There are very stark differences in military priorities between the United States and some of our most likely enemies we are liable to face at some point over the next couple of decades that could, frankly, make the difference between winning and losing a war.
Most of the major and global powers are not benevolent countries, so losing a war to them would have huge life-altering implications for Americans who are accustomed to enjoying a set of freedoms and liberties virtually no one else on the planet enjoys.
Imagine for a moment if the U.S. and NATO had lost a world war to the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact; Moscow headed an authoritarian communist regime at the time and would have spread that form of government to the conquered territories.
The same is true of China, the world’s most populous and powerful Communist country. If the U.S. were to lose a conflict to China, any peace deal could very well include forcing Americans to live under that system of government.
Which begs some questions: Why do we seem to have our priorities messed up in the face of such dangers?
China recently celebrated its National Independence Day with a parade featuring a lot of the country’s newest military hardware and defense systems. Included in the parade was a new ICBM with global range that can strike anywhere in the United States within 30 minutes. Fair enough; these weapons have been around for decades, right?
True, but this missile — the DF-41 — carries ten independent warheads so it can blanket our most populous cities within that half-hour time frame. Armageddon, to be sure.
This missile is a big deal to the Chinese; beforehand, their nuclear-tipped ICBMs mostly carried a single warhead, so by perfecting this technology they have effectively expanded their nuclear arsenal by a factor of 10 every time they build a DF-41.
At the same time, China has expanded its Marine Corps, transferred its Coast Guard to command of the navy, and built a “maritime militia” to help enforce its own laws in international waters (the South China Sea). The army has gotten a makeover in that it is leaner but more professional and capable. (Related: U.S. missile defenses rendered totally obsolete by Mach 10 hypersonic missile developed by China.)
We need warfighters, not social justice warriors
In summary, the Chinese military is rapidly becoming a peer to the U.S. military. And what is the Pentagon doing?
Spending precious time and resources ensuring that “transgender” troops are comfy.
Just days before China unveiled a nuclear weapon that can "strike the US within 30 minutes with ten warheads" as part of a giant military parade, US Major General Lori Reynolds announced she's declaring "diversity" is a "warfighting necessity" which will help America defeat the more homogeneous nations of China and Russia.
Under the headline, "Diversity of 'races, religions, backgrounds and genders' essential to warfighting in the information age, 3-star says", the Marine Times reported:
The challenges of the future operating environment are happening now for the intelligence community, the Marine Corps’ top general for information says. And diversity in thinking and in the ranks is essential to meeting the challenge.
“I believe that diversity of thought will matter in the future fight,” she declared at the 9th Annual Marine Corps Association and Foundation Intelligence Awards Dinner last week.
“Diversity of thought?” Really? What does that even mean — warfighters should pay attention to someone’s opinion just because they are a transgender, a person of color, or of a particular religious background?
Shouldn’t the Pentagon be focused on adopting strategies that will guarantee a U.S. victory in the next major war regardless of who develops it?
Losing a war means losing our country. While China prepares to win its next conflict, our brass is more concerned with hurting someone’s feelings.
We need warfighters not social justice warriors.
Unreal.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.