My wife just served 29 years in the Canadian military, working in artillery for 15 years, pretty sure that my judgement is not too altered...
She was baffled by all the nonsenses and new regulations. Just the regulations permitting long hairs, right to use make ups, etc. How do you think all of this ends when loading an Howitzer ?
Some members of your team, cannot be near the gun because of risk of injuries (long hairs) or not wanting to dig because it would break their nails, arguing to have a different set of showers and bathrooms. More work for the rest of the team. Rest of the team cannot argue because it's now discriminathing.
Then the army push for even more of that... 10,000 fewer personnel? If you cannot use them why paying for them ?
It's a giant bag of crabs.
You should've been around for when women and African Americans were first inducted and forced into the army. But sure, I hear anecdotes all the time. One of my friends was at one point in the US Navy (I have lost contact a couple years ago), and I would hear similar complaints all the time (along with things like the hottest girls are on the Nimitz).
Funnily enough, the ship operated fine. Went through drills fine. Went through deployments fine.
This is why I stray from anecdote and try to look at the situation objectively. Like I said before, there is a reason for why women are far less likely to be front-line combat troops and it has nothing to do with any misogynism on my part, or the military's part.
I don’t think that different gender preference in and of itself is a big issue. Spartans and Thebans widely practiced homosexuality and I don’t think anyone has the galls to say that they were ineffective soldiers. The problem is more with filling ranks for the sake of meeting quotas rather than someone’s sexual preference or political agenda. If the candidate is disciplined, intelligent, and physically fit I could care less about what he/she/they believe of their gender, but is that really the case here?
If it is bad for tinpot dictatorships to promote people based on political loyalty, is it that much better to promote people based on racial/gender quotas? We’ve all seen how well that worked in universities.
This depends on the circumstances of the force. If you left it entirely to the military, there would be far fewer African Americans in the force today, because many elements of the force actively resist social change.
Does their black skin make them somehow less fit for combat? Command?
Sometimes, quotas are necessary because they force an organization to make changes it otherwise wouldn't. Like any tool, "quotas" can be misused. Similarly, I would hope that the top brass of the army is not just competent, but also politically loyal.
In the case of the military, it's quite obvious that the military cannot meet their personnel requirements, and it's not because there's not enough men in United States. The military needs to overcome its own prejudices and preferences, and start advertising to and recruiting people who are qualified to do the job, regardless of how "weird" those gay, trans, or females are. People need to get over it and focus on solving problems. Otherwise, narrowing the recruitment pool will likely mean things like lowering IQ standards.
Perhaps the military can also start allowing meth usage, and advertise free meth? That'll get a lot more white males to join up.
Anyway, my point is that the military is widening their recruitment pool, and that's a good thing. Because like you said, someone's race, sex, or politics should not be barriers to service.