[jgys]

> the various social programs the military has now been implementing

Social programs? You mean the policy of not discriminating based on gender or sexual preference?

> they started scrutinizing the basic, popular political beliefs of many of the recruits

It seems prudent to scrutinize political beliefs that might be incompatible with treating a non-cishet male colleague as an equal (or a superior, as the case may be) or regarding such colleagues with dignity and respect.

[anon291]

> Social programs? You mean the policy of not discriminating based on gender or sexual preference?

What is the point of the military?

[Terr_]

They asked a rather simple question, it's weird that you seem to be dodging it. It's unlikely your good-friend was turned away because they were were ideologically-opposed to the military having any social programs for housing, or for healthcare, or for family support, or for post-service education.

So again, which "social programs" were you referring to in your argument?

[anon291]

He wasn't turned away. He left, honorably. No one kicked him out or suggested it. He just didn't feel welcome and saw the winds changing.

It really ought to be obvious, but many of the sorts of young men who join the military and who are attracted to it and would make good fighters are not into transgender troops, women in combat, or flamboyant homosexual men (they're not into flamboyant straight men either). Many of the type of troop we need are attracted to the military because it is -- historically at least -- a men's hierarchical organization. Not only has the military embraced social issues that turn men off, it also offers dual standards (physical standards are lower for women) and affirmative action when promoting (yes... it's still legal for military academies to use affirmative action... they're exempt!). We can either accept this reality and have enough people volunteer, or ignore it, and be where we're at today.

This is not controversial, and honestly is irrelevant to my or yours belief system.

Which is why I asked the question of the purpose of the military. It's not a jobs program. It's to hone warriors who will protect this country. Now, if the Pentagon says we need X warriors and only Y < X show up, this is a problem because the country is undefended. There are a few ways out. Either the pentagon is wrong in its estimates of how many troops are necessary for national security, or, by embracing these novel social issues, the military has eroded national safety, thus negating the very purpose of its existence.

[archagon]

When was the last time the military was used to “protect this country”?

[anon291]

If it's not being used for that it's actually okay to just go into maintenance mode and reduce staffing.

In reality, America projects power daily through its military and this has an unquantifiable effect on world safety and shipping ability

[johnny22]

these same folks probably would have been against the integration of black folks back in the day which would have been considered "woke" then. Just like always, this will pass.

[medvezhenok]

The integration of different folks into the military is not the issue for most people. That's equality.

The problem is the differential standards by population (i.e. equity).