Cultural Homogeneity is Weakness (Obviously)
Anti-diversity in the military isn't just insulting, it's dangerous.
When SecDef Pete Hegseth scorns the slogan “Our diversity is our strength” as the “dumbest words in the military,” the error is not just insulting to Americans, it is a tactical and strategic blunder—literally the kind of posturing that either depletes or demoralizes the most powerful military in the world. With due respect to the “dust on his boots,” if what Hegseth calls a “return to warrior culture” is anything more than left-bashing rhetoric for the many MAGAs who’ve never served, it prefaces a doctrine that undermines fundamental advantages in American capabilities in both war and peacetime.
As a foundational, practical matter, a military is a microcosm of a nation’s population, and this nation’s population is culturally and ethnically diverse. So, it’s basic math: without a diverse military, we either have an insufficient military or a draft—and conscript militaries are weaker than volunteer militaries. Especially with respect to the enduring patience of Black Americans who have served since the Revolution, their duty to the American cause is almost unfathomable in contrast to their treatment. So, whatever the hell Hegseth means by “warrior culture,” if it is toxic to that essential ingredient of buy-in among the small minority of Americans who serve, then it is fatal to the strength he claims to invigorate.
If “warrior culture” is just hype to otherwise describe a legit effort to make every member of a unit feel like they’re part of the mission—like the military is an extended family—fine. This fosters buy-in and an essential commitment to purpose from every member at every level of service. But all indications are that what Hegseth means is that the military should reawaken its lesser angels, like orcs rising from the mud, and reanimate a culture of toxic meatheads, which will only foster the kind of paper tigers we see in militaries that march pretty and fight poorly.
About one percent of American citizens serve, or have family members who serve, in the armed forces. Consequently, knowledge of what the military does is low in contrast to the volume of opinions, whether positive or negative, about what the military should be. But one thing for sure (and even Hegseth knows this) is that most military personnel are not “warriors” in the way that he uses that word to project an image of strength. For example, carrier groups have long been one of the most essential tools in American diplomatic power, and the diverse populations who perform hundreds of duties on those ships deserve leaders, and a public, who respect and value their service no matter who they are as individuals.
A single aircraft carrier may be manned by up to 7,000 sailors. Of those, only a fraction is trained in combat operations at all, while the overwhelming majority of men and women on board are mechanics, engineers, cooks, logistics and safety personnel, and people who refill the vending machines. The myriad jobs (in the Navy these are called rates) on one carrier comprise both mission-critical and mission-support roles conducted by personnel whose identity characteristics are irrelevant at every level of priority.
At one extreme, the flight deck of a carrier has been described as one of the most dangerous places a person can be, with or without a war. Supporting every aircraft that takes off and lands are dozens of highly skilled personnel—some of them very young—performing jobs that are physically and mentally demanding. These individuals practice not killing themselves and their shipmates every day, and there is no room for error. Anyone who believes that the commanding officers will allow incompetent individuals to operate out there solely because they are “DEI hires” has watched Top Gun too many times.
At the other extreme, there really are people on a carrier who refill the candy and soda machines. It won’t make the montage in Top Gun III, but it is one of many low-skill duties that nevertheless play a necessary role in operations. If nothing else, sailors will attest to the fact that it’s a good idea to have snacks available for any Marines who might be on board; but in all seriousness, how much “warrior culture” is required to minister to the vending machines or run the laundry? Or if the Food Service Assistant happens to be gay, how does this affect her ability to put the Snickers bars in the correct row and, thereby, close a key gap in national defense?
In every division of every branch, thousands of men and women who are never trained to hold a firearm perform duties that serve the mission. As stated, a volunteer military is stronger than a conscript military because, in principle, the volunteer is committed to that mission, but this is not automatic. Unit cohesion and buy-in are not achieved by degrading the individuals in the unit and fostering a culture that degrades their service.
Monoculture Makes Armies Predictable
There is a scene in the film Patton when the eponymous general (George C. Scott) sees that he has outmaneuvered Rommel on the battlefield. He lowers his binoculars, laughs, and says, “I read your goddamn book!” Hollywood glamour aside, the scene makes a solid point. Throughout history, when cultural attitudes have guided military tactics in both ancient and modern militaries—even to the point of magical thinking—this has made armies predictable and, therefore, vulnerable. By contrast, one of the strengths of the American military has always been a lack of cultural doctrine, even when its diversity is redacted or ignored.
Particularly evident in countless stories about WWII, the U.S. military has generally not operated under a doctrine that makes it as predictable as its adversaries and enemies. This is not to say that cultural attitudes, most notably anti-Black racism, have not stymied, or try to stymie, some of the best and brightest who have served. But in many instances, victories have been achieved by individuals who persevered against cultural homogeneity—most famously the Tuskegee Airmen whose record bested most other flying units.
Or on a more subtle level, the story of the Six Triple Eight, the all-black WAC unit who broke the morale-crushing logjam of undelivered letters between families and soldiers is now dramatized in a Tyler Perry film on Netflix. Again, plenty of Hollywood license in the telling, but the story itself highlights another overlooked and inspiring fragment of history—not merely emphasizing literal diversity, but also the Americans’ creative capacity for subtle but important victories.
Even with the Revolution, if the Continental Army had not diverged from many traditions of English warfare—indeed if Washington had not placed so much trust in the tactics of the immigrant Alexander Hamilton—the outcome would likely have been very different. So, when SecDef Hegseth says that it’s dumb to say that “our diversity is our strength,” he is not only insulting those who serve; he is denigrating ingenuity itself, which can get those who still serve killed. If the U.S. military were to become more homogenous, as defined by whatever “warrior culture” means, this would only repeat the errors of other armies whose monocultures make them predictable and bad at what they do.
We see this in Ukraine where, by every tactical measure, the Russians have been getting their asses kicked. But just as the Russians have done for centuries, they throw bodies (literally) at the conflict, seeking to overwhelm by numbers what they lack in skill, training, commitment, and diversity in their thinking. Now, it seems that not only will U.S. policy support Russian interests (Reagan spinning in his grave could power a city), but Hegseth seems eager to remodel the American military after Russian doctrine, which, to put it in technical terms, sucks. Homogeneity is as fatal to intellect and innovation as it is to organisms, and it is therefore axiomatic that purging diversity from the military is lethal to national security.