DEI Resurfaces in the Marine Corps

About this time last year The Commandant of the Marine Corps fervently declared that the Marine Corps had never adopted Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI). This was a blatant untruth. While he was talking to a group of Pentagon reporters, his staff was desperately trying to scrub their websites of any reference to DEI.

"Firsts" of this kind were all too common during the Biden and Obama administrations, but such nonsense was supposed to have been eliminated under Hegseth and Trump. I can think of only three reasons why General Smith would have permitted this to happen, all of which merit his firing.

Second, he wasn't paying attention and got blind-sided by the Sergeant Major who usually slots subordinate Sergeants Major. This is disturbing because the commandant is still responsible for everything the Corps does or fails to do in training, equipping, and preparing Marine Corps personnel for service with the nation's warfighting commands.

Finally, he knew, but did not have an idea of the impact that such an assignment would have politically. That indicates lack of judgment on his part, which is inexcusable in a four-star officer.

I am sure that the Sergeant Major in question is a fine marine and that she is a very competent non-combat arms specialist (she is an electrician). She would be well suited for being the head enlisted person in an aircraft squadron or a logistics support unit, but an infantry battalion is a different matter entirely. As a former infantry commander, I realize that soldiers and marines in that occupational specialty have problems and issues that they would only discuss comfortably with senior male NCOs. The same holds true with artillerymen. The Marine Corps was forced to deny that fact during the Obama and Biden administration, but things have changed. Smith and the Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps apparently missed that memo. Marine Corps infantry battalions will remain overwhelmingly male organizations due to their high physical fitness requirements and standards. Those marines deserve appropriate leadership.

This does not mean that non-combat arms Sergeants Major do not have a place. Every marine is expected to be a rifleman first. But the infantry and other combat arms occupational skills should have senior non-commissioned officers brought up in their culture as should the technical specialties such as aviation, logistics, computer science, and electronic warfare. They tend to view technical competence as a good leadership trait despite the gender of the leader.

I have also had such units under my command, and those marines were much more prone to respect and welcome technically adept leaders despite gender. They tend to bristle at the drill instructor approach that ground combat marines tend to bring with them to a new assignment. The Sergeant Major of the Marine Corps should understand that and act accordingly in making his recommendations on assignments. However, that does not excuse the commandant of his responsibility to review and approve or ask tough questions regarding the appropriateness of the selection.

The same goes for gender-related assignments. “Fairness” and “firsts” have no place in such assignments. The organization’s mission and the good of the Corps should be the key considerations.

All of this comes back to the fitness of the present commandant for the job. During the past year, several senior flag and general officers have been relieved or asked to retire. Most of these have been due to omissions or being unqualified for the positions that they held.

Smith’s failures have fit into both categories. He has a fine combat record as a field grade officer, but so do many of his contemporaries. Marines expect much more from their commandant that he has been able to deliver. He needs to go. Frankly, so does his Sergeant Major.

Gary Anderson is a retired Marine Corp Colonel. He was Chief of Staff of the Marine Corps Warfighting Lab and served as a civilian special Advisor to the Deputy Secretary of Defense.