Officers like the one on Nightlinernhave a lot more to fear than fear itself Inrnthe opening section of Department ofrnDefense Instruction No. 1320.4, whichrnredefined the necessary components ofrnofficer promotion packages in the wakernof the Tailhook scandal, we encounterrnDefinition 2:rnAlleged Adverse Information. Anyrnallegation of conflict of interest,rnfailure to adhere to required standardsrnof conduct, abuse of authority,rnmisconduct or information servingrnas the basis for an incompleternor unresolved official investigationrnor inquiry into a possible conflictrnof interest or failure to adhere tornstandards of conduct or misconduct.rnAnyone who does not understand the requirementsrnon reporting “alleged adverserninformation,” strategically placedrnthroughout the instruction, as referringrnto crimes against political correctness isrnout of touch with the legitimate fear andrnsuspicion of today’s officer class.rnThe current process of vetting candidatesrnfor promotion cannot even be comparedrnto the Inquisition, since one neverrngets to face the accuser or defend againstrnthe accusation. By a kind of weirdrnpoetic justice, it almost makes sensernwhen agitated Senate Republicans orderrna Commission on Military Training andrnGender-related Issues to feriet out therntruth by September, and then appointrnMr. Frederick Pang to the panel. In hisrncapacity as Assistant Secretary of Defensernfor Force Management Policy, Mr. Pangrngushed in a letter on October 17, 1995,rnto the Senate Armed Services Committeernthat the reporting of “Alleged AdversernInformation” on the attendees of Tailhookrnhad gone so well that “We want tornapply the Department’s normal adverserninformation reporting requirements tornall officers.”rnAs a consequence, there exists a thinrncrust of officers at the very top who arernthere because they have shown themselvesrnwilling to carry out the directivesrnof the civilian culture warriors. Servingrnbelow them is a vast sea of disgust, complementedrnby highly trained professionalsrnwho have retired in droves citingrnmorale, a changed culture, and loweredrnstandards of every sort. They know thatrnNavy Secretary John Dalton demonstrablyrnlied in 1995 when he denied the usernof race and gender quotas. They know itrnis madness for the Army to bunk menrnand women, including military chaplains,rntogether. And they know that thernpurpose of the military as an institutionrn—to win the nation’s wars—had tornbe qualified publicly by Army SecretaryrnTogo West as on a par with “an equal opportunityrnto serve” in order to justify thisrndangerous and costiy transformation.rnThe eerie thing about the present staternof affairs is that one must now read Americanrnpress accounts in roughly the samernway that Sovietologists used to read Pravda,rnscouring articles for little tell-talernfacts buried deep within. In March,rnnewspapers nationwide carried a dispatchrnby Associated Press writer John Diamondrnon the alarming number of pilotsrnunceremoniously departing from the AirrnForce and Navy. Less than 30 percent ofrnnine-year veteran pilots in the Air Forcernare accepting an extended tour of fivernyears, even when offered a $110,000rnsigning bonus. As for the Navy, this yearrnonly 27 out of 261 carrier pilots have optedrnfor another tour of duty, again despiterngenerous offers of bonus pay. A variety ofrnreasons are offered, none of which makesrnperfect sense, until the reader noticesrnthat many of the officers cite as an explanationrn”difficulties with the promotionrnprocess.” Everyone in the military knowsrnthat what this phrase really refers to: thernprocess of weeding out enemies of thernnew order.rnMeanwhile, as President Clinton wasrnpreparing another massive air campaignrnagainst Iraq, the defense of our crucialrnground position in Kuwait was in thernhands of a reinforced armor battalionrnand a Marine Corps ExpeditionaryrnUnit—hardly a division. Highly placedrnofficers from Central Command in thernGulf warned their former colleaguernJoshua Cohen, editorial manager of therninfluential Periscope military news service,rnthat in the event of a ground-basedrnIraqi counter-attack key bases such as AlrnJabar, from which many of the Americanrnsorties were to be flown, would not be defended.rnWliat would we have done hadrnthe Iraqis captured a significant numberrnof Americans on the ground as prisonersrnof war?rnThe fact that the Clinton administrationrnwas persuaded that it could compelrnthe behavior of a nation the size of Iraqrnwith over-the-horizon and stand-offrnweapons alone is significant on a numberrnof levels. It can be read as support forrna point made by William Lind: “There isrna direct connection between the feminizationrnof our armed forces and the fantasyrnof ‘push button warfare,’ becausernthat’s the only kind of war women canrnfight (and it doesn’t work).” As the troopsrnsee it, what began as social experimentationrnwith the intangibles of good order,rnmorale, and discipline has finally maturedrninto a criminal neglect of the concreternexigencies of war-fighting.rnThe ultimate and more ominous significancernof these phenomena can bernderived by simple logic. The inclusionrnof any element which, by its nature, is incommensuraternwith a principal end ofrnaction affects performance as a whole.rnEven advocates of gender integrationrnknow that it reduces military readiness,rnbut they forge ahead because they viewrnandrogyny as a cultural imperative.rnWhile a patriotic soldier fights for victoryrnand is prepared to sacrifice himself forrnhis country, postmodernists are preparedrnto sacrifice countrymen and victory tornthe perverse ideal of a community homogeneousrnin feeling, thought, and activity.rnSuch being the gravity of the matter, arnportion of my Strategic Review editorialrnthat feminists found particularly infuriatingrnbears repeating: “If Congress and thernPentagon will not act, officers en massernshould simply refuse to implement integrationrnfurther.” If some view that recommendationrnas a scary call to mutiny,rnthey should realize there are many waysrnof saying Non serviam. Officers are sayingrnas much by simply walking away.rnWilliam j . Corliss is an associate at thernBoston University Center for DefensernJournalism.rnTO REGISTER FORrnThe Rockford InstituternSummer School,rnplease callrn815-964-5811rnJULY 1998/45rnrnrn