[00:00:00] Speaker A: Hello, everyone. Welcome to the 210th episode of the Atlas Society asks. My name is Jennifer Anju Grossman. Everyone calls me Jag. I'm the CEO of the Atlas Society. We are the leading nonprofit organization introducing young people to the ideas of Ayn Rand in fun, creative ways, including graphic novels, animated videos, even music videos. Today, we are joined by Amber Smith. Before I even begin to introduce our guest, I want to remind all of you who are watching us on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube. Use the comment section to type in your questions. We will get to as many of them as we can. Amber Smith is the best selling author of Unfit to fight how woke policies are destroying our military, which warns that a focus on identity politics, Dei, and gender ideology, combined with the devastating vaccine mandate for members of the military, have led to a dangerous recruitment crisis while also destroying morale. She is a former combat helicopter pilot and deputy assistant to the secretary of defense, an experience she shares in her previous book, Danger my epic Journey as a combat helicopter pilot in Iraq and Afghanistan. She, of course, is a familiar face, commenting on military affairs on outlets including Fox News and Newsmax, with frequent commentary written for Fortune, Forbes, the Washington examiner, and the Daily Caller and the Blaze, among many, many others. Amber, thank you so much for joining us.
[00:01:33] Speaker B: Thank you for having me.
[00:01:36] Speaker A: So women have a long and distinguished history of serving in the us military, though the phenomenon of women serving in combat roles, including pilots, is relatively recent. So tell us about your path to joining the military. Was it something in your blood? Did you come from a military family? What inspired you?
[00:01:59] Speaker B: So? Yeah, women have been actually the only exemption prior to the ban on women in combat positions being lifted by Secretary Carter in the end of 2015.
I was interested. I come from a military family. Like, I'm a fourth generation service member, and everyone served back from my great grandfather, grandfather, my father, and then myself.
And we just have extended family that serve. So you could definitely say that serving and aviation is in our blood.
We have, like, a strong sense of, like, patriotic duty, you could say, instilled in us from a very young age. And for me, specifically, I loved flying. I loved aviation. And then when 911 happened, it sort of caused me to sort of rethink my path of where, when I wanted to serve. Prior to 911, it had always been sort of something that I had thought about. And then when 911 happened, I was like, I want to serve my country. I want to do it now. And I felt that the best way for me to do that was with serving as, like, a pilot in some capacity.
[00:03:21] Speaker A: So you were a US army oh 58 D Kiawa warrior helicopter pilot, I hope I'm not botching that name. And air mission commander in the 101st Airborne Division and flew two combat tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. Given the debacle of the botched withdrawal in Afghanistan, which you write about in your book, including, of course, the tragic suicide bombing that killed 13 service members at Abbey Gate, did that experience seeing that, did that change your perspective about your time in the military?
[00:03:58] Speaker B: No, it didn't change my perspective about my time serving. I am very grateful for my time in service, and I am grateful that I got to serve in the capacity that I got to. I think what the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the evacuation that we saw following was, it kind of was pulled the curtain back a little bit on the modern day current military leadership. Their priorities and their ability or inability, you could say, to treat the reality on the ground and translate that into like. Because up until the, you know, the Taliban actually marching into Kabul, the intelligence community here was still saying that there was absolutely, it was just days before that they finally changed their assessment that, yeah, the Taliban may actually be able to take Kabul. And so I think we saw sort of a failure from the very top of the military in what was being relayed and advised to the administration and then down to sort of what we saw was sort of a failure of command authority after the suicide bombing that resulted in 13 service members killed, which I write about extensively. I have an entire chapter about the evacuation of Afghanistan. And bigger picture than just what happened with the evacuation was that the military really lost Afghanistan veterans. They saw what happened and how essentially we, as the american people were lied to. Afterwards, they said that the strike on Tin civilians was a righteous strike. And they said that it was an ISIS K member that was going to do another attack when in reality was an aid worker and seven of his children.
And they lied about it until a New York Times expose essentially came out and revealed what actually happened. And then they had to come clean. So I think the aftermath of that, the way they treated it, the way they tried to spin it as the most successful evacuation in history. And it's like we watched it happen with our own eyes. There were people falling from airplanes, from the sky. And so that, I think, was just an eye opener to the american people to see the way that some leadership in the military, how Secretary Austin is handling things in the Department of Defense right now.
[00:06:39] Speaker A: Yeah, I mean, it's a spin after. It's also the spin before, as you were saying, that we weren't getting an accurate picture of the reality on the ground. Of course, Ayn Rand's famous quote, we can evade reality, but we can't evade the consequences of evading reality. And, of course, that's what we saw on the ground in Afghanistan. So let's turn to your book, unfit to fight, how woke policies are destroying our military. Last year, every branch of the military fell short of recruitment goals, save for marines and space force, collectively missing recruiting goals by about 41,000 recruits. In addressing this, the Department of Defense cites several factors outside of its control. Smaller eligible population due largely to obesity. Fewer young people with family members who served, but seems to fail to reflect on factors within its control, the kind of culture that it cultivates within the military. What are some of the ways in which the current recruitment crisis is self inflicted, the result of unforced errors?
[00:07:53] Speaker B: Well, you are exactly right. And this is one of the reasons that I wanted to write this book. Book was because when the trend began, 2022, the army specifically knew they weren't going to be able to meet the recruitment goals.
And subsequently, when they know they're not going to meet their recruitment goals, they end up just lowering those goals.
But they also go, you know, they get called to Capitol Hill to testify. And I saw army leaders testifying with excuses for anything that was anything other than the reality of why young Americans don't want to serve in the military today. Because you hear them repeat the same thing, which is, well, obesity, mental and physical injuries that disqualify the majority of Americans from serving, which is true.
Context is that that has been true for decades. So when they go and say, oh, well, suddenly we're not able to meet our recruitment numbers, it's like, well, you were before. You were before with the obesity and the mental and physical disqualifiers prior to. So why now are you unable to meet those recruitment numbers? And it's because there has been this shift. And so it was about 23% of the american population, 17 to 24, are eligible. And I think it was like an NBC poll back a few years ago, that was of that 23% that is eligible, how many of you would consider military service? And it was around 9%, which was down almost ten points from a few years prior. So those are significant numbers of people who are saying no thanks to military service. And the question is, why? What has changed in recent years? And I will tell you, a big part of it is social media and people seeing military lifestyle firsthand. So they are not having to go through the Pentagon press secretary and information that is controlled by the Pentagon being released to the public. Now, they're seeing it firsthand that the Department of Defense has no control over service members going and talking about it in real time. And they are seeing it and getting to make their own decisions, and they're saying no. So they're seeing dei policies. They are seeing the leadership double standards. They are seeing this two tiered justice system. I'll give you an example of Secretary Austin going AWol for a week without telling his boss, without telling his deputy, having surgery, being incapacitated, and not delegating his authority to his deputy. If a private did that, he would face UCMJ action, the military justice system, and would likely be fired for that.
And so people are seeing that, and they're saying, why is it different for generals at the top?
They're seeing the politicization of military leadership at the Pentagon. They saw the debacle with General Milley, and they are choosing other paths. They are military service.
[00:11:14] Speaker A: Yeah, well, you know what? You're just talking about these double standards. Reminds me, we recently had on this show, former Navy SEAL Jack Carr is the author of the best selling series the terminal list. And one of the themes that in that series is holding people in positions of power accountable. Can you address this shift in leadership accountability in the military? You know, the idea that if a private loses a rifle, he gets punished, but if a general loses a war, he gets promoted. When did this start to creep in?
[00:11:54] Speaker B: So if you look at the general officer corps, if you look back to World War two, people were put in these commander general positions, and they were given a couple months on the battlefield to prove their leadership and command abilities. And if they couldn't do it, if they were unable, for whatever reason, to find success, then they were fired. And it wasn't personal. It was, people were put in these positions to accomplish the mission. And if you couldn't do it, they would bring in somebody else that could. That was also when generals used to serve in combat. Generals do not anymore. When they do go out on these sort of, like, these missions to see how the troops are doing, it is a dog and pony show. It is created weeks in advance.
Okay? So now, fast forward from World War two to Vietnam, the Pentagon really shifted their view of generals getting fired as to a pr stain for the Department of Defense as a whole. So instead of saying, oh, well, this one general wasn't able to accomplish the mission, so he got fired. Now, if we fired him, he was a black eye for the entire institution. So instead, they just moved positions, or they just allowed them to continue doing the job. So they circled the wagon of the generals. And we saw generals getting fired less and less today. It is extremely rare for a general flag officer to get fired for performance. You still see them getting fired for conduct, inappropriate behavior, those types of things. But in terms of performance, it is extremely rare for someone at that rank to get fired. And sadly, we have seen it's become a culture that rewards yes men. If you step out of line, if you speak up against some of these policies that are not putting the mission first, that are not what's best for the troops, in some cases unlawful, you get in trouble for it. You're not getting promoted. You're not getting the leadership courses, you're not getting commands. And instead, the people who toe the line say, yes, no, their heads keep their mouth shut. You're seeing those people climb their way up the ladder. And sadly, that's the culture that's been created in the officer corps. You're also seeing. We talk a lot about recruitment crisis. The. It's not really looming anymore. It's actually present is the retention crisis. It's just a little bit quieter because it is ongoing, and it will be ongoing for some time. And that's. The people who no longer want to serve in the military are getting out of the military because of what they see on the inside. And they're just waiting out their time until they are eligible to ETS or retire when their contract comes up and they're able to get out of the military, people who would stay in longer, who would renew their contracts, who are now saying, I'm done. I want to get out. The pros no longer outweigh the cons.
[00:15:19] Speaker A: Yeah, well, I have a lot more questions, as you can see from my copy of your book. I took a lot of notes, but we have dozens of audience questions that are coming in, so we'll get to some of those from Instagram. My modern gal asks Amber, do you think there is still a need for a large military today? Maybe putting it into context about the changes in the size of force over time?
[00:15:48] Speaker B: So I. Today, when we were talking about today, we do still need a very large military. Yes, technology is changing, but if you look at some of the wars that are being fought right now, look at Russia, Ukraine, we still need troops, and someday we may get there where technology will allow us to have a smaller, like, boots on the ground type fighting force and infantry.
But we're not there yet. We are absolutely not there yet. So we still need a large military, we still need people to serve.
And in order to do that, in order to attract those people, again, the military has to get back to a meritocracy to one that is focused on rewarding people based on merit and accomplishing the mission instead of being distracted by the woke policies that we're discussing.
[00:16:40] Speaker A: Well, it's interesting that you use that word distraction, because Carr also said in our interview, quote, anything that is not directly preparing us or indirectly preparing us for war and making us more effective and efficient fighting force doesn't belong in the military. It's definitely a distraction. So some other questions here. Jackie, 1918 on Instagram. I think you've kind of covered this, but I don't know if you have anything more to say on whether or not the military has become more political in recent years. And if you feel that there is also a desire to weed out political.
[00:17:22] Speaker B: Undesirables, the military has become increasingly political. It's not that it wasn't political anymore or it's not that it wasn't political previously.
It's that it is now overt. I would say they're not trying to hide it anymore. You have someone like General Milley, who was the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, testifying on Capitol Hill, how he wants CRT to be taught at West Point. He wants cadets to get that perspective. He wants to learn about white rage, those types of courses being taught at West Point to our future military leaders, who should be focused on battlefield strategy, history, leadership, and instead are getting classes about, let's learn about oppression and why the system is against you and injustice.
You can't have a group of military leaders who are taught about an alternate version of history and why it is terrible.
You want to teach patriotism and why our country is amazing and unique, a beacon of freedom, enlighten the world.
And so, yes, the military has become overtly political. And there's no. There used to be. It used to pride itself on being this apolitical organization, and sadly, it is no longer.
[00:18:52] Speaker A: All right, so when did these distractions begin to creep in? Was it during the Obama administration?
[00:19:01] Speaker B: Yeah, I would say it really began in the Obama administration. That's when they started pushing in some of these sort of Dei sort of propaganda, before it was really called DEi.
They also. That's when they overturned some of the transgender policies.
They also lifted the ban on women in combat, which if you sort of, if you read my book, which I discussed that in detail, it was rushed, in a sense. There were some services that requested exemptions from it, and they were denied. It was a blanket approval lifting the ban, even though some services had took issue with it. In terms of when the mission is the priority, and I am a very strong advocate for women serving in the military, I think they should be given the opportunity to try for whatever position they would like to serve in. But I am also an advocate for a mission standard. So there should be no double standards. There should meet no lowered physical standards. If they can meet the exact same criteria and standard as a man, whatever that is, whatever the mission standard is, then that means they.
If they are the best person for the job, then they should be allowed to do it. I do have a problem with lowered standards. I do have a problem with selecting women to match quotas or to match with a battle buddy. So there's not a single female.
Those types of things harm morale. They require the people who are there because they are the best people for the jobs, to carry some of the weight.
And to me, as we've been talking about, that's very political, right. When you have to have certain types of people in certain positions to meet whatever quota some politician in Washington, DC, makes them feel good about, that is not what's best for the military, and it's not best for women, either. Women want to be there based on merit, being the best and right person for the job when they get selected because of those quotas that I talked about.
It creates issues in units because.
And this isn't just with women. It's with any type of dei type of requirement where people are like, are you here because you're the best person for the job, or are you here because of a quota? And that's, like, a natural reaction for people who it used to be. You know, there was this phrase, embrace the suck. Everybody had to go through the exact same thing in order to, you know, come to the other side and join the team and become a part of that unit, and people could count on you for that mission. When things get reduced or there's those double standards, it immediately starts to break down that unit cohesion that's absolutely required for teamwork and the success that comes with accomplishing the mission.
[00:22:19] Speaker A: So, speaking of double standards, have there been double standards with regards to inclusion of transgender troops getting special treatment or accommodation as opposed to, let's say, accommodations or treatment for other people, like those with asthma?
[00:22:43] Speaker B: So I will tell you that the Department of Defense likes to use the word readiness. This matters to our mission readiness, and they will use that to their benefits when it's something that they want to push. So I will give you an example. With transgender policy. They say they want to allow service members or they want to open up serving to 100% of the population. First of all, just as you mentioned, with asthma, 100% of the population is not eligible to serve. There are all sorts of disqualifying criteria, and some of them are very minor. Some of them are very significant. And for a comparison of something that happened very recently is the COVID vaccine. The Department of Defense sold the COVID vaccine mandates that required all service members to get the COVID vaccine. They did so out of readiness. They said, if everybody's not vaccinated, that could mean more people. You know, they said it was a danger and a readiness issue for the force.
It would take more people out of the fight, remove them from their jobs, and then we wouldn't be in as ready military.
Now, in contrast with the new transgender policy, if you have a significant surgery that comes with part of an individual's transition, it can take them, and the hormone therapy that comes with it, it can take them out of service essentially for over a year, sometimes longer. And that absolutely damages readiness. And so these people are still in the books. Like, they're still taking up positions, they're still getting paychecks, they're getting this free surgery, these. All the therapies that come along with it, and it is absolutely hurting readiness because someone else is having to pick up the weight that this person would usually be responsible for, and they're having to do more with less while these people get to do these elective surgeries.
[00:25:06] Speaker A: Well, and, I mean, you're getting paid while you're in transition and recovery, your surgery and your hormones are paid for. I mean, it almost sounds like a pretty good deal. If you have been thinking of getting this surgery, you might think, well, maybe I ought to go into the military and get it paid for.
[00:25:27] Speaker B: Yes. This goes along with something that I am very much solving. This problem is very basic. When I say there's this test where you say, I don't care what the issue is, we could list 50 issues right now, and I would ask a question of, does this make the military stronger, a more lethal fighting force to be able to defeat and destroy our enemies? And if the answer is no, then it does not belong as a military priority whatsoever.
There is so much going on in this world that the military is responsible for that is involved in, that they have to focus on if it is not something that is going to significantly, you know, contribute to the mission and being able to accomplish it, then it is a distraction. Like I said previously, it is something that when we see the Department of Defense chase these sort of social trends, which is what has happened with the transgender policy.
And, you know, it just went the complete opposite direction when the Trump administration reversed Obama's policy on transgender, and then the Trump administration changed that, and then the Biden administration brought it back. We've only seen the Department of Defense chase these social trends. And it is very dangerous for our military to have to focus on keeping up with something like that, something that has nothing to do with the mission.
It teaches the troops that it is all about uniqueness and individuality instead of the team and unit cohesion. And it is, as someone who served in the military for years, it is very dangerous. It's very dangerous times for the military right now. And we have leadership thinking that that is acceptable to chase these social trends, they'll never be able to keep up with it, and it is bad for the military as a whole.
[00:27:42] Speaker A: You had also touched on the situation with the vaccines in unfit to write. You observed that because of the military's vaccine mandates, quote, 8400 skillful service members, many with priceless combat and leadership experience, were forced out of service, end quote. Was this just a monomaniacal, you know, I mean, how did they really believe that this was a readiness issue, that forcing everybody to get the vaccine was, did they believe this? Or do you think that there was also, as I think I alluded to earlier, kind of deeper motivation to cull the military ranks of political undesirables?
[00:28:32] Speaker B: So I think it was completely political. I think that this is the military. So because of Iraq and Afghanistan, the military or Department of Defense leadership knew that they were untouchable. They knew they would not be held accountable by Congress, and they wanted to push the vaccine because the commander in chief, Biden, wanted them to, and they went about it illegally. And there was a legal path. If there is only an emergency use, authorized vaccine, the president of the United States, the commander in chief, can authorize the troops to take that. Biden chose not to. He didn't want to have that on him. He knew he was running for president again, and he decided to keep that at the secretary of defense level. The secretary of defense only has the authority to require troops to take a fully FDA approved vaccine, which there was only one at the time. And guess what? There was no availability. Zero. But guess what? So when Secretary Austin created the memo, issued the order to all the commanders below him to ensure that all the troops were 100% vaccinated.
He said with a fully approved FDA vaccine, there was no supply, there was no quantity. So what did they have on hand at all the different bases across America, they had the emergency use vaccine, so that is what they required the troops to take. And in doing so, coerced a lot of people to take the vaccine, took away their informed consent, and they knew what they were doing. They also knew there would be zero accountability.
[00:30:47] Speaker A: Wow. So, you know, you've talked about the cost in terms of combat experience, leadership experience, but you also document rather eye popping fiscal cost as well. 54 Air Force pilots were forced out for not taking the vaccine, each one of which, I have no idea, cost up to $11 million to train. So, I mean, did not cheap.
[00:31:17] Speaker B: Yeah. Anybody threw those people away because they didn't want to take an experimental vaccine.
And it just goes to show you, like, like I said, how they were so blinded by this issue, they didn't care about the facts. And that goes down to. That comes down to sort of the current state of officers and commanders in the military as well. People who were unwilling, because people who I spoke with and interviewed for my book, they would create booklets and binders of information stating, this is my reason why. This is what the law states.
You're requiring me to take something that I am not lawfully required to do. So. And it was, no commander wanted to hear that because everybody wants their green chiclet on the PowerPoint slides that get sent up to hire.
And so it was sad. There were very few officers that stood up to this. I know one or a few, I should say more than one. There were a few brave people that absolutely stood up to it, but they were also retaliated against and were kicked out of the military. So it's all like, this example is another reason why people are saying, like, is this how I'm gonna get treated if I serve in military?
[00:32:46] Speaker A: Has there been any outreach to people that were, as you say, thrown away to, I mean, offer any restitution or try to recruit them back? I mean, just no.
[00:33:01] Speaker B: There was sort of this, like, miss headline in the media of that, oh, the Department of Defense wanted these people back. That's incorrect. They were not trying to get these people back. What they did do, and it was required by the NDAA that came with rescinding the COVID vaccine mandate. When they reversed it was that the individual service branches had to reach out to the individuals that were separated from the military and basically send them a memo or a letter that explains how they can if they were given a dishonorable discharge.
Basically, the procedures to correct the records, like to turn it into an honorable discharge or whatever their situation may be, it was just a formality required by the NDAA. Other than that, it was. There was no, come back in. We want you back. That did not happen.
[00:34:04] Speaker A: All right. On YouTube, Alan Turner asks, what is the biggest change in military policy today from when you served.
[00:34:14] Speaker B: Dei? I would probably say in the military that I served in was a meritocracy. That was my experience.
You had to work very hard. Me as a woman, it was.
I was very much not given the benefit of the doubt. I had to earn my place, respect, and trust on the team. It was not handed to me, but I also didn't want it to, like, I wanted to have to work as hard as everybody else. And it was tough. It was a tough military, and.
But once you were a part of that team, it meant something. And, you know, you knew everybody had your back. Once you were accepted into that circle, you could say so. I would say that the DEI erodes trust and at least for my mission and my job when I was in the military, you had to be able to rely on your. Like, we had a flight crew that you had to be able to rely on and know that they were there to, they could accomplish the job. And I think now with Dei, that's really weakened that, sadly. And it's created a lot, a lot of division, sadly. It's divided people instead of united people, which is exactly like, what does a meritocracy do? It unites people because, like I said, you know, people are there because they are meant to be there because they've been through exactly the same thing that you have. When you take that away, it creates doubt, it creates suspicion. It creates that lack of trust.
[00:36:08] Speaker A: Scott on YouTube asks, how much has the woke agenda started to influence elite military training facilities like West Point? Are there any places where it's more immune?
[00:36:26] Speaker B: No.
In fact, I would say the last place that people. No, West Point is full. They. They've got all the woke stuff going on, including those classes that I mentioned there. I talk about it in my book and about, because they kind of deny it. But then if you do some research, there was a congressman that did some research and a lot of military or West Point families that have reached out to their congressmen and have said, look at these classes that my son or daughter is being forced to take at West Point, which is kind of eye opening, and it's flown under the radar for a little bit. In fact, I would say a lot of the military woke issues have flown under the radar because I think american society was.
When you saw it happening in the medical industry or the education field, people weren't as surprised.
But for the military, people were like, oh, most recruitment comes from red states. People are patriotic, they love their country. Like, the military is never going to be woke. So things flew under the radar for a while in terms of the woke issues, but it is very much prevalent across the board. I think most people even thought that special operations were somewhat immune, and they are not as well. I cover this as well about their DEI policies and standard operating procedure books that they have to devote time to ensuring that they are meeting the right criteria and quotas and all of the above.
[00:38:11] Speaker A: How are those double standards showing up the special operating units and training?
[00:38:16] Speaker B: I do think it was delayed.
It wasn't happening as fast as the conventional army. But one of the issues with the way, and this goes into the politicization of the military is how officers get promoted or selected for commands, is they write officer evaluation reports, and a lot of times they're looking for ways to stand out. How do I stand out in a crowd of a bunch of other officers, my rank with a similar background? And I think a lot of them saw, especially with women coming into special operations, coming into the infantry, a lot of them wanted to have to say, you know, first commander to do whatever.
First commander to have a female in this very specific specialized unit, whatever. And so there was kind of like, I feel like a rush to be like, well, we want a female in our unit. Instead of saying, why don't we select the best people for the job? And if that happens to be a woman, then great. If not, okay, great as well.
[00:39:34] Speaker A: So recently the, it looks like Congress passed a measure to automatically register men for selective service. Does this mean that the military draft may be coming back and if. Why just register men if they want to be inclusive?
[00:39:56] Speaker B: Yeah, there was. There was actually a study that was done that was required by Congress a few years back to study the draft to see if it was or the selective service, to see if it was still even necessary, if women should have to sign up as well. Which is kind of a ridiculous question because I'm not advocating for it, but I am stating a fact that women legally did not have to sign up for selective service previously because the selective service is used during a time of war, national emergency to replace combat losses, so women were not allowed to serve in combat positions. Now that women are allowed to serve in combat positions. It is discriminatory towards men to have to sign up for the selective service when women don't. So. And there was a judge, I do believe it was. There was a case in Texas, I do believe, and they found it unconstitutional towards men now that the ban for women in special operations and combat positions had been lifted.
It's pretty basic. The commission did not promote women at the time.
But another sort of inconsistency and double standard is that the selective service requires.
So the Department of Defense recognizes people as their preferred genders. So whatever you are identifying as the selective service requires by law, it's a felony if you don't sign up to register in your birth sex.
So transgender women who are born a man are still required to sign up for the selective service?
Women who are a transgender man are not required to. So just to show you some of the double standards there.
[00:42:08] Speaker A: Well, and what about how with the inclusion, are female soldiers required to bunk with biological men?
[00:42:19] Speaker B: Shower with. Yes, they are. And that is another issue for recruitment and retention. So if you were thinking about joining and then suddenly you found out that you had to shower with a man, you may say, the military is not for me, which is interesting, considering you would think that the military would say, maybe this is going to hurt women who are serving in the military or recruiting women. This may be bad for that, especially because the secretary of the army recently raised her concerns about the army had shifted towards a gender and age neutral physical fitness test.
Well over 50% of women failed the test and could not pass it. So the secretary of the army said that she was concerned this was going to hurt recruitment for women and it was going to hurt retention as well for women.
So they changed it back to a age and gender physical fitness test so more women would be able to fast. So they lowered the standard. So it's just the contrast of like, oh, they need to keep. They want to make sure female recruitment and retention remain. So they're going to lower the standard for that. But it's hurting, you know, women don't want to take showers with men, but they're just going to say, tough luck.
You still have to do that.
It just shows you the current state of military leadership.
[00:43:54] Speaker A: So in terms of solutions, you write, quote, unfortunately, the reality is that the only accountability that will make any sort of meaningful change is to fire a considerable number of generals, perhaps all of them. End quote. Do we really need to start from scratch?
[00:44:17] Speaker B: If you want to be serious about changing the culture, the leadership, the failed leadership, culture that we are seeing today.
You do.
I mean, it is a disaster, in all honesty, and it is people who have been born into a system and they work their way up for 20, 30, 40 years, you're not going to change tomorrow because it's a different administration.
And so they need to clean house. They need to make some serious changes in the promotion system.
That is just one thing that is in desperate need of change.
The other two things that need to happen sort of ASAP is, like I said, returning to a meritocracy, one that selects best, the best people for the job. Get rid of all the DEI, the CRT, the distractions.
And then the other one is accountability.
And this sort of plays along with the firing of generals. But if you don't change the accountability system that's in place, then you'll just get replaced with what we're seeing today. And that means getting rid of that two tier justice system, the double standards for leadership. It used to be like, you lead by example in the military. That's really not the case anymore. You get to a certain rank and people see you as a made man, and you can pretty much do whatever you want. You're not going to be held accountable for your actions.
[00:45:55] Speaker A: What are some of the other solutions to restoring the focus on and preparedness of our military?
[00:46:05] Speaker B: Like I said, those three places are a great place to start.
Getting rid of the distractions, getting rid of anything that is not mission focused. That's a big one. People should, in the service, should be given the skills, the equipment, and the training necessary to go into combat and succeed and come home.
Instead, they're getting weighted down with these trainings that are taking up more hours that are required than there are in a month. So it's. There needs to be some massive, I would say, recognition. You can't fix a problem if you don't acknowledge it exists. And that is what's happening at the Department of Defense right now. They're very much in denial. You have the secretary of the army saying she doesn't understand what woke is.
She doesn't get why people are saying the military is woke. If you don't. If you don't get why the people are, why people are saying the military is woke, then you're definitely not going to make any move to try to restore things. If you think there's nothing wrong.
[00:47:18] Speaker A: Do you have any optimism? Doesn't sound like it. But do you think that with a change in leadership, yes, I do have optimism. It's going to be just keeps getting worse and the retention. I mean, at some point, yeah, it.
[00:47:34] Speaker B: Is very dangerous times right now.
I do have hope that with the right leadership, with the right people understanding the problem and what is at stake, we'll be able to initiate some of these changes, the leadership changes and the policy, that will be something that can be sort of done or dealt with within new administration. The cultural aspect of it. I mean, that's going to be generational. That's going to take some time, but it's going to require getting the right leadership in to start that change.
I do think, like you said, with the retention and the recruitment issue continuing to be an issue, it is.
People like to think that, like, I know it's been in the news a lot because they're sort of automating registration for the, for the selective service.
But the draft is a very real thing that could be enacted if a very significant war were to break out and we are no longer the sizeable military that is needed to fight in a war like that. I do think a draft would be almost impossible to enforce in today's society. So I don't think Congress would hesitate to enact a draft if required. I do think they would find difficulty getting people to show up.
[00:49:13] Speaker A: Right.
Well, I appreciate your showing up with us, Amber. What is next for you? It's your second book.
[00:49:23] Speaker B: This is my second book.
If you want to find my writing, follow me on social media, you can go to Ambersmith, USA. My website is official, ambersmith.com. you can find signed copies of my book there. My first book, Danger Close, is there as well.
And yeah, my books just hopefully to get the american people to see the reality of what's going on in today's military and some of the dangers that it poses in a very hostile world.
[00:49:56] Speaker A: What's been the reception so far? I imagine that you have a lot of people, friends or even strangers that are still in the military reaching out and thanking you for setting the record.
[00:50:08] Speaker B: Yeah, I do. I think a lot of people appreciate telling the truth about topics that a lot of people in today's society feel forced into silence about.
So I very much appreciate that feedback from people.
[00:50:27] Speaker A: Well, it's a fantastic book, folks. Go out and get it. Unfit to fight how woke policies are destroying our military. And very cool cover art, I might say. As you can see, I enjoyed it.
[00:50:40] Speaker B: Thank you.
Thank you so much.
[00:50:43] Speaker A: Thank you. Thanks, all of you, for joining us today. If you enjoyed this video and any of the other programming from the Atlas Society, please consider going and making a tax deductible
[email protected] donate and then be sure to join us next week. I'm going to be off, but Atlas society senior fellow Antonella Marti will host a webinar with guests Ricardo Avelar and bitcoin expert Nelson Rauda talking about the El salvadorian president, naive Bukele. So we'll see you then.
