How Many Divisions Is Diversity Worth?

In reaction to Major Nidal Hasan’s terrorist massacre of soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, Army Chief of Staff General George W. Casey was fixated not on the awful losses but on diversity. Twice on major cable news outlets, Casey appeared to minimize soldiers’ deaths, bemoaning the possibility that “an even worse tragedy would be the loss of diversity” within the Army.

Really? Is “diversity” — whatever the hell that means — worth the life on one soldier let alone 13?

When challenged about his oppression of Catholics in the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin rhetorically asked, “How many divisions does the Pope have?”

Stalin, murderous oppressor that he was, at least had the sense of realism to separate real combat power from the ephemeral. Casey does not appear to be capable of making the distinction.

Instead of energizing counter-intelligence assets organic to the Army and Department of Defense in an effort to root out more possible sleepers hiding in its ranks, the chief is worried that a valueless piece of political correctness might somehow be endangered. Forget the very real and imminent danger to soldiers’ lives, but at all costs protect a debilitating ideology.

HUMAN EVENTS Editor Jed Babbin and columnist Linda Chavez have publicly called for Casey’s dismissal. They are correct. He ought to be fired on the spot, but don’t count on it from an Obama administration that itself is unwilling to call terrorism by its proper name or even admit the possibility that Hasan was motivated not by some vacuous concept of pre-post traumatic stress disorder (leave it to a compliant media to invent a syndrome where none exists), but by radical, fundamentalist Islamic ideology.

As evidence mounts that Hasan was a terrorist of the first order, shouting “Alllahu Akbar” prior to firing into helpless masses of soldiers and civilians and seeking blessed martyrdom at the hands of first responders, the administration urges us “not to rush to judgment” and scrambles to excuse his behavior because of pre-deployment stress or other fatuous excuses.

Point of fact: if Major Hasan did not want to deploy, there was a way out. He could simply have refused movement orders, accepted a court martial (if the Army had the courage to prosecute, which is doubtful when “diversity” is such a value), and defended himself with both military appointed and civilian attorneys.

There was no reason for him to commit an obvious act of terrorism to avoid deployment. He could have just said no and borne the consequences. Hasan was aware of this out. It doesn’t happen every day, but it does happen.

Let’s look at this contrived value of diversity for a minute. If mere diversity — expressed as moral equivalency of points of view and inclusiveness for all — is such a critical factor to the Army’s success, then why are white supremacists, anarchists, and Luddites not encouraged to join up in the fight? In fact, particularly in the case of the former, discovery will lead to disciplinary action and dismissal from service. And it should.

While speaking so forcibly of the value of diversity, Casey ought to be questioned about the wisdom of including Quakers, Amish, Mennonites, and other anti-war believers into the total force structure. Or would he be forced to admit that recruiting from groups that espouse pacificism as a core value would detract from combat readiness?

If the implications of bringing large numbers of conscientious objectors into active duty, thereby filling sorely needed combat personnel slots in the name of diversity seems frivolous, then it would make good sense to challenge the concept that including large numbers of Muslim soldiers simply because of their religious affiliation ought to be questioned too.

What we are observing here is an Army based not on potential skill sets and capabilities but on quotas. So many African-Americans, so many women, so many Hispanics, so many Muslims. Statistical preoccupation with racial, ethnic, and religious quotas guts the core purpose of the military which is to kill people and break things.

Not to say that Muslims, Christians, Jews, and non-believers cannot be good soldiers. But the emphasis needs to be on the latter factor: is this person a good soldier? rather than on some bogus bean-counting standard that detracts from the military’s basic mission.

Perhaps in a twisted way Hasan was right. Any Muslim — or believer of any other persuasion — who is not willing to participate as a soldier in the call to duty ought to be dismissed.

But in an Army preoccupied with building “diversity” as a priority over combat strength, such essential goals fall by the wayside.

How many divisions is diversity worth? None at all.