Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-23-2022, 10:07 AM
 
6,313 posts, read 3,499,238 times
Reputation: 11330

Advertisements

Since most people of today rarely ever follow up, as it is always on to the next outrage, here is some closure on this issue:

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 14-12 to approve the following text in the defense bill:

“The committee believes that spending additional time and resources to combat exceptionally rare instances of extremism in the military is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds and should be discontinued by the Department of Defense immediately,” the report continues.

Angus King, who caucuses with the Democrats voted in favor, which means even he doesn’t believe extremism in the ranks is any kind of issue worth spending money on. The reason is because there just isn’t a problem and anybody who spends time working on a base know this to be true.

Lloyd Austin ordered a “stand down” to address extremism, which has now been shown to be ridiculous at best, and political at worst.

So to the people who refuted the original post, you have been proven dead wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-23-2022, 11:05 AM
 
28,721 posts, read 18,944,696 times
Reputation: 31037
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91 View Post
Since most people of today rarely ever follow up, as it is always on to the next outrage, here is some closure on this issue:

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 14-12 to approve the following text in the defense bill:

“The committee believes that spending additional time and resources to combat exceptionally rare instances of extremism in the military is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds and should be discontinued by the Department of Defense immediately,” the report continues.

Angus King, who caucuses with the Democrats voted in favor, which means even he doesn’t believe extremism in the ranks is any kind of issue worth spending money on. The reason is because there just isn’t a problem and anybody who spends time working on a base know this to be true.

Lloyd Austin ordered a “stand down” to address extremism, which has now been shown to be ridiculous at best, and political at worst.

So to the people who refuted the original post, you have been proven dead wrong.
Actually, no. It took the military closely looking into the situation to determine just how significant--or not--the situation was. This was not different from the issue of racial discrimination back in the early 70s, and it's the military way of dealing with problems: Get a clear view of the problem, beat the hell out of the problem until it's lying still, then move on to the next problem.

Of course, the issue is that problems in the military are constantly being fed by new incoming troops, so such military problems re-appear in 15-20 years and will have to be beaten down again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2022, 04:21 PM
 
Location: Honolulu/DMV Area/NYC
30,755 posts, read 18,466,805 times
Reputation: 34682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Actually, no. It took the military closely looking into the situation to determine just how significant--or not--the situation was. This was not different from the issue of racial discrimination back in the early 70s, and it's the military way of dealing with problems: Get a clear view of the problem, beat the hell out of the problem until it's lying still, then move on to the next problem.

Of course, the issue is that problems in the military are constantly being fed by new incoming troops, so such military problems re-appear in 15-20 years and will have to be beaten down again.
Disagree. There needs to be some rational basis to spend funds to "study" something like this, IMO. How many active duty people were involved in the January 6 capitol attack? This was the basis for the extremism standdown. There was no rational justification to hold an extremism standdown from where I stand and, as one who participated and facilitated standdown sessions, they were completely ridiculous. People on all sides of the political spectrum in my unit thought so. There didn't need to be a "clear view" of the problem as there wasn't any evidence that we had a "problem."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-28-2022, 05:57 PM
 
28,721 posts, read 18,944,696 times
Reputation: 31037
Quote:
Originally Posted by prospectheightsresident View Post
Disagree. There needs to be some rational basis to spend funds to "study" something like this, IMO. How many active duty people were involved in the January 6 capitol attack? This was the basis for the extremism standdown. There was no rational justification to hold an extremism standdown from where I stand and, as one who participated and facilitated standdown sessions, they were completely ridiculous. People on all sides of the political spectrum in my unit thought so. There didn't need to be a "clear view" of the problem as there wasn't any evidence that we had a "problem."
Jan 6 was not the reason. The military already had--and this is even from more than 20 years ago--information that extremism was increasing within the ranks. There were increasing incidents even when I was active duty in the 90s, and those jumped significantly after 9/11.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-29-2022, 02:24 PM
 
Location: Honolulu/DMV Area/NYC
30,755 posts, read 18,466,805 times
Reputation: 34682
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk View Post
Jan 6 was not the reason. The military already had--and this is even from more than 20 years ago--information that extremism was increasing within the ranks. There were increasing incidents even when I was active duty in the 90s, and those jumped significantly after 9/11.
Yes, January 6 was the reason for the extremism standdown. There were no plans for such a standdown until January 6 and the press release announcing the standdown explicitly references January 6 and that there a number of active duty and veterans among the rioters: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-St...-in-the-ranks/. Of course, what veterans do after their active service is irrelevant for the purposes of these discussions, and the overwhelming majority of participants with military history were veterans and not active duty members.

Note, even in the press release, the DOD mentioned that the "vast majority" of men and women who serve in the Armed Forces do so honorably, which makes the point of a DOD-wide standdown all the more bizarre; if the DOD truly thought this was an issue, they'd do more than just a brief standdown training session This was a one-day, fire and forget political exercise with no legitimate justification (based on numbers), plain and simple. Saying that "extremism among the ranks is increasing" isn't legitimate justification. What does it mean that extremism is increasing? Does that mean by a count of 5 in one year to 10 in another? Well, that would be a 100% increase, but poor justification for a force-wide standdown. Both you and I know exactly what the DOD does for issues that it takes seriously (e.g. sexual assault, suicide prevention, equal opportunity, etc.) and it involves much more than a single standdown of political talking points not justified by actual facts on the ground.

I led and participated in sessions for this standdown. The tie in to January 6 was evident as day. This is not a secret on the DOD's part.

Last edited by prospectheightsresident; 07-29-2022 at 02:38 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-30-2022, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Atlanta Metro
578 posts, read 355,940 times
Reputation: 1712
Quote:
Originally Posted by WK91 View Post
Since most people of today rarely ever follow up, as it is always on to the next outrage, here is some closure on this issue:

The Senate Armed Services Committee voted 14-12 to approve the following text in the defense bill:

“The committee believes that spending additional time and resources to combat exceptionally rare instances of extremism in the military is an inappropriate use of taxpayer funds and should be discontinued by the Department of Defense immediately,” the report continues.

Angus King, who caucuses with the Democrats voted in favor, which means even he doesn’t believe extremism in the ranks is any kind of issue worth spending money on. The reason is because there just isn’t a problem and anybody who spends time working on a base know this to be true.

Lloyd Austin ordered a “stand down” to address extremism, which has now been shown to be ridiculous at best, and political at worst.

So to the people who refuted the original post, you have been proven dead wrong.
Quote:
Every Republican on the committee voted for the motion, and every Democrat voted against it. Maine Independent Sen. Angus King’s vote in favor of the language tipped the balance in the GOP’s favor.
https://rollcall.com/2022/07/20/sena...nst-extremism/

That's not really saying anything except that Angus King and the Republicans want to move on. Republicans never wanted to have the conversation to begin with so we are really only hearing the opinion of one Senator here. It's also not a given that it makes it to the final NDAA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2024, 11:14 AM
 
Location: The Sunshine State of Mind
2,431 posts, read 1,563,010 times
Reputation: 6314
Unlike the civilian world, where the president claims that white supremists are the greatest domestic terror threat, the military is lacking in such supremists.

Quote:
Good news: The U.S. military isn’t packed with violent extremists. That’s the gist of a new report commissioned by the Pentagon in 2021 and released quietly with little notice in December. The result won’t surprise Americans who have spent time in uniform, but it should calm the media frenzy about right-wing radicals in the armed forces.


Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin ordered an independent study to get “greater fidelity” on extremism in the ranks. The think tank tasked with the report, the Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), “found no evidence that the number of violent extremists in the military is disproportionate” to U.S. society.
link

Evidently this has turned out to be a modern day witch hunt.

Raise your hand if you knew this wouldn't amount to much of anything from the start.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-19-2024, 11:24 AM
 
6,313 posts, read 3,499,238 times
Reputation: 11330
Quote:
Originally Posted by Monello View Post
Unlike the civilian world, where the president claims that white supremists are the greatest domestic terror threat, the military is lacking in such supremists.



link

Evidently this has turned out to be a modern day witch hunt.

Raise your hand if you knew this wouldn't amount to much of anything from the start.
This whole thing was a political witch hunt and we all knew this from the beginning. They knew there were no extremists, except for the occasional junior enlisted nutcase.

What this was actually about was to reinforce to senior leadership that if you weren’t on the right team, or if you started to stray, your career would be ended.

If you are a General, or aspire to be a General someday, you will bow down to the DNC, or you will be sent packing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2024, 10:54 AM
 
49 posts, read 10,721 times
Reputation: 45
The problem isn’t necessarily with active duty soldiers, it’s former soldiers or veterans. How many ch of this radicalization occurs during their service years is questionable but it is certainly something deserving of attention. I wouldn’t want the US to ignore the situation and end up in a situation like Germany.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2024, 06:41 PM
 
28,721 posts, read 18,944,696 times
Reputation: 31037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Willis1 View Post
The problem isn’t necessarily with active duty soldiers, it’s former soldiers or veterans. How many ch of this radicalization occurs during their service years is questionable but it is certainly something deserving of attention. I wouldn’t want the US to ignore the situation and end up in a situation like Germany.
We have that danger, but it won't be, generally speaking, from veterans. Veterans seldom change the political orientations they had going in. More often, they'll become less extreme...the longer they've been in, the less they are to talk about being the ones to start a shooting conflict.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Military Life and Issues

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top