December 13, 2017
The Pentagon is about to deploy 23,000 troops -- but not for the mission you'd expect. According to the Defense Department, that's how many service members it'll have to train to deal with the first wave of transgender recruits. Although the Trump administration is actively fighting the court's order, military officials are bracing themselves for the monumental distraction set in motion by Barack Obama.
As a top human resources official explained to the Washington Times, the policy is a huge drain on the military's real priorities, since it involves a top-to-bottom education in "preparation, training, and communication" with processing stations and others who will need "a working knowledge or in-depth understanding of the requirements for accepting transgender enlistees." As of this moment, the White House is frantically pushing for an emergency stay on the ruling from one unelected judge, who's taken it upon herself to decide what's best for national security -- over the objections of the president, military leaders, active-duty troops, and the 62,984,825 voters who entrusted these decisions to Donald Trump.
It's a dangerous case of judicial activism that could have real-world consequences for millions of American service members, who are just as opposed to the change as their commander-in-chief. Lernes Hebert, the acting deputy assistant secretary of defense for military personnel policy, argues that rushing this policy wouldn't just risk our troops' safety but the people trying to enlist. "As a result, an applicant may be accessed for military service who is not physically or psychologically equipped to engage in combat or operational service." Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to matter to Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, whose biggest concern isn't the military's safety or effectiveness -- but the Left's political agenda.
While the case makes its way to a court that respects the executive branch's authority, the training will go on. And that's time our military can never get back. Every hour (and dollar) our troops waste on this over-the-top sensitivity sham, FRC's Lt. General Jerry Boykin (U.S. Army-Ret.) argues, is time they could have been on the range or practicing combat maneuvers. "Talk to any service member today," he says, "and you will find that a majority of them will express great frustration with the amount of time that they spend in these lectures at the expense of preparing for war." And, he points out, this latest gender free-for-all is on top of the classroom hours they spend on diversity, tolerance, inclusion, sexual assault, and white privilege instead of the military Code of Conduct."
Then consider the result, he says, shaking his head. "When do you train for battle when you're bogged down with these politically-correct mandates? You don't. You go out and crash ships or get captured by Iranians, because you were never prepared for war. Policies like these degrade our readiness."
If liberals were as focused on the world's threats as they are on LGBT activism, America would be the safest, most powerful country in the world. Instead, they're desperately trying to preserve Obama's radical legacy and jeopardizing the whole of national security in the process. And for what? So that a group of people with legitimate health concerns can self-actualize? The military's purpose is to fight and win wars. Does the integration of men and women confused about their gender make us better prepared to defend our nation? If the answer is no (and research suggests it is), why are we even considering it?
Tony Perkins' Washington Update is written with the aid of FRC senior writers.