Walter K.
Perhaps, yes.
But as I was told very early on in my career, we are here to protect democracy, not reflect democracy.
Would you rather have a 100% representative armed force including all the differing groups of all the lovely diverse types of people, in all their cuddly aspects, which were inefficient in it's one and only primary role, but fulfilled all the equality/diversity criteria in today's PC world.....
Or would you prefer the slightly unpolitically correct bunch of rabble that may employ dodgy humour and, occasionally, dodgy practices that the general populace really don't need to know about - but win your country's battles when called upon to do so? You know, the 'scum of the earth' that have served so well in the past? The ones that have historically won the battles? That stuff?
I think 95% of those serving are a bit bored of being told how diversity is a priority, not war fighting. The young men (and it mostly is young men who join and stay for a career) don't really care about the PC aspects of the world in their service career. They won't tell you that; if they do they will be disciplined or worse. They have to tolerate it. They joined for the adventure and to feel they were the best and contributing to a proud tradition. Or maybe they just like a drink and a fight. Either is good.
Anyway, what's more important to you? Or anyone else for that matter? Why are we putting women on board the 4 uk nuclear deterrent submarines? Efficiency? Don't make me laugh. It will be anything but that, but it will be made to work however inefficient, expensive and operationally unnecessary. It looks good.
.........Yeap. That should stir it up a bit. Let's have you then.