In its ultimate form, the military is an institution of government-sanctioned violence to achieve the Nation’s objectives. The military requires legitimacy for its actions, and its institutional morality forms the “high ground” from which it can wage war.<\/p>\n
As has been obvious for the past few years, that institutional morality has been changing. As noted in a recent article on loosening standards<\/a> for recruitment:<\/p>\n The Pentagon is…scrambl[ing] to keep up with America’s changing social mores…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n One specific quote within the article noted the weakness of such a goal:\u00a0 <\/p>\n “There are certain standards that shouldn\u2019t be jettisoned just because we need recruits,\u201d said Phillip Carter, a fellow at the nonpartisan Center for a New American Security.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n The problem occurs in deciding which standards should be “jettisoned.” Over the past few years, the most noticeable ones have those which have required moral behavior — a term used even by the military, which often requires “moral waivers” for some recruits<\/a>.<\/p>\n Worse, of course, is the failure to recognize that there are some moral absolutes — standards which shouldn’t change. Ever. Even if the military chose to grant some waivers because it required bodies in uniform and didn’t care how, the underlying standard shouldn’t change.<\/p>\n This isn’t just about numbers, though, as even this article notes the military is meeting its recruiting goals — meaning there’s no need to access new pools of recruits. Rather, it appears to be very intentional social change [emphasis added]:<\/p>\n [This] marks the latest step by the Obama administration to push the tradition-bound, male-dominated Pentagon onto a more modern footing<\/strong>…<\/p>\n The military likes to portray itself as a trailblazer on social issues…<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Some might describe that as a race — to the bottom.<\/p>\n ADVERTISEMENT<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n
\n