Spot on. We all crave belonging, yet we’ve been sliced into all these different demographic or issue buckets. DEI vs Meritocracy is just the latest divide. I know 2 things can be true and coexist, but that hasn't been the case as of late. I do want the fittest, sharpest troops getting promoted. I also do not want minorities fired, so it is only white dudes left in charge. I still see diversity as a strength, with different people bringing different experiences that can help achieve a common goal. I am channeling some @scottgalloway vibes to find your voice, which might mean leaving the bromance echo chambers for actual, authentic connection. Strong piece.
I think you've put your finger on the deeper issue.
The false choice between meritocracy and diversity has become one more expression of our broader tendency to sort ourselves into competing tribes. Military organizations—and societies—perform best when they refuse that false binary.
I want the most capable leaders selected and promoted. Full stop. But I also want the broadest possible pool of talent competing on a genuinely level playing field. Those aren't competing objectives—they reinforce one another.
What concerns me most isn't diversity or merit; it's the erosion of belonging. When people begin to believe they are valued only because of their demographic category—or excluded because of it—we weaken the very trust and cohesion that high-performing teams require.
The challenge is to build organizations where excellence is the standard, character matters, opportunity is real, and every member sees themselves as contributing to a mission larger than themselves. That's the kind of unity that wins—in military organizations and in democracies alike.
Are you serious. You get the military wrong right from the start. Army units thru much of WWII were in fact almost completely ‘tribal’ and drawn from regions. Go read ‘The Bedford Boys’ on an entire town of young basically being wiped out in the D-day landing. Have you ever read any actual books on US military history?
Your article fails the most basic fact checks from the very start.
Mark, I am quite serious. And I’m familiar with *The Bedford Boys*.
You’re conflating an important exception with the broader trend. Early in WWII, some National Guard and locally recruited units retained strong regional identities, and tragic cases like Bedford illustrate that reality. But the U.S. military moved deliberately away from localized “tribal” formations because concentrating recruits from the same town or region created operational and social vulnerabilities when units suffered heavy casualties.
My argument concerns the long-term evolution of the U.S. military as a national institution, not isolated examples from a particular phase of WWII. If you believe I misstated that point, I’m happy to discuss the evidence. But citing one well-known case does not invalidate the broader historical trajectory.
As for military history, yes—I’ve spent much of my professional life studying, teaching, writing, and helping shape military doctrine and strategy. Disagreement is welcome. Mischaracterizing the argument is less useful.
Mark, you need to "study" more seriously. I'm doing my best to keep this cordial and respectful between us. You need to at least find a way within yourself to meet me halfway.
This is really long and it's really well written and it's really misguided.
This one sentence captures how you have misrepresented this very important issue:
"Military leaders quietly resist efforts to politicize professional military education." Because that is precisely what DEI was doing. It institutionalized political ideology, as it repudiated meritocracy, in a profession in which competence is literally a matter of life and death.
You mention the controversy over recruiting, but for all the length of your piece, you ignore that DEI had created a recruiting crisis. Your premise was correct: that belonging is vitally important. But Equity is the antithesis of Equal Opportunity, and our military was becoming an institution that young Americans did not want to join, and certainly not make the great sacrifices inherent in military service, including risking one's life, for an institution that contradicted their values.
And you ignored that this recruiting crisis, an existential threat to our military and thus to our national security, has been remedied simply by returning to equal opportunity and a meritocracy.
Colin, thanks for the thoughtful critique. We clearly share a concern for military effectiveness, readiness, and the importance of merit.
Where I would respectfully disagree is with the assumption that America's military—or America itself—has historically operated as a pure meritocracy that was later disrupted by DEI initiatives. The history of American political development tells a more complicated story. For much of our history, access to opportunity, advancement, and even full citizenship was shaped by legal, institutional, and cultural barriers tied to race, ethnicity, gender, and class.
One of the great strengths of the American military has been its ability to evolve beyond those constraints while preserving high standards. The integration of African Americans, the expansion of opportunities for women, and the opening of leadership pathways to previously excluded groups were all controversial in their time. Each was criticized by some as a threat to cohesion or merit. Yet the long-term effect was a stronger and more representative force.
That is why I view belonging, equal opportunity, and meritocracy as complementary rather than competing principles. The goal should never be to lower standards or substitute identity for competence. The goal is to ensure that talent is recognized wherever it is found and that every qualified American believes they have a place in the institution.
I would also caution against attributing the recent recruiting crisis—or its partial recovery—to any single cause. Recruiting challenges emerged amid a convergence of factors: declining trust in institutions, demographic shifts, changing attitudes toward service, post-war fatigue, economic conditions, family propensity to serve, and broader political and cultural debates. The causes were multiple and intertwined.
My broader point remains that the question of "Who Belongs?" is not fundamentally about DEI. It is about the enduring challenge of building a military that is both excellent and legitimate—a force capable of attracting the best talent from across American society while maintaining the trust, cohesion, and professional competence upon which military effectiveness ultimately depends.
There is not and will never be a perfect meritocracy. But that should be our aspirational goal. DEI is the opposite direction.
I have been in the Army for 46 years. One of the things I am most proud of is our record on equal opportunity. Soldiers are a team, united by their commitment to the mission. As you mentioned, the military has been a change agent for equal opportunity in our country and our society.
When you--and others--draw equivalency between DEI and the Civil Rights movement in America, you do a disservice to the latter.
I am glad that you mentioned family propensity to serve. Because of DEI, many veterans told their children, their grandchildren, and other young people who they influenced that they could no longer recommend military service, and the sacrifice that is inherent in that commitment. This also impacted those in uniform, who attended mandatory training about implicit bias, and our Chief of Staff testified about "White Rage." In plain English, those who have historically defended our country with their lives were told that they were part of the problem, not the demographic that the Army valued.
We agree that issues with recruiting, or the overall effectiveness of our military, cannot be attributed to a single factor. Concurrent with the emphasis on DEI, Americans witnessed a disgraceful exit from Afghanistan, a failure to deter the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and an impotent response to that invasion, the atrocities of Hamas on October 7, over 200 attacks on US, allied and commercial ships by the Houthis, and a general failure to respond to the nefarious activities of Iran and her proxies, including their nuclear program, which posed an existential threat to Israel and the potential for a regional or global war. As you cited the disturbing loss of trust in our institutions, polling data showed that the military was the shining exception. And now, that trust was eroding, precipitously. This surely contributed to the recruiting shortfalls.
Your last paragraph is beautiful. On this we are in complete agreement: "a force capable of attracting the best talent from across American society while maintaining the trust, cohesion, and professional competence upon which military effectiveness ultimately depends."
Unfortunately, your lengthy article is antithetical to this goal.
Colin, I suspect we agree on more than we disagree, particularly regarding the importance of merit, readiness, trust, and military effectiveness.
Where I continue to differ is on the historical context underlying this discussion.
I agree that equal opportunity should be our aspiration. But I believe we must also be honest about the fact that equal opportunity has not been the historical starting point of the American experience. It has been the objective toward which generations have struggled.
Permit me a personal observation.
I am a Black American who grew up in a military family. My father served in World War II—in both theaters—then in Korea, and later completed two tours in Vietnam. He began his service in a segregated Army. My mother and father now rest in Arlington National Cemetery, a place earned through decades of sacrifice and service to this nation.
For much of their lives, and for much of mine, our family's citizenship and belonging were often treated as conditional. We served a country we loved, but one that frequently questioned whether people who looked like us fully belonged within its political community. That is not ideology. That is history.
When my father entered the Army, the institution itself reflected the racial hierarchies of American society. When I was growing up, it was still common in many Black communities to hear that "the Army is no place for a Black man." My family rejected that sentiment. We chose service anyway. We chose nation over self.
Why?
Because despite its imperfections, military service represented one of the few institutions in American life that consistently moved ahead of broader society in expanding opportunity and recognizing merit.
That history is important because discussions of belonging are never abstract. They affect whether people see themselves as stakeholders in the institution. Whether they believe their sacrifices will be honored. Whether they believe the nation they serve fully includes them.
I understand your concern that some DEI efforts may have unintentionally communicated to many servicemembers that they were viewed as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If that occurred, it was counterproductive and worthy of criticism.
But I would ask for equal consideration of another reality: generations of minority Americans have wrestled with precisely that same question of belonging. The question was not whether they were valued by the military. It was whether they were valued by the nation itself.
My concern is not primarily about DEI. My concern is about any movement—left or right—that reintroduces the perception of conditional belonging. Once people begin asking, "Why should I serve an institution or a nation that does not fully accept me?" recruitment, trust, cohesion, and legitimacy all suffer.
History teaches us this lesson repeatedly.
The challenge before us is not to choose between meritocracy and belonging. The challenge is to strengthen both. The American military has historically been at its best when it maintained uncompromising standards while simultaneously expanding the circle of Americans who could see themselves in uniform and in service to something larger than themselves.
That, ultimately, is what I was trying to explore in asking the question: Who belongs?
Spot on. We all crave belonging, yet we’ve been sliced into all these different demographic or issue buckets. DEI vs Meritocracy is just the latest divide. I know 2 things can be true and coexist, but that hasn't been the case as of late. I do want the fittest, sharpest troops getting promoted. I also do not want minorities fired, so it is only white dudes left in charge. I still see diversity as a strength, with different people bringing different experiences that can help achieve a common goal. I am channeling some @scottgalloway vibes to find your voice, which might mean leaving the bromance echo chambers for actual, authentic connection. Strong piece.
I think you've put your finger on the deeper issue.
The false choice between meritocracy and diversity has become one more expression of our broader tendency to sort ourselves into competing tribes. Military organizations—and societies—perform best when they refuse that false binary.
I want the most capable leaders selected and promoted. Full stop. But I also want the broadest possible pool of talent competing on a genuinely level playing field. Those aren't competing objectives—they reinforce one another.
What concerns me most isn't diversity or merit; it's the erosion of belonging. When people begin to believe they are valued only because of their demographic category—or excluded because of it—we weaken the very trust and cohesion that high-performing teams require.
The challenge is to build organizations where excellence is the standard, character matters, opportunity is real, and every member sees themselves as contributing to a mission larger than themselves. That's the kind of unity that wins—in military organizations and in democracies alike.
Appreciate you engaging so thoughtfully.
Are you serious. You get the military wrong right from the start. Army units thru much of WWII were in fact almost completely ‘tribal’ and drawn from regions. Go read ‘The Bedford Boys’ on an entire town of young basically being wiped out in the D-day landing. Have you ever read any actual books on US military history?
Your article fails the most basic fact checks from the very start.
Mark, I am quite serious. And I’m familiar with *The Bedford Boys*.
You’re conflating an important exception with the broader trend. Early in WWII, some National Guard and locally recruited units retained strong regional identities, and tragic cases like Bedford illustrate that reality. But the U.S. military moved deliberately away from localized “tribal” formations because concentrating recruits from the same town or region created operational and social vulnerabilities when units suffered heavy casualties.
My argument concerns the long-term evolution of the U.S. military as a national institution, not isolated examples from a particular phase of WWII. If you believe I misstated that point, I’m happy to discuss the evidence. But citing one well-known case does not invalidate the broader historical trajectory.
As for military history, yes—I’ve spent much of my professional life studying, teaching, writing, and helping shape military doctrine and strategy. Disagreement is welcome. Mischaracterizing the argument is less useful.
No, it was that way from the time of the Revolution. Only after WW2 did it officially change in the regular Army.
There could not be a more ‘tribal’ approach than going to war with friends and neighbors.
I think WWII is an appropriate and accurate mile-marker for the change.
You need to study more. Most of reserves are also ‘regional’ or even localized.
Tell me, how much time did you spend in DoW?
Mark, you need to "study" more seriously. I'm doing my best to keep this cordial and respectful between us. You need to at least find a way within yourself to meet me halfway.
This is really long and it's really well written and it's really misguided.
This one sentence captures how you have misrepresented this very important issue:
"Military leaders quietly resist efforts to politicize professional military education." Because that is precisely what DEI was doing. It institutionalized political ideology, as it repudiated meritocracy, in a profession in which competence is literally a matter of life and death.
You mention the controversy over recruiting, but for all the length of your piece, you ignore that DEI had created a recruiting crisis. Your premise was correct: that belonging is vitally important. But Equity is the antithesis of Equal Opportunity, and our military was becoming an institution that young Americans did not want to join, and certainly not make the great sacrifices inherent in military service, including risking one's life, for an institution that contradicted their values.
And you ignored that this recruiting crisis, an existential threat to our military and thus to our national security, has been remedied simply by returning to equal opportunity and a meritocracy.
Colin, thanks for the thoughtful critique. We clearly share a concern for military effectiveness, readiness, and the importance of merit.
Where I would respectfully disagree is with the assumption that America's military—or America itself—has historically operated as a pure meritocracy that was later disrupted by DEI initiatives. The history of American political development tells a more complicated story. For much of our history, access to opportunity, advancement, and even full citizenship was shaped by legal, institutional, and cultural barriers tied to race, ethnicity, gender, and class.
One of the great strengths of the American military has been its ability to evolve beyond those constraints while preserving high standards. The integration of African Americans, the expansion of opportunities for women, and the opening of leadership pathways to previously excluded groups were all controversial in their time. Each was criticized by some as a threat to cohesion or merit. Yet the long-term effect was a stronger and more representative force.
That is why I view belonging, equal opportunity, and meritocracy as complementary rather than competing principles. The goal should never be to lower standards or substitute identity for competence. The goal is to ensure that talent is recognized wherever it is found and that every qualified American believes they have a place in the institution.
I would also caution against attributing the recent recruiting crisis—or its partial recovery—to any single cause. Recruiting challenges emerged amid a convergence of factors: declining trust in institutions, demographic shifts, changing attitudes toward service, post-war fatigue, economic conditions, family propensity to serve, and broader political and cultural debates. The causes were multiple and intertwined.
My broader point remains that the question of "Who Belongs?" is not fundamentally about DEI. It is about the enduring challenge of building a military that is both excellent and legitimate—a force capable of attracting the best talent from across American society while maintaining the trust, cohesion, and professional competence upon which military effectiveness ultimately depends.
Isaiah, thanks for the reply.
There is not and will never be a perfect meritocracy. But that should be our aspirational goal. DEI is the opposite direction.
I have been in the Army for 46 years. One of the things I am most proud of is our record on equal opportunity. Soldiers are a team, united by their commitment to the mission. As you mentioned, the military has been a change agent for equal opportunity in our country and our society.
When you--and others--draw equivalency between DEI and the Civil Rights movement in America, you do a disservice to the latter.
I am glad that you mentioned family propensity to serve. Because of DEI, many veterans told their children, their grandchildren, and other young people who they influenced that they could no longer recommend military service, and the sacrifice that is inherent in that commitment. This also impacted those in uniform, who attended mandatory training about implicit bias, and our Chief of Staff testified about "White Rage." In plain English, those who have historically defended our country with their lives were told that they were part of the problem, not the demographic that the Army valued.
We agree that issues with recruiting, or the overall effectiveness of our military, cannot be attributed to a single factor. Concurrent with the emphasis on DEI, Americans witnessed a disgraceful exit from Afghanistan, a failure to deter the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and an impotent response to that invasion, the atrocities of Hamas on October 7, over 200 attacks on US, allied and commercial ships by the Houthis, and a general failure to respond to the nefarious activities of Iran and her proxies, including their nuclear program, which posed an existential threat to Israel and the potential for a regional or global war. As you cited the disturbing loss of trust in our institutions, polling data showed that the military was the shining exception. And now, that trust was eroding, precipitously. This surely contributed to the recruiting shortfalls.
Your last paragraph is beautiful. On this we are in complete agreement: "a force capable of attracting the best talent from across American society while maintaining the trust, cohesion, and professional competence upon which military effectiveness ultimately depends."
Unfortunately, your lengthy article is antithetical to this goal.
Colin, I suspect we agree on more than we disagree, particularly regarding the importance of merit, readiness, trust, and military effectiveness.
Where I continue to differ is on the historical context underlying this discussion.
I agree that equal opportunity should be our aspiration. But I believe we must also be honest about the fact that equal opportunity has not been the historical starting point of the American experience. It has been the objective toward which generations have struggled.
Permit me a personal observation.
I am a Black American who grew up in a military family. My father served in World War II—in both theaters—then in Korea, and later completed two tours in Vietnam. He began his service in a segregated Army. My mother and father now rest in Arlington National Cemetery, a place earned through decades of sacrifice and service to this nation.
For much of their lives, and for much of mine, our family's citizenship and belonging were often treated as conditional. We served a country we loved, but one that frequently questioned whether people who looked like us fully belonged within its political community. That is not ideology. That is history.
When my father entered the Army, the institution itself reflected the racial hierarchies of American society. When I was growing up, it was still common in many Black communities to hear that "the Army is no place for a Black man." My family rejected that sentiment. We chose service anyway. We chose nation over self.
Why?
Because despite its imperfections, military service represented one of the few institutions in American life that consistently moved ahead of broader society in expanding opportunity and recognizing merit.
That history is important because discussions of belonging are never abstract. They affect whether people see themselves as stakeholders in the institution. Whether they believe their sacrifices will be honored. Whether they believe the nation they serve fully includes them.
I understand your concern that some DEI efforts may have unintentionally communicated to many servicemembers that they were viewed as part of the problem rather than part of the solution. If that occurred, it was counterproductive and worthy of criticism.
But I would ask for equal consideration of another reality: generations of minority Americans have wrestled with precisely that same question of belonging. The question was not whether they were valued by the military. It was whether they were valued by the nation itself.
My concern is not primarily about DEI. My concern is about any movement—left or right—that reintroduces the perception of conditional belonging. Once people begin asking, "Why should I serve an institution or a nation that does not fully accept me?" recruitment, trust, cohesion, and legitimacy all suffer.
History teaches us this lesson repeatedly.
The challenge before us is not to choose between meritocracy and belonging. The challenge is to strengthen both. The American military has historically been at its best when it maintained uncompromising standards while simultaneously expanding the circle of Americans who could see themselves in uniform and in service to something larger than themselves.
That, ultimately, is what I was trying to explore in asking the question: Who belongs?