The United States has long recognized that power is not only measured in terms of weapons or wealth, but also in terms of people. A society that draws strength from many different perspectives has an advantage over one that insists on conformity. For national security, this principle is not abstract. Diversity is one of America’s most critical strategic assets.
The Problem of Groupthink
History offers sobering lessons about what happens when decision-making is limited to people who think alike. The Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961 remains a case study in groupthink. Analysts and policymakers, working within a narrow cultural and ideological frame, convinced themselves that the operation would succeed. The result was a humiliating failure that damaged U.S. credibility abroad.1
Homogeneous groups are more prone to blind spots, while diverse teams are more likely to identify weaknesses in assumptions. Irving Janis, who first described groupthink, noted that the absence of dissenting voices allowed flawed plans to move forward without challenge. In intelligence and defense, where any error can cost lives, the risks of uniform thinking are even greater.2
Diversity as a Counterintelligence Asset
Adversaries such as China and Russia closely study American society, searching for vulnerabilities they can exploit. Disinformation campaigns frequently target social divisions and aim to convince specific groups that they are excluded or undervalued. A national security workforce that reflects the nation’s diversity is harder to fracture. It not only signals fairness but also provides insight into how adversaries may attempt to manipulate specific communities.
Robert Spalding has argued that China’s unrestricted warfare strategy thrives on identifying societal seams and exploiting them to weaken democratic institutions. Diversity, when paired with inclusion, reduces those seams by ensuring that communities see themselves represented within the institutions tasked with protecting them. 3
The Psychological Dimension
Research in forensic psychology shows that individuals who feel marginalized are more susceptible to radicalization. Clark McCauley and Sophia Moskalenko describe this as part of the “friction” that pushes individuals toward extremist ideologies when they feel excluded from mainstream society. Inclusion within the national security community works against this dynamic by building a sense of belonging and trust. A workforce that values different backgrounds and perspectives is better equipped to resist insider threats rooted in alienation. 4
Strategic Value Beyond the Workforce
Diversity also plays a role in America’s credibility abroad. Allies and partners take note of how the United States structures its national security institutions. A system that elevates people regardless of race, religion, or political background reinforces the message that democracy is capable of both strength and fairness. During the Cold War, adversaries exploited this credibility gap by pointing to segregation and discrimination as proof of American hypocrisy. Progress since that time has been imperfect but essential, and it remains part of the broader competition of ideas. 5
A Competitive Advantage
Authoritarian regimes often emphasize uniformity. Their systems discourage dissent, punish deviation, and rely on ideological conformity. This produces discipline but also rigidity. The American system, by contrast, gains flexibility from the range of perspectives it incorporates. In an environment defined by rapid technological change and unconventional threats, adaptability is an advantage no weapons system can replicate.
Bottom Line
Diversity and inclusion are not simply social ideals. They are national security imperatives. They reduce the risks of groupthink, deny adversaries easy targets for exploitation, and project credibility abroad. A diverse and inclusive security community reflects the very idea of America: that liberty and equality can coexist with strength. Protecting that idea means ensuring that the people who defend it come from every part of the society it serves.
Notes
- Graham T. Allison and Philip Zelikow, Essence of Decision: Explaining the Cuban Missile Crisis, 2nd ed. (New York: Longman, 1999), 5–7.
- Irving L. Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, 2nd ed. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1982), 9–15.
- Robert Spalding, War Without Rules: China’s Playbook for Global Domination (New York: Sentinel, 2022), 62–64.
- Clark McCauley and Sophia Moskalenko, Friction: How Radicalization Happens to Them and Us (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 84–86.
- Mary L. Dudziak, Cold War Civil Rights: Race and the Image of American Democracy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000), 39–42.
