“We Care More About Whether We Have Enough Diversity Officers Than If We’ll Survive a Fight with the Chinese Navy”

Daniel Greenfield


The report on the breakdown in the warfighting capabilities of the U.S. Navy by two retired senior officers at the behest of Senator Tom Cotton, Rep. Crenshaw and a few others is important reading from a national security standpoint.

Most of it does not focus on the D and I or Diversity and Inclusion push that we’ve been writing about except as a subset of the bureaucratic culture which, like so much of American institutional life puts administration ahead of core functionality, but two quotes do stand out.

Sailors increasingly see administrative and non-combat related training as the mission, rather than the mission itself. “Sometimes I think we care more about whether we have enough diversity officers than if we’ll survive a fight with the Chinese navy,” lamented one lieutenant currently on active duty. “It’s criminal. They think my only value is as a black woman. But you cut our ship open with a missile and we’ll all bleed the same color.”

A recently retired senior enlisted leader suggested that this dynamic was more a lack of proper prioritization. “I guarantee you every unit in the Navy is up to speed on their diversity training. I’m sorry that I can’t say the same of their ship handling training.”

Political priorities, cultural ones, take precedent over the core mission of the Navy.

The report emphasizes what we’ve already known for some time which is that the U.S. Navy has not had a meaningful challenge and may actually be the worst of the services as a result. The gap has been filled by bureaucracy and political correctness.

It’s no coincidence that of the service branch leaders in the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Disloyal Military profiles, CNO Gilday was probably the worst.

Or why the U.S. Navy is more focused on critical race theory than on anything else.





%d bloggers like this: