Historically, the US Army has been an engine for cultural and social change AmericaThe Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s vision for the armed forces he runs a counter on it.
In the comments of hundreds of military leaders and their leading advisors on Tuesday, Hegseth clarified that he was not interested in diverse or inclusive force. But his address Naval Aadhaar in Quantico, VirginiaOrally what Hegseth is doing, as he takes to any program that can be targeted to transgender personnel along with diversity, equity or inclusion. Differently, the focus on immigration is also explaining to the veterans.
For a very long time, “The army has been forced to focus on wrong things by foolish and careless politicians. In many ways, this speech is about fixing decay of decades, some of them are clear, some of it are hidden,” Hegseth said. “Foolish and careless political leaders set up the heading of wrong compass, and we lost our way. We became a vocal department, but not anymore.”
Hegseth’s functions – plans for more – is a reversal of the role often played by the army.
“The army has often been ahead of at least some broad social, cultural, political movements,” said Ronit Stall, Associate Professor of History at the University of California, Berkeley. “The disintegration of the armed forces is probably the most classic example.”
In 1948 President Harry S. Truman’s disintegration order came six years ago Supreme Court The school disintegration ordered in the Brown vs. Board of Education Case – and, the stall said, “This takes a long time to apply, if it is ever fully applied.”
It’s a circuit path
Truman’s order was not a small progress through American society. Although the army was one of the few places where there was organizational diversity, the race did not mix in its actual service. Units such as Tuskegi Airmen, Nawazo Code Tockers and Buffalo soldiers, formed in 1866 were separated until the order opened the door for integrated units.
In 1948, women were given full status to serve with the Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. There were restrictions on how many service could be done and they were not generally allowed men to command or serve in war. Earlier, they had war -time roles and did not work in the fight, although hundreds of nurses died and women were pilots, including women Air Force Service Pilot, or wasp.
WASPS and Tuskegee Airmen were one of the first groups this year, when Hegseth issued his DEI order. The Air Force removed the training video of Airmen, as well as the WASP’s contribution of World War II on basic training at San Antonio. The video was restored after a broad bipartisan after the video was removed.
Over time, in other issues “don’t ask, tell”, the policy that allowed gay and gay service members to serve until their sexual orientation was public. It was canceled during the Obama administration. Women were allowed to serve fighter aircraft and fighter ships in the early 1990s – then all fighter conditions after the ban was lifted in 2015.
“The army has always faced the question of social change and the question is who will serve, how they will work and in what capacity they will serve. “These are not new questions.”
Generally, the answer has come down as to what the “military writ large” has concluded. “How do we get our mission best?” “Kiran said.” And many of these things have actually been really hot debate. “
Part of a big, long debate
Keran offered an example: changed the army created in the 1960s when it was dealing with the atmosphere of racism and racial stresses. Without it, he said, “The army cannot effectively fight war in Vietnam.”
The same idea was given about how to address the problem of sexual harassment. A part of the answer was included morally correct, but “the big issue is: If soldiers are being harassed, can the army carry its mission effectively?”
While “it is important to see these tasks as part of a long history and a big debate,” Kiran said, “It is definitely true that the current administration is far more aggressive and faster than seen in the previous administration.”
Michael O’Halon, director of research at the Foreign Policy Program at Brookings Institution, questioned Trump’s Defense Department, which includes the president of the United Heads, the President of the Joint Heads, the Air Force General CQ Brown Junior.
“He was a fine Air Force officer,” O’Lon said. Even if he got a job due to his race, “It would not be disqualified in my book, until he was disqualified – and he was not.”
Matthew Delmont, a professor of history at Dartmouth College, said that the current approach is looking at the army, who suggests misconceptions of the armed forces and why changes have been made.
“Military, now for more than seven decades, it is more on the leading edge in terms of detection of how to put an organization together that tries to take advantage of the talent and ability of all Americans,” Dalemont said. Since Truman signed its executive order, “Army has gone faster and away than almost any other organization thinking about racial equality issues, and then thinking about issues related to gender and sexuality later.”
Delmont said that prejudice, prejudice and racism remain in the army, but armed services have “done more than many corporations, universities, other organizations that try to address them on their heads.”
“I wouldn’t say this because he was particularly interested in trying to carry forward the social agenda,” he said. “I think they did this because they admitted that you could not have an integrated battle force if soldiers are fighting each other, or if you are actively removing those who wish to serve their country.”