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This discussion has been archived.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: 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.