War on woke
 

I see that the Defence Secretary has declared that;

“Time and resources are being squandered to promote a political agenda which is pitting individuals against each other, when what we need is a common set of values which delivers the military we need to defend us and our allies. This extremist culture has infiltrated public life over years and it is time for a proper shake-up, designed to refocus the military on its core mission - being a lethal fighting force”.

I normally have little time for Grant Schapps but I believe that he has hit the nail on the head here. Bravo!

Touchy-feely is fine in peacetime but cockle use against the Russian Bear.

Mog

I agree, and the new CAS seems to be making the right noises about the job being “flying and fighting”. An assertion that until quite recently incurred disciplinary action.

Salute!

Yeppers, Mog. I just wish we colonists could get an enlightened Secretary of Defense and for all the services.

Gums sends...

Advertising on television seems to suggest that servicemen and women jolly around the world handing out sacks of rice, rescuing children from floods and being nice. They must get a big shock when they discover that their job is to intimidate their governments enemies and kill them. I think out savaging the savages and it's a very good leader who can turn that on or off.

Hoorah!

Here is Sir Humphrey’s take on it, although he might have some difficulty convincing the inhabitants of The Wavell Room.

YS

Interesting that probably the most anti-woke military in the world, the Russian army is also inept and incompetent. …..

Personally I am angry the ranting of of old guys who are furious that the military doesn’t represent society exactly like they remember the 1950’s is distracting everyone from the real issue, the lack of government will to adequately resource the military and the expectations that they must do more and more with less and less. This dynamic is why most Western militaries have senior leaders that are bean counter yes men, not war fighters.

While I hesitate to disagree or even question the esteemed Mog, I’m a little hesitant before I would totally agree with Mr Schapps.

If we're really honest the word ‘woke’ has been appropriated a wide spectrum of people on both sides, to mean very different things and achieve a very diverse set of agendas. I think it’s fair to say that the party that Mr Schapps represents has in fact used the word ‘woke’ on a number of occasions to do precisely what he’s claiming to want to prevent, namely that of pitting individuals against each other.

If the word woke is used to mean bring people together, creating a fair and equitable society to create a stronger team with values worth fighting for, then I’m all for woke. If it’s used to describe a set of activities that entirely focus on a political agenda and ignore the core mission and goal of the organisation, then I’m against it.

Rather than get into what would frankly be a rather tedious argument about the meaning of the word woke, can we instead focus on specific examples and argue the merit of each those. What are the individual examples of ‘woke’ behaviour and let’s discuss and take each of them on their merit? My assumption is that as in other areas of life, we’d find some things we’d all agree we should stop, but then others that perhaps aren’t as clear cut as we might imagine or are even quite positive.

Sadly my military days are long behind me. However, in my work today in the civilian world I am responsible for building teams that are expected to successfully operate at the highest level and under high pressure every day. I have found that diversity and inclusion along with an equitable, empathetic and fair approach to my team has created a stronger, more successful team that is designed to beat anyone we meet. Please do not make the mistake of immediately assuming that woke means weak. In my experience it can actually means stronger, more resilient and better able to deal with shocks. I suspect I would be accused of being woke by many for having these views. Frankly though I don’t care because if being woke gives me that competitive edge, I'm the one who will have the last laugh as my team beats everyone else on the 'field of battle'.

The issues with the forces (inept recruitment with multi-year delays, dysfunctional flying training, bad housing, etc etc) are nothing to do with “woke”.

It’s just an election diversionary tactic to deflect attention away from where the true blame lies.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc

But surely we can agree that lowering vetting standards to encourage more BAME entrants to officer training and Intelligence Corps is a bad idea. That proposal is what prompted Shapps’ intervention.

I do so agree.
For a war-preventing/fighting organisation, standards must be absolute. I think/hope that the Rocks, the Paras, the RM and SAS [in no particular order] do apply an absolute standard, hence, for example, no women in some of the above, simply because of physique.
If I want a marathon runner I want an Ethiopian or Kenyan. If I want an Olympic swimmer, I divert a Jamaican to trying 100 metres.

Hmm. “Absolute standards”- yes. “For example no women……” .no

Absolute standard should mean just that. No extra 3 minutes for being female, over 40 or just a fat WO2...

You may have misunderstood, or maybe not. I was trying to say that very very few women can pass the physical requirements. Women are different from men. My only detailed knowledge is the case of my granddaughter who is an extremely fit athlete ......... struggled to pass one of the RAF regiment minimum standards, changed her gym routine, tried tried and tried again. And now is a Rock, one of not many.
Some aspects of the human condition should be non-negotiable for particular jobs/professions.

As a lighter note, weather forecasters need a very thick skin.

Was that a typo or is there something about shellfish and Russians I don't know about?

I would suggest that you are also guilty of "Post hoc ergo propter hoc". You have made the explicit connection between different standards being applied automatically means a lesser standard is being applied. You have to start with the question of what is the standard and why were the various criteria chosen. My personal experience in the military was a lot of the standards were there because they had always been there or a product of the attitude that new entrants "had to do them because I did". Forget the human rights component of going after BAME applicants, the reality is that the number of young white males in all Western Societies is dropping rapidly. The current Military population is underrepresented by individuals who are BAME. So does that mean that if you are BAME you are probably not good enough for military service or the military has not made an effort to draw from the entire population ? Recruiting from the entire population is quickly becoming non optional, especially if you want to grow the military in light of an increasingly perilous world security situation.

I am totally against quota's but I am 100% in favour of inclusive recruiting and that means making sure the recruiting and vetting standards reflect legitimate requirements not just legacy practices. This also means that increased risks may have to be taken. One of my officers on my last ship was a very petit female. She kept on failing the PT test and the system was working to release her. I pushed back strongly because she was an excellent ships officer, one of the best Junior officers I have ever commanded. I was challenged with the comment well supposed the bridge is hit and on fire with everyone else killed could she drag your unconscious body out ? I said I honestly don't think so but I am OK with that based on all the other strengths that she brings to the table and therefore I am comfortable with the risk. Like it or not I think that commanders will have to get used to balancing the risk v reward if they want effective numbers.

I saw a picture of one of the Ukrainian army computer geeks. He was very pudgy and had a lot of tattoo's and sure didn't fit the military ideal for body type, but he brought a skill set that created kinetic effects that you are not going to get any other way. I am pretty sure he wasn't going to get sent home because he couldn't do 15 push ups.

Finally with respect to the Anti Woke Russian Army. Yes they are undoubtedly "Anti Woke" but that is expressed in a master race mindset. That is one reason why they have no problem with the large scale slaughter of the lesser humans from prisons and the far reaches of the Russia. This is the dark side of the calls against a woke conspiracy diminishing the armed forces.

Finally my comments on this post are not meant to imply intolerance by everyone with reservations on the current policy changes , but there is no doubt in my mind there is a racist, bigoted, misogynist subset of the "anti- woke" brigade. This has the potential to damage the institutions in a very unfortunate way.

I'm not a fan of Grant Shapps but he may well be confronting something that Ben Wallace chose to ignore........despite him having been in the army. Seems to me this nonsense really gained traction on Wallace's watch.

Except you could also look at it this way: Why not have the standard be that you must be able to lift a jeep over your head or single handedly pull it out of axle deep mud? The answer is obviously because nobody would pass, so they make standards that the people they want or think they should accept can pass. In effect the tail is wagging the dog

If the response is that "well this equipment weighs this much" or "that equipment is that particular dimension" then it's only because they're designed that way to meet the existing standards

Making different standards for women is no more a compromise than making standards for men that are designed to be achieved

Diverse teams can be just as ineffective as non-diverse teams if you only think appearance, culture and background. The strength comes from the diverse skills within that team, that is why meritocracy wins hands down every time. Until we stop following the false mantra that appearance matters over ability, then it will continue to fail.

This team had just as good an outcome regardless of their appearance. It was their diversity of skill that saved the day.
https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....b3f995f26.jpeg

https://x.com/iLibertyBelle/status/1...175875586?s=20

How well do you think this race would go if we picked on diverse appearance rather than their 100m run times?
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....eac159726.jpeg

Until we understand where the strength of diversity really lay, then only then will the benefit be realised. We also need to stop being racist and sexist when we consider diversity and inclusion - you can’t cure discrimination by discriminating!

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....e67f4c8b5.jpeg

So the only reason that everyone lived is because 2 old white guys were flying ? So the clear take away from that meme is if a 50 year old white women and a 50 year Black man were the pilots on that flight everyone would have died. Really that is the best argument you can come up with ?