When it comes to multiculturalism (another form of relativism as I discussed last time), its emptiness and its corrosive effect on society, there is no place that it can be more harmful and dangerous to our liberty and our way of life than when the intellectual bankruptcy of relativism/multiculturalism is introduced into the military.
Sadly, our military is being manipulated by the spineless politicians within it (i.e. politically motivated generals and admirals) to lead the charge for succumbing to multiculturalism. I have spoken about the moronic comments of General George Casey before, but just to refresh the memory, Casey, then Army Chief of Staff (the highest ranking general in the U. S. Army), proclaimed that the 2009 Ft. Hood shootings, which were perpetrated by a very non-multiculturalist Muslim extremist Army major, were "a horrific tragedy" that could only be made worse if we allowed "our diversity to become a casualty."
I need no other example than this to make my point. General Casey demonstrated with that statement the utterly dangerous ends to which multiculturalism leads. The general actually allowed a politically correct view of "diversity" to lead him into an intellectual cul-de-sac where multiculturalism is seen to be more valuable than the 12 injured and 31 murdered troops under his command at Ft. Hood.
This example is disgusting enough on its own, but unfortunately it is no longer just an isolated incident or a stupid comment made by a politically motivated general officer. It's worse than that:
Following the lead of the esteemed general, Virginia Military Institute (VMI), recently held a conference that was originally titled: 711-2011: East Meets West, which was meant to "celebrate the 1300th anniversary of Tariq ibn Zihad's crossing the Straits of Gibraltar, setting in motion the fusion between two worlds."
How about we let Tariq ibn Zihad speak for himself about that statement. Here is a portion of the speech he gave to his men after they burned their ships in Gibraltar:
Oh my warriors, whither would you flee? Behind you is the sea, before you, the enemy. You have left now only the hope of your courage and your constancy. Remember that in this country you are more unfortunate than the orphan seated at the table of the avaricious master. Your enemy is before you, protected by an innumerable army; he has men in abundance, but you, as your only aid, have your own swords, and, as your only chance for life, such chance as you can snatch from the hands of your enemy. If the absolute want to which you are reduced is prolonged ever so little, if you delay to seize immediate success, your good fortune will vanish, and your enemies, whom your very presence has filled with fear, will take courage. Put far from you the disgrace from which you flee in dreams, and attack this monarch who has left his strongly fortified city to meet you. Here is a splendid opportunity to defeat him, if you will consent to expose yourselves freely to death. Do not believe that I desire to incite you to face dangers which I shall refuse to share with you. In the attack I myself will be in the fore, where the chance of life is always least ... If I perish after this, I will have had at least the satisfaction of delivering you, and you will easily find among you an experienced hero, to whom you can confidently give the task of directing you. But should I fall before I reach to Roderick, redouble your ardor, force yourselves to the attack and achieve the conquest of this country, in depriving him of life. With him dead, his soldiers will no longer defy youNow there's some multicultural diversity for you!
After much protestation, VMI re-thought their stance on the conference and dropped the word "celebrate" from its description (though presumably not from the conference's content), which led blogger Patrick Poole to ponder, "No word if VMI's World War II commemoration will be entitled 'Germany meets Poland, Czechoslovakia, Austria, Belgium, France, Norway, The Netherlands, and Russia.'"*
Meanwhile, over in the Navy, Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (the highest ranking military leader in any service) weighed in on the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" (DADT). This, as we know, is the ban not on the ability of homosexuals to serve in the military, but on their demand that they be able to flaunt it -- and force the rest of us to condone it. Mullen:
"No matter how I look at the issue, I cannot escape being troubled by the fact that we have in place a policy which forces young men and women to lie about who they are in order to defend their fellow citizens ... That there will be some disruption in the force I cannot deny," he said. "That there will be legal, social and perhaps even infrastructure changes to be made certainly seem plausible."Funny, when I was in the military, no one ever seemed to give a rip "who I was." In fact, a good friend of mine lost his ability to express "who he was" with his shoulder-length, SoCal surfer dude red mop of hair. Everyone I served with lost their First Amendment right to free speech, their ability to express their political opinion in public, and their ability to engage in a relationship (sexual or otherwise) with whomever they chose. Each of us could have been courts-martialed for defying any one of those things. Serving in the military demands a unit cohesiveness that transcends any individual's sense of "who they are."
That's why they call it "service."
I will avoid getting any further off on a DADT tangent. My point in bringing the topic up is simply to remind the reader that it was the politically incorrect DADT policy that led universities like Stanford and Columbia to deny ROTC units any recognition or the ability to recruit on their campuses. So, now that DADT is being repealed, these folks should be happy and welcome ROTC and military recruiters on campus, right?
Not so fast.
At Stanford, the Students for Queer Liberation have found a new source for their discontent and moral outrage. DADT may be vacated, you see, but the military has (so far) stubbornly refused to allow transgendered individuals their "right" to serve. No word on the response from General Casey or Admiral Mullen. I'm sure they are engaged in an emergency meeting somewhere about how to square the military's highest priority -- diversity and inclusiveness, of course -- with the needs and feelings of the transgendered community.
When the lunacy of multiculturalism and moral relativism sinks its poison claws into the minds of our military leaders, we are in a heap of trouble. But it is a sad reality that instead of focusing on issues of life and death, our military leadership -- at least at the political level -- is wasting its time with this nonsense.
So far, the warriors at the tip of the spear don't seem to be affected by the silliness of their leaders. Let's hope it stays that way. You won't find any soldiers at Ft. Hood worrying about whether Major Hasan's religious rights are being honored. And you won't find any Marines being trained to catalyze the "fusion" of east and west in Iran. I only hope that if Admiral Mullen feels the need to study "the rights of transgendered sailors," that he conducts a focus group in Coronado, California.
Let's have him run that one by the SEALs.
*National Review, March 7, 2011, p. 14.