Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by n1 on Friday January 13 2017, @09:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-the-experts-say dept.

Submitted via IRC for Runaway1956

The Pentagon could be poised for a rapid about-face under the Trump administration, with the Obama administration's push for social reform surrendering to what could be an old-school emphasis on combat readiness and the spirit of the United States military, experts told FoxNews.com.

Under President Obama, the military sought to integrate transgender persons into the ranks, allow women into special operations forces and purge the nomenclature of gender-specific words, adopting what some critics say was a "politically correct" liberal agenda. That's a contrast to the traditional U.S. military approach.

In addition, some Navy ships have been named for civil rights activists. And while the Obama administration has taken an inclusive approach on some issues, it has also worked to minimize expressions of Christianity in the ranks. For example, several officers have been disciplined for displaying Bibles or gospel verses in their quarters.

Veterans and military experts told FoxNews.com that, while some of Obama's civil rights advancements may be locked in, neither Trump nor his choice for secretary of defense, Gen. James "Mad Dog" Mattis, are likely to make social experimentation a priority.

Source: Fox News


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @09:48PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @09:48PM (#453477)

    You - the great plural "you" including all of society - don't like the military very much. You use us, you abuse us, you blame us for your own failures.

    And YOU, the military - which is an all-volunteer force - willingly signed up to be used and abused by the government of the day for whatever pet peeve they have today. YOU do not have the common intelligence to understand that you're not fighting for worthy ideals, values or 'freedom', instead you entered an organization that has a single purpose: execute the orders of the government of the day, whatever they are. And above all, execute them blindly, don't think for yourself.
    YOU have no right to complain whatsoever; you signed up to be a tool for those in power. So do your 'duty': shut up, get on your knees, swallow and say "thank you sir, can I have some more".

    There is no honor whatsoever in enlisting in the military! None whatsoever! You should be ashamed of yourself!

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 13 2017, @09:53PM

    by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday January 13 2017, @09:53PM (#453483) Journal

    Be fair, most of the people who "volunteered" for the military did it because there isn't shit for them in their hometowns, and I have to wonder if it was engineered to be this way. In other words, make communities that just HAPPEN to be primarily black or Hispanic into shitholes on purpose so they'll "volunteer" for the military in the same way a homeless woman might "volunteer" for what is euphemistically called "sex work."

    That said, Runaway himself is from a different situation and most of what you said applies. I will add that the disgust in his post is palpable; he reeeeeally hates "civilians," let alone trans* people, and is using his "vet cred" to shit on them. Classy as a long, wet, muddy beer fart in a concert hall as always, Runaway.

    --
    I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @09:54PM

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 13 2017, @09:54PM (#453487) Journal

    "government of the day"

    That is where you err. We are sworn to uphold the constitution, first and foremost. Then we are sworn to obey congress. The Commander in Chief doesn't pay our wages, congress does. Obama is not the military's master, congress is.

    Obama took a lot of liberties with the military that were simply wrong.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @09:58PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @09:58PM (#453493)

      If you're a good little soldier, you know that you have to obey your commander. The head of the government of the day is also the "Commander in Chief". Either you're not military, or you're advocating insubordination or mutiny and deserve some time in the brig!

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @10:09PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 13 2017, @10:09PM (#453503) Journal

        "good little soldiers" know that they must obey LAWFUL ORDERS. Have you forgotten the lessons of My Lai? Have you ever heard of My Lai?

        Oh, I missed Colburn's death. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/16/world/asia/larry-colburn-my-lai-massacre-dies.html [nytimes.com]

        Rest in peace, Soldier.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @10:35PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @10:35PM (#453531)

          Was it "lawful orders" when that young blonde Specialist at Guantanamo (in the famous photo) had those terrorist suspects naked on a leash and collar like dogs? I'd say that at the time the entire complex was acting under orders. It was to break the enemy to get information. However, when the photos came out, it provoked a backlash. That lowly Specialist was deemed to have acted on her own, and anyway, if they had been orders, presumably the govt was not on the hook for what she did because it was her duty to decide the orders were unlawful
          and to not follow them. So I can see where the lawful order business is to prevent outright massacres and other war crimes, but I can also see that it is a useful way for the govt to deflect responsibility onto lower ranking personnel for actions they took under command. Hey, not the Army's fault, it's *that girl's* fault!

          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @10:46PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 13 2017, @10:46PM (#453543) Journal

            Those were not lawful orders. Pretty much everything that happened at Abu Ghraib is contrary to everything the military has taught it's troops since - damned near forever. Blame that shit on George Bush and his legal corps trying to find excuses to justify torture. And, I don't let anyone in the chain of command off the hook on that. The blonde in the photos needed to serve prison time, in the cell across from Bush.

            • (Score: 2, Insightful) by NewNic on Friday January 13 2017, @11:39PM

              by NewNic (6420) on Friday January 13 2017, @11:39PM (#453582) Journal

              Pretty much everything that happened at Abu Ghraib is contrary to everything the military has taught it's troops since - damned near forever. .... And, I don't let anyone in the chain of command off the hook on that. The blonde in the photos needed to serve prison time, in the cell across from Bush.

              But you do let them off the hook, because the whole chain of command should have served prison time. Do you think that the officers all the way up the hierarchy did not know what was going on? So why are Bush and the blonde the only people you say should serve time?

              --
              lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:47PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 13 2017, @11:47PM (#453594) Journal

                Uhhhh - please re-read the post you responded to. I said the blonde needs to be in prison, right alongside the former president. I don't see any suggestion in my post that the lieutenants, colonels, and generals in between the top and the bottom of the chain of command should be exonerated.

                • (Score: 3, Insightful) by NewNic on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:03AM

                  by NewNic (6420) on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:03AM (#453608) Journal

                  Uh, I did read it, carefully. Perhaps you should re-read my post.

                  I was commenting on your omission, which I felt was informative (perhaps showing implicit biases) rather than what you included.

                  It would have taken less words to write that the whole chain of command should go to prison than the way you overtly expressed that Bush and the blonde should have been punished. For example, instead of:
                  "And, I don't let anyone in the chain of command off the hook on that. The blonde in the photos needed to serve prison time, in the cell across from Bush."
                  you could have written:
                  The whole chain of command, from the blonde in the photos to Bush needed to serve prison time

                  --
                  lib·er·tar·i·an·ism ˌlibərˈterēənizəm/ noun: Magical thinking that useful idiots mistake for serious political theory
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:47AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:47AM (#453637)

            So I can see where the lawful order business is to prevent outright massacres and other war crimes, but I can also see that it is a useful way for the govt to deflect responsibility onto lower ranking personnel for actions they took under command.

            No, it's a direct result of what was decided at Nuremberg. Go educate yourself.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:21AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:21AM (#453703)

              That may be where it *originated*, but that doesn't explain why the USA chooses to apply that language *to its own military* to this day.
              Think about the reasons I gave when I wrote my post. One of the benefits is that the US military can absolve itself as an organization of responsibility for atrocities by claiming the people underneath their commanding officer are personally responsible for those atrocities. It's a way of limiting the military's liability. Try using your brain to THINK.

    • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @10:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @10:05PM (#453500)

      Be serious man, when unlawful orders are given, they are made lawful retroactively if your side wins. This whole "uphold and protect the constitution" has had long enough of a run, let's let that dumb retort retire now, please.
      Oh, and the CinC DOES pay your wages, when there is a government shutdown, like your nutty right-wing friends pulled a couple of years ago, you stopped getting paid. You aren't paid by congress, you're paid by the USG. Congress just controls whether or not the USG gets the money to pay you.

      Come on man, you surely must be able to do better... At least pretend you've got more brain processing power than a goldfish! At least *try* to not live up to the stereotype of a mindless drone/hammer in the hands of the Government of the Day.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @10:31PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 13 2017, @10:31PM (#453528) Journal

        This whole "uphold and protect the constitution" has had long enough of a run, let's let that dumb retort retire now, please.

        So - the military is just a mercenary mob? Wow, I learn something new every day.

        • (Score: 2) by linuxrocks123 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:10PM

          by linuxrocks123 (2557) on Friday January 13 2017, @11:10PM (#453559) Journal

          It's clear from the anecdotes and testimonies that have managed to escape the military's internal workings that the military is hell on Earth:
          - You are sworn to blindly obey petty tyrants.
          - Said petty tyrants play sick psychological torture games on you whenever they feel like it.
          - You have very few rights.
          - What few rights you do have are protected by biased, petty-tyrant-packed military courts, with no civilian supervision other than the Supreme Court.
          - The "culture" of the military consists essentially of various forms of institutionalized Stockholm syndrome.
          - Oh yeah: if you're ever given real work to do, you're likely to die violently.

          If I were drafted for Vietnam, and I couldn't get out of it, I very well might have taken the five year prison sentence instead of acquiescing to being cast into that hell.

          Now, in our culture, we're supposed to revere military veterans. I agree we should, but I have my own reasons for why:

          Military veterans aren't necessarily brave, they aren't necessarily intelligent, they aren't necessarily noble. They aren't even necessarily functional individuals, at least not after their service has given them PTSD and other mental problems.

          We should revere military veterans because they did a job that no one in his right mind would want to do and that, if the world were a better place, no one would have to do. Veterans are the living embodiment of the Utilitarian tortured child thought experiment.

          Interestingly, the sick "culture" of the military, where superiors can get away with treating their subordinates like total shit, has made many veterans' hellish jobs even more hellish. To respect veterans, we need to smash the military's "culture" from the top down, just like the federal government smashed the South's Jim Crow "culture" in the 60s.

          Social experiments in the military? Ha. The military is one giant, unsupervised, unintentional Milgram experiment in action. Fix that, and everything else will fall into place.

          • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:37PM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 13 2017, @11:37PM (#453581) Journal

            I disagree with your perspective, but some of your points are decent.

            I'll state here again, that the military is a tool of congress. Sometimes, congress uses it's tools wisely, but more often, congress uses it's tools foolishly.

            Vietnam had little real justification. More, Vietnam was lost by politicians meddling in affairs that they didn't understand. Iraq was another misuse of the military. Afghanistan was a proper case for the use of the military, but the tool was used incorrectly.

            Blame your elected officials when the military is used improperly, don't blame the military.

            You've earned a nod of respect, by reason that you recognize that the military might be necessary, and that soldiers don't deserve to be shit on for being soldiers. But, I believe military men to be some better than you paint them. You're right, we aren't all real smart, we aren't all heroes, etc. But, each and every person who has worn a uniform has demonstrated at least the willingness to step up when the shit hits the fan.

        • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday January 13 2017, @11:31PM

          by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday January 13 2017, @11:31PM (#453575) Journal

          No, the AC's right. That "uphold and defend the constitution" and "obey lawful orders only" schtick is only a dodge, an attempt to have your cake and eat it, too. No wet-behind-the-ears private is going to look the commander in the eye and refuse to massacre the villagers because "that's an unlawful order, sir!" Puh-lease.

          --
          Washington DC delenda est.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:05AM

            by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:05AM (#453609) Journal

            At My Lai, there wasn't just a commander and a couple wet-behind-the-ears privates. I would have to look for specifics, but I can say that there were almost certainly some sergeants, some of them with years, maybe even decades of service. Among the people who acted to end the massacre were a spec 4, and a warrant officer. A spec 4 shorhorned in between corporal (discontinued in the Army, I believe) and sergeant. It might be reasonable to say that a tech 4 has replaced corporals - that is, the next step up from private first class.

            But, all of that command structure aside, let me ask you Phoenix. Some lieutenant orders you to put your weapon to an old man's head and pull the trigger, do you obey? Are you going to commit murder, at the order of some mere lieutenant? How about a colonel? A general? Do you even question the order to murder? Or, are you afraid of the uniform?

            • (Score: 1) by charon on Saturday January 14 2017, @05:53AM

              by charon (5660) on Saturday January 14 2017, @05:53AM (#453719) Journal
              The point of basic training to break down the recruit's will and spirit so they can be rebuilt as a soldier. A soldier obeys the commands of his superiors, always, under penalty of discharge, prison or, in combat situations, summary execution. So yes, most or all soldiers told by their officer to shoot a man while in combat would do so. Maybe you are one of the exceptions. Or maybe you were a senior non-com who has some leeway in speaking to officers about tactics. But Joe private would shoot and only ask, "burst or full auto, sir?"
              • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:18PM

                by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Saturday January 14 2017, @04:18PM (#453818) Journal

                My Lai wasn't combat. My Lai was a massacre of unarmed civilians. Much the same as the massacre at Wounded Knee.

                • (Score: 1) by charon on Saturday January 14 2017, @05:28PM

                  by charon (5660) on Saturday January 14 2017, @05:28PM (#453845) Journal
                  So the implied (or explicit, I am not well read on My Lai) threat was limited to discharge and prison. I guess that makes a grunt emotionally and morally able to challenge his commander.
            • (Score: 2) by bradley13 on Saturday January 14 2017, @10:48AM

              by bradley13 (3053) on Saturday January 14 2017, @10:48AM (#453752) Homepage Journal

              Do you obey orders? Illegal orders? Immoral orders? Suicidal orders? This is a surprisingly difficult question, for a whole pile of reasons.

              - Depending on the situation, there may be no time to thing - if you're under fire, for example.

              - An individual or even a unit in the field sees only a very small part of the larger context. In my training, we were given a scenario where we (a small unit) were ordered leave cover, for no good reason that we could see. Suicide, stupid REMF with no clue, right? Wrong, it turned out that we were serving as bait in a larger plan, and by endangering our lives would save a whole pile of other people. See the first point above: command didn't have time to hold a philosophical discussion with us; they just needed us to follow orders.

              - It's the military, which is not a democracy. People under massive stress must be trained to follow orders, otherwise your military will be utterly ineffective.

              That said, officers are held to a higher standard. As an officer, you are expected to do all of the above, plus also filter for illegal orders. It is your duty to disobey illegal orders, while immediately obeying all legal orders. With little time to think, knowing only a small part of the context, that is not an easy standard to meet.

              Next to last, war is not nice, it is not civilized. Really, there are no rules other than "win". Geneva conventions, domestic laws - all of that can and does go by the wayside from time to time. If you find yourself in a situation where blowing away a grandma will save the lives of you and your unit, odds are you're going to blow away grandma. If your green-behind-the-ears 2nd Lt objects, it's called "fragging".

              Which brings us to last: In order to kill people, you first have to dehumanize them. If the enemy is subhuman, dinks, cockroaches, whatever you've mentally turned them into so that you (as an otherwise normal human being) can kill them, then it's easy to slip over into atrocities. Kill all the cockroaches for the betterment of planet. That doesn't excuse My Lai and other sordid events, but it does explain them.

              --
              Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 1) by Chrontius on Saturday January 14 2017, @11:46AM

            by Chrontius (5246) on Saturday January 14 2017, @11:46AM (#453761)

            You don't always know who's got ice water in their veins ahead of time. Which is a shame - if you did, you'd get a lot less "shoot 'em all and let God sort it out" orders.

    • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Friday January 13 2017, @10:24PM

      by bob_super (1357) on Friday January 13 2017, @10:24PM (#453518)

      > Obama is not the military's master, congress is

      Factually incorrect, courtesy of the constitution you're sworn to defend.
      The Commander In Chief is the boss of the US military, regardless of whether you're volunteer, conscript, drafted, paid, unpaid...

      If you question the chain of command, you are a worse soldier than the weakest or dumbest gay, female or transgender soldier, and a shame to the people who preceded you.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @10:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @10:33PM (#453530)

        Smackitty smack smack! Makes me wonder if Runaway isn't just some shill account pretending to be a strongman... stupid anonymous internet making me question the legitimacy of every single goddamn thing!!

        • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Friday January 13 2017, @10:39PM

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Friday January 13 2017, @10:39PM (#453538) Journal

          Nope, pretty sure this is 100% genuine. A lot of ex-military his age talk like this.

          --
          I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @11:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 13 2017, @11:00PM (#453550)

            The root comment reads like it was written by a jilted veteran who didn't get exactly what he expected he'd get when he signed on the dotted line and is now bitter.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 13 2017, @10:51PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 13 2017, @10:51PM (#453547) Journal

        Who, exactly, commissions officers, warrant officers, senior NCO's, ships, and units? Commissions come from congress. Ultimately, all pay comes from congress. Congress authorizes wars, congress signs peace treaties. President Washington didn't create the Marine Corps, congress did. No president disbanded the Navy, congress did. And, no president re-created the Navy later, congress did that. Congress is the military's master - the Commander in Chief is but the highest officer within that military.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:55AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14 2017, @12:55AM (#453645)

        If you question the chain of command, you are a worse soldier than the weakest or dumbest gay, female or transgender soldier, and a shame to the people who preceded you.

        Absolutely not true. Not true at all. You are allowed to question orders from a superior officer. But you must follow the chain of command when stating your dissent. In my experience, military types really hate it when you don't follow and respect the chain of command.

        • (Score: 2) by bob_super on Saturday January 14 2017, @01:40AM

          by bob_super (1357) on Saturday January 14 2017, @01:40AM (#453662)

          Let me rephrase my point to clarify for you:
            - You are required to question orders which you believe to be unlawful (going to the hierarchy for this).
            - You are allowed to question the fitness of your commanders to be above you in the hierarchy , if you can present facts supporting their incompetence or improper behavior.
          BUT
            - Outside of those two cases, you are not to question the chain of command itself. The president is the boss, period. The admiral or general is the sub-boss, period. And so on until it gets down to you. You don't get argue why or how those people are where they are, you either follow lawful orders, or leave the service.