A sign of the times… 

Undoubtedly, the morale and determination of a nation's fighting forces play a critical role in its success. And that demoralizing a nation’s fighting force can significantly impact its effectiveness, leading to weakened resolve, diminished combat capabilities, and increased vulnerability.

The progressive communist democrats have long employed propaganda and psychological warfare to demoralize those individuals and institutions they wish to degrade or destroy. The goal is to diminish the military in the public’s mind, erode the soldiers' confidence and trust in their leadership, and inhibit recruiting efforts.

• Exploiting Cultural and Religious Differences: The progressive communist democrats have long used identity politics involving racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, ideological, and political differences as a proxy for the traditional class warfare in Marxist/Communist ideology. These identity factors often play a significant role in shaping soldiers' motivations and loyalties, and exploiting these differences can be a powerful strategy to demoralize a nation’s fighting forces and foster internal dissention and conflict within the ranks leading to weakening the military’s unit cohesion and diminishing its effectiveness on the battlefield.

• Targeting Military Leadership: A nation's fighting force heavily relies on competent and inspiring leadership. Therefore, one effective strategy to demoralize fighting forces is to target its leaders. Replacing high-ranking officers and commanders with those who slavishly follow the regime’s ideology to disrupt the chain of command, causing confusion, disarray, and a loss of direction. Additionally, destroying the corps of non-commissioned officers, where the fighting forces’ institutional knowledge lies, effectively promotes incompetence, inefficiency, and a lack of good order and discipline.

Obama's Military Coup Purges 197 Officers In Five Years

What has happened to our officer corps since President Obama took office is viewed in many quarters as unprecedented, baffling, and even harmful to our national security posture. We have commented on some of the higher profile cases, such as Gen. Carter Ham. He was relieved as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi.

Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to "assist and provide intelligence for" military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham.

Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.

From Breitbart.com's Facebook page comes a list of at least 197 officers that have been relieved of duty by President Obama for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given. Stated grounds range from "leaving blast doors on nukes open" to "loss of confidence in command ability" to "mishandling of funds" to "inappropriate relationships" to "gambling with counterfeit chips" to "inappropriate behavior" to "low morale in troops commanded."

Nine senior commanding generals have been fired by the Obama administration this year, leading to speculation by active and retired members of the military that a purge of its commanders is under way. <Source>

• Unfavorable Rules of Engagement: When the rules of engagement are deliberately weakened, prioritizing the protection of civilian lives and minimizing collateral damage, it can create uncertainty and confusion and concern among military personnel about their own safety. Soldiers rely on clear guidelines to understand what is expected of them and to make informed decisions in the field. Weakening these rules often increases the risk of unintended troop casualties, which can harm military personnel's morale. It promotes an atmosphere where soldiers are unsure about the appropriate use of force when they can engage the enemy, which leads to needless deaths and injuries. Adding insult to injury is the post-battle prosecution of soldiers who may have misinterpreted a situation and made an honest error – which the civilian leaders demand to be punished for its public relations value. Soldiers who take pride in their professionalism and strive to uphold ethical standards may compromise missions based on uncertainty. Ignoring the maxim, “He who hesitates in battle is often the one killed or injured.” Ignoring the prime directive of General George Patton, “The object of war is not to die for your country but to make the other bastard die for his.”

• Protracted Warfare and Attrition: Prolonged political or proxy conflict can gradually weaken soldiers’ morale. Sustained casualties, repeated deployments, and prolonged separation from loved ones can lead to exhaustion and a sense of futility among soldiers. A soldier's resolve is eroded over time by prolonging the conflict and creating a perception of an unwinnable situation. Even worse, a dishonorable and disorganized withdrawal can create irreversible psychological harms that discourage further participation in battle as being futile in the long run – with soldiers dying or being injured for nothing.

• Highlighting Technological Superiority: Continually highlighting the enemy's growing technological superiority can demoralize a nation’s fighting force. Showcasing advanced weaponry, equipment, or military capabilities that significantly outmatch our nation’s forces can create a perception of inevitable defeat. This can lead to a sense of hopelessness and demoralization among soldiers who feel outmatched and overwhelmed. Regardless of whether or not these weapons actually exist, are maintainable in the field, or can be wielded in sufficient numbers to make a difference. One space-launched hypersonic nuclear weapon can destroy an entire fleet in the blink of an eye. 

• Poor Living Conditions: Inadequate pay and housing conditions are morale killers, especially among married soldiers with families. It is one thing to sacrifice for one’s nation voluntarily but to suffer while other less critical civilian programs are funded in an insult.

The ONLY pride flag that our government should fly.

Bottom line…

Social engineering poses significant risks to the military, as it can compromise the security of our nation, its operational effectiveness, weaken morale, and potentially lead to disastrous consequences for America and Americans.

Creating an atmosphere where our soldiers appear to be gay guys in assless chaps romping hand-in-hand with fellow perverts through the tulips is not going to overcome the history of tough, macho, self-motivated, and resilient soldiers that can overcome adapt and improvise to fight as a team and win the battle. However, it does discourage recruiting efforts and further weakens the military. 

Soldiers need to trust their leaders and their fellow soldiers and the only diversity in the military should be found in the camouflage patterns on uniforms. 

We are so screwed.

-- Steve