the proper time in service to be at the GO level. But we’re seeing increases each year as the %s catch up.
The other issue: availability of having the “right” background to be competitive for the GO ranks. I’ll give you the AF perspective here: in the AF, the “fighter mafia” has ruled the highest ranks (2, 3, and 4 Star) for a while (but it IS moving away from that, slowly). Until the early-90s, women just weren’t allowed to be a part of that “mafia”; they were kept out of fighter cockpits. We are just seeing the first few female fighter pilots now reach the Colonel level; as their numbers increase, we are sure to see more and more make the GO rank (and I personally know the first few that either have made it that far, or are just behind).
For the Combat Arms of our Army and Marines? Well, opening up these positions to females will begin the process of generating some who are qualified to eventually get to the GO rank, having the right “tickets punched” that makes them part of the “normal leadership clique”. Opening up these positions WILL eventually increase their representation in the senior ranks, but it will take at least 20 years for this to be in significant numbers. And it also doesn’t address the issue: is America ready and willing to accept female soldiers and marines on the front lines? Many here would say, “certainly”. But this is a very biased audience. My gut feeling is there is still a very large portion of the American population who still say “no”. The issue then becomes cultural, and overcoming those cultural biases.
Now, my “controversial” issue for females: the cultural pressure females will eventually have to face or balance: starting a family. Some have been very successful balancing careers with having kids, some have sacrificed having a family for their careers, and some have decided that having a family was more important to them than having a career. There is a “cultural” phenomenon here that is reducing the number of qualified female officers from advancing: some of our best and brightest females, who would make GO if they stay, are getting out instead. I’m just not sure if how the military can adequately address this issue; we ain’t GE, we can’t afford to give our officers months of maternity leave, and if they do take it, they will fall behind their peers in qualifications.
Now, I will step VERY gingerly into the issue of the AA male, and why we are not seeing a larger % at our highest levels. Please understand, this is again ONLY the opinion of someone who is NOT an AA male, so I may not be fully qualified to provide the full answer on all the issues involved.
I will start by saying, that in MY OPINION, it starts with the cultural phenomenon that as a country, we seem to have let our minority population down by accepting the fact that the percentages of minority males unqualified and unprepared to lead in our military is so large, much larger than the % in the white male population. Lots of reasons for this, but it is a sad testament when we have more AA males in prison than in College. Our emphasis needs to now focus on getting that smaller % prepared and qualified to want to join (this IS a volunteer military). So, when you start with a smaller percentage prepared and qualified from the beginning, you will naturally see smaller %s down the road. For this reason, I highly applaud the military’s efforts to identify those minority young men and women who are prepared and qualified, and spend the extra effort to adequately recruit them in greater numbers.
So, in conclusion, I see the military has ALREADY taken many of the steps that need to be taken to EVENTUALLY get higher %s of females and minorities in our highest ranks. There ARE additional, and important, steps that still need to be addressed. As long as these steps are taken, the %s will eventually rise. The worry I (and many I know) have is this increase will not be apparent in the near term; it will take years. The issue becomes, “Is this soon enough to please Congress?” , and the ONLY way to make it quicker would be to artificially promote females and minorities at higher %s, which usually means that qualifications and experience are thrown away at the expense of diversity. This CAN potentially lead to reduction in the quality of our military leadership, if the military is forced to act now rather than wait for their current efforts to bear fruit.
The final question, then. Is America willing to risk a reduction in quality and experience of our military leadership in the name of diversity? Which is more important, national security or national pride?
