• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Matter to National Security (1 Viewer)

watsup

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 17, 2020
Messages
44,600
Reaction score
23,295
Location
Springfield MO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
America depends on a strong military to protect and defend its interests. According to a recent Heritage Foundation article, the military enlisted nearly 158,000 recruits in 2020 for the active component alone [1]. The article went on to highlight that every indicator of future U.S. military recruiting success is either trending negatively or remaining stagnant. “These indicators include demographics, the economy, youth health, and trends that influence propensity to serve, including civic education, the number of veterans in America, the value of the military education benefit, the public’s perception of the military, and the percentage of youth that attend college immediately after high school” [1].

Without constructive changes to try to counteract these negative recruiting trends, the future strength of the U.S. military will falter [2]. Although the U.S. doesn’t have a negative population growth rate like India, China or Russia [3], at 0.47%, it's nearly one-third the U.S. growth rate in 2000 and is driven largely by immigration [4]. The U.S. population is growing older and more ethnically diverse. For the last couple of decades, the armed services have been challenged to fulfill recruiting quotas and retain required end strength [2]. This will be an even greater challenge should America need to further increase end strength in a time of war.

Diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) efforts are critical to future U.S. armed forces facing peer or near-peer competition. Improving DEI within the national security community will (1) increase the number of young Americans willing to serve, (2) cast a wider net to garner the country’s best and brightest and (3) maximize the performance of our armed forces organizations. DEI efforts can support each of these goals. Without DEI, the national security community is at risk.



The key point here is that the military is having continuing trouble in recruiting for various reasons to include a downturn in general physical fitness, low unemployment, and young people not valuing the military as a career. In matter of fact, without bringing on board ethnically diverse recruits and other types of minorities, the military services would simply be unable to meet their recruiting goals. Now Trump installs a SecDef who loudly proclaims the end of DEI in the military. What sort of signal is that to those of an ethnically diverse background. And then, in a couple of years, when it becomes even more difficult for the recruiting service to meet their goals, who will get the blame?
Before the DEI haters decide to get rid of it in the military, perhaps they should visit a military base to observe all of the various “colors” of the soldiers, sailors, and airmen there. Getting rid of DEI is just her another right wing idea to cut off their toes to spite their foot.
 
If DEI is so good, why is it considered an insult to call someone a "DEI hire?"

That is just a standard right wing ad hom. It really has no merit because there is no recorded instance of that happening. All that DEI does is to tell applicants that they will be treated fairly IF they do get hired. And I notice that you do not actually address anything in my OP directly but immediately resort instead to said standard right wing insult mode.
 
Sorry, no. DEI is largely used as a tool to accuse others of racism ... as you're doing here.

If the shoe fits…….as it does so often on right wingers. What could possibly be wrong with DEI other than the standard right wing lies about it. Have you even read the OP, or is this just your normal knee jerk outrage when you see the initials? The latter, no doubt.
 
I want a military that takes names and kicks ass. Not one that teaches recruits that the US military exists because of systemic racism.

And yet another right winger who didn’t even read the OP but just reacted with the normal knee jerk faux outrage and downright lies about DEI. It is what we always expect.
 
If DEI is so good, why is it considered an insult to call someone a "DEI hire?"
To conservatives it’s considered an insult.

To others it just shows the person’s ignorance of current US culture and ethnic diversity.
 
And yet another right winger who didn’t even read the OP but just reacted with the normal knee jerk faux outrage and downright lies about DEI. It is what we always expect.
Someone is definitely lying here.

I did read the article and at no point did it actually say what DEI is. It made vague references to it being critical and said that it reflects values, but what is it?

The article is strangely silent on that. Or maybe not so strange. Don't ask questions that you don't want to know the answers to.
 
If the shoe fits…….as it does so often on right wingers. What could possibly be wrong with DEI other than the standard right wing lies about it. Have you even read the OP, or is this just your normal knee jerk outrage when you see the initials? The latter, no doubt.
Have you ever been involved in the administration of a DEI program? I have. I've even written parts of one.
 
Someone is definitely lying here.

I did read the article and at no point did it actually say what DEI is. It made vague references to it being critical and said that it reflects values, but what is it?

The article is strangely silent on that. Or maybe not so strange. Don't ask questions that you don't want to know the answers to.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and neither do you. What are you trying to say? You immediately were critical of it, so you must know what it is. Now actually read the OP for the first time and tell us SPECIFICALLY where you disagree. Do you not want all members of the military to be valued in their job? Why not?
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top Bottom