SECDEF and "Extremism"

[Ben]

SECDEF is prioritizing going after "extremism" in the military. While using a generic term, he seems to be concerned with only one kind of extremism. I can only look at it from 30,000 feet, so I might well be wrong, but besides the bias in his order, it seems the military is once again going to start focusing more on social issues than stuff like making sure planes can fly and ships can sail.


https://www.foxnews.com/politics/secretary-of-defense-issues-stand-down-order-to-address-extremism-in-the-military

[Boomhauer]

Where have we seen this before? Purges are real popular with dictators.

[bedlamite]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2ecasPqhgk

[WLJ]

Where have we seen this before? Purges are real popular with dictators.

[RocketMan]

The oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, will be the next thing to go.  It is, after all, so outdated.  It will likely morph into defending the federal government.

[BobR]

During my time in the Navy we did Racial Awareness Training (70s) and the Women  in the Navy (WIN) in the 80s. I am not really sure they did anything to help the issues they were supposed to help. I expect the same thing this time, resentment at being preached to, pissed you are sitting in a theater all day and in the end nothing changes except you get behind on maintenance or other jobs.

bob

[HankB]

The oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign or domestic, will be the next thing to go.  It is, after all, so outdated.  It will likely morph into defending the federal government.

Loyalty oath to POTUS personally . . . when he/she is a democrat.

Seriously, can the command structure require people in the military to disclose who they vote for, either for a security clearance or just on general principles?

[dogmush]

Seriously, can the command structure require people in the military to disclose who they vote for, either for a security clearance or just on general principles?

No.

Or rather, almost certainly not. I don't think any Command has been stupid enough to push that far enough for a court ruling on it. But as long as you keep your vote to yourself the military never asks.

[WLJ]

Probably not hard to figure out with many. In a full blown Soviet style purge mere suspicion is usually enough for a trip to a gulag or worse

[230RN]

Seems to me Obama changed the military's oath to be loyalty to the president.  Or did he just try that and failed?

I recall some kind of discussion of that a couple of years ago.

[Hawkmoon]

Seems to me Obama changed the military's oath to be loyalty to the president.  Or did he just try that and failed?

I recall some kind of discussion of that a couple of years ago.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Armed_Forces_oath_of_enlistment

https://militarybenefits.info/oath-of-enlistment/

[dogmush]

Seems to me Obama changed the military's oath to be loyalty to the president.  Or did he just try that and failed?

I recall some kind of discussion of that a couple of years ago.

I don't even remember him trying, and that kind of thing would stick in my memory.

FYI for those that are interested, the Oath for Officers is a little different then what Hawkmoon linked.  Officers don't have that "follow orders of the President......" bit in there.

[Lennyjoe]

We just got an email today from SECDEF via .gov email system talking about a down day to do ya da ya da

[French G.]

I don't even remember him trying, and that kind of thing would stick in my memory.

FYI for those that are interested, the Oath for Officers is a little different then what Hawkmoon linked.  Officers don't have that "follow orders of the President......" bit in there.

I was not an officer. I still see the obey orders of the president and officers appointed over me as subordinate to the Constitution. Anyone in the military with an IQ over a potato knows there are orders that won't be getting obeyed. Good luck with your retention goals.