Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin orders military 'stand down'
By: Emily Jacobs (New York Post)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered a "stand down" of the entire US military over the next 60 days in order for commanders to address "extremism" in its ranks.
News of the military-wide pause came in an announcement Wednesday from the Pentagon, with press secretary John Kirby describing the move to reporters as similar to stand downs that units have to do to address safety concerns.
Austin issued the order following a meeting about the issue with Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Mark Milley, as well as service civilian leaders and service chiefs.
The group also discussed last month's Capitol riot, Kirby said, noting the presence of veterans and active-duty service members at the shocking scene. They left the meeting still uncertain of how to fully address the problem.
According to Kirby, the riot was "a wake-up call" for the entire department.
Supporters of Donald Trump clash with police at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.James Keivom for NY Post
The press secretary went on to quote Austin as calling extremism in the ranks a leadership issue.
"It's got to be a leadership issue down to the lowest levels, small unit leadership all the way up to him. So if you consider it a leadership issue, then maybe there will be some potential solutions there to allow us greater visibility," Kirby said, referencing his boss' comments during the meeting.
Lloyd Austin pledged to "rid our ranks of racists and extremists."
Each command will be required to complete the stand down over the next 60 days, giving commanders and service members some time to figure out how to work on the issue.
During his confirmation hearings, Austin pledged that he would "rid our ranks of racists and extremists," though he declined to offer details on how he planned to see that through.
"We also owe our people a working environment free of discrimination, hate and harassment. If confirmed, I will fight hard to stamp out sexual assault, to rid our ranks of racists and extremists, and to create a climate where everyone fit and willing has the opportunity to serve this country with dignity," the then-nominee said in his prepared remarks before the Senate last month.
"The job of the Department of Defense is to keep America safe from our enemies. But we can't do that if some of those enemies lie within our own ranks," he continued.
In his meeting Wednesday, the defense secretary told military leaders that while the numbers may be small, it is "not an insignificant problem."
"No matter what it is, it is … not an insignificant problem and has to be addressed," Kirby told reporters.
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin has ordered a stand down of the entire US military over the next 60 days.Greg Nash/Pool/Getty Images
Still, he noted during his press gaggle, "The vast majority of men and women who serve in uniform and the military are doing so with honor, integrity and character, and do not espouse the sorts of beliefs that lead to the kind of conduct that can be so detrimental to good order and discipline and in fact is criminal."
.
Tags
Who is online
58 visitors
"Lloyd Austin pledged to "rid our ranks of racists and extremists."
The newly appointed defense secretary is really going to vet the men & women who serve?
And which "extremists" does he intend to rid our ranks of?
Which extremists would you like to keep in the military?
all of them
He's appears to be going after only one set of the. Maybe worse...He may be going after traditionalists.
We are now politicizing the military.
The Trump regime was guilty of attempting to politicize the military. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs even found it necessary to apologize for allowing himself to be manipulated by Trump's disgusting efforts to involve the military in political affairs.
You have it backwards. It was Obama who began the process now completed here by Susan Rice/the puppet Biden.
Compare the flag officers to the rank and file soldiers.
What would you know about rank and file soldiers/sailors/airmen/Marines?
Get real. YOU have it backwards.
Reactionary propaganda is just that, propaganda with no bearing on the truth.
it's not dishonest. You can't even name an extremist group..well...except for "antifa" and BLM...
You don't think Lloyd Austin is acting like a left wing ideologue?
Of course not. He absolutely is NOT "acting like a left wing ideologue". Not for a second.
Well? What do you know about the rank and file? It's a simple question, not a personal attack.
Wow...talk about making everything about YOU.....
Vetting military personnel for their personal or political views?
That is a disgrace. He is a disgrace to the uniform.
Funny, I didn't read anywhere in the article that said they were going after any political ideology.
Here is what I know:
And that is at odds with flag officers like Lloyd Austin and it is the reason that Al Gore challenged military ballots in the Florida recount:
It may even qualify as common knowledge
They're not. They're looking into people's social media to see what kind of affiliations they have and ask neighbors what do they think about said soldier/airman/sailor/Marine. Kinda like what they do when they do the FBI background check when one enlists.
As far as political ideology, the military doesn't give a shit about that. Just keep your lip buttoned, your boots polished, and do what you're told
[DELETED] I knew quite a few liberals when I was in the Air Force and that's enlisted people. The officers tended to be more conservative.
And when did the NY Post become a credible rag?
Conservative people like yourself think the military is conservative but they are going on wishful thinking and hearsay. I do believe you would [deleted] find there are quite a few liberals. Common knowledge about the military doesn't really extend to civilians. It's amazing how much civilians like you get wrong
He is seeking to root out racists and extremists. Do you think there should be Klan adherents or fascist militia members in our military? Do you think a Timothy McVeigh should be tolerated?
Is there an argument to be made against military cohesion?
No one is denying members of the military the right to their own political views.
I bet there are a few people deleting accounts and scrubbing history today.
So that's where your simple question was going, as If I didn't know. [deleted]
I knew quite a few liberals when I was in the Air Force and that's enlisted people. The officers tended to be more conservative.
Good for you.
I can do whatever the fuck I want to, Vic. [deleted] you think you know everything there is to know about the military and how it works and who's conservative and who's not.
The fact is you don't know fuck-all. And sometimes I think you want to be able to say you served just to shut me up.
[DELETED]
[DELETED]
Do you support avowed communists, socialists, antifa or BLM members serving in the military?
Do you support the right of Democrats to serve in the military?
When antifa was burning cities all year I didn't hear a Secretary of Defense mention vetting the military to vet them, did you?
Do you support the right of Democrats to serve in the military?
Of course I do. I expect the military to be an effective force for our national defense - nothing less than that
Communists, antifa, BLM, Klan, Proud Boys....
I think you have to be very careful here to distinguish between speech and actions. Otherwise you have a part of the federal government that is infringing on a persons first amendment rights. While in my views being a proud card-carrying member of the Proud Boys is nothing to be proud about, citizens in this country still have their first amendment rights.
While I'm not a constitutional scholar I don't believe speaking in favor of any of those groups is expressly forbidden by the oath of military service.
I see you evaded my first question, but that's OK.
That question needs to be asked of the new Secretary of Defense.
I do not know the full extent of what is governed by the oath of military service, or the full extent of the rights and duties of members of the military as regards to political expression or activities. They have the right to vote, of course. I had thought that their political expression may be subject some restrictions as opposed to civilians' expansive rights under the 1st Amendment. It would be an interesting topic to research.
Nice evasion.
Carry on!
No evasion. I'm against extremists on all sides. The new Defense Secretary is only looking at one side or worse.
It's quite the read. Some highlights :
It's an interesting read. A few things that I didn't remember from all those years ago when I wore the uniform, you cannot vote if wearing the uniform. I guess i can understand it, the prohibition against anything that appears to associate the Department of Defense with any partisan political campaign, election, candidate, cause or issue. While it's true that while on active duty your first amendment rights are somewhat limited they are not completely removed. There is a lot more under those DOD directives, as well as military members falling under the Hatch Act also. Some of this is probably why the military has so many lawyers.. having to balance the rules against the law against the constitution.
Thank you for posting the link and for your comments. I will definitely read the article. It is certainly a pertinent topic.
Funny, I didn't read anywhere in the article that said they were going after any political ideology.
There is legal or practical way to do this anyway
You expect too much from Biden world.
[deleted]
How many self-professing 'extremists' do you know? Likely, they all call themselves something else.
Part of the oath I took was to defend America against all enemies, both foreign and DOMESTIC. If any military member actively supports organizations like The Proud Cut Boys, QAnon, and other such groups, they have violated their oath and should be removed from the military with a parting gift of a Dishonorable Discharge.
Then we hold active supporters of BLM and Antifa to the same standard.
cool. time to unload some old brass relics that have kept our military racist and top heavy for decades. retire immediately and be subject to civil suits or face court martial and loss of any accrued benefits.
I didn't see your comment but I highly doubt you called the military racist. Are there racist people in the military? Oh, yeah. Worked with a Lt who got counseled on his racist remarks towards his troops
Could you 'serve' under said constraints? Would you? Does your allegiance lie with the United States that is, or do you reserve your allegiance for a future, yet unborn 'America' that you hope will be and which you seek actively to incarnate/realize?
A military seriously divided by ideological commitments is a recipe for civil war. Those favoring inclusion will naturally favor that development. Those who do not will prefer that national direction be set by civilians through democratic means.
It's a serious problem, Mr. Eldred. In which camp you reside will be disclosed by the position you take on said question.
Good grief Leon, you're beginning to scare everyone!
A military seriously divided by ideological commitments is a recipe for civil war.
Actually NO! Pay close attention to the words of the Commandant of West Point. This movie from the early 40's had it right.
The military doesn't concern itself with the making of wars - only the fighting of them!
Please, please give us all a break ....
And deflection fools nobody. I made my point and you ignored it.
You may as well quote Star Wars for your points.
I can at least speak to facts.
We don't need a history lesson from the most partisan individual on NT.
I can at least speak to facts.
[Deleted]
Then why do you keep trying to give us history lessons and condemn Zinn and 1619?
I'm not teaching history unless someone needs a bit of teaching. Zinn was a revisionist historian and I believe he would even admit that. He told history from the point of view of a slave or a migrant worker. That is a subjective perspective. As any intelligent person should know "America" was little more than a colony in 1619.
Most perspectives are subjective, you are the living proof of that.
Any intelligent person knows that "history" did not start in 1776 and was influenced by thousands of factors through
millennia, often twisted by the victors fuzzy memories. Do you honestly think that British history of the subcontinent
of INDIA mirrors the history of the natives of India, Pakistan & Kashmir?
No and I agree with what many now believe:
Some of these students, such as the political activist Mahatma Gandhi, were able to travel England to study at some of the most prestigious universities in the world. It is a fact that to be a successful, innovative country you need an educated population base; the building of these British schools facilitated this. The westernization of India was beneficial to India.
The most influential thing was the introduction of Enlightenment ideas and a western-style democracies; which has proven to be one of the most successful models in history. This made them one of the most effective colonies and post colonial countries. One of the best examples of western political thought surfacing in India was the formation of the Indian National Congress. The Indian National Congress was made up of western-educated Indians, who had been taught the ways of the enlightenment. They initially advocated for self-rule within the British Empire . After the Amritsar Massacre in which the soldiers hired by the East India Trading Company fired on unarmed protesters, they began protesting for complete independence from Britain. The system they wanted to install to run India was a Western-Style democracy/republic. The Indian National Congress is still in existence today and played an instrumental role in setting up India’s current democratic government."
So you see, at a time in world history when the more advanced countries were colonizing, the colonized were also benefiting. In the case of India, it can be argued that it was India who benefited most.
Colonization was an excepted practice once. Who are we to judge.
Ask an American Indian.
Right back at you. How do think the Brits are portrayed in those Indian/Kashmir history books?
How are Americans portrayed in the history books of Canada, Mexico, Central America or Japan or any other lands we invaded?
Certainly not from a white privileged American point of view.
Is that as important as having a military background?
Only if your going to comment on that which you know nothing about.
No, you have it backwards. Habitually invoking military service as if it should counter a view is wrong. An adult should know that.
Not from what I read.
Tiring maybe, but not wrong.
Should I flag that for being personal, disgusting and dishonest?
I'm beginning to think you know very few adults
or native American Indians...
[deleted]
Zinn and 1619 are blatantly ideological far to the left revisionist fake histories.
Just one colony,Jamestown. The Pilgrims had yet to sail on the Mayflower to come here and then create the Mayflower compact and the first Thanksgiving. And yet before we even had a second colony here, we are already supposedly presumed guilty of creating a wicked and evil nation that has done and can do no good in this world.
Jamestown was just the first colony to survive.
There were other attempts at settling SC with both African and NA slaves as early as 1526 that failed.
That's one mean case of victim hood you have there.
I’m simply describing the sheer mental stupidity of the 1619 project and the intellectual laziness and lack of objective reality of its authors and those who support that revisionist fraud.
[Deleted]
By whom?
Historical revisionism developed by lightweight Nikole Hannah-Jones & writers from the disreputable New York Times. It is an an indictment of the United States of America before there was a United States of America. It's an indictment of the White race for a crime that was practiced world wide in 1619 and is still practiced today in parts of Africa. They want to teach it to our kids to produce more brain washed degenerates.
Or, they just want to explain history honestly.
Nothing is, "Degenerate", about that unless you actually are an real life propagandist bent upon misinforming the American people for your own most base and personal political purposes. Being self aware is the basis of all consciousness. You guys way out there on the far far right should try it sometime...
James McPherson, the Pulitzer Prize-winning author of “Battle Cry of Freedom” and a past president of the American Historical Association described it this way: “Almost from the outset, I was disturbed by what seemed like a very unbalanced, one-sided account, which lacked context and perspective. From the Quakers in the 18th century, on through the abolitionists in the antebellum, to the Radical Republicans in the Civil War and Reconstruction, to the N.A.A.C.P., which was an interracial organization founded in 1909, down through the civil rights movements of the 1950s and 1960s, there have been a lot of whites who have fought against slavery and racial discrimination, and against racism, and that’s what’s missing from this perspective.”
What is honest about declaring America's beginning as 1619, when America was a colony and slavery was an accepted world-wide practice? It was no surprise that the slave trade would be introduced to the colonies. How would the great nation that freed itself from it in 1776 have anything to do with it?
You just made Vic's point for him. That describes the 1619 project to a t.
I fail to see how a complete understanding of our history and the complicated world that brought us to where we are now is subversive, outside of a white supremacist world view...
No, it does not! Why must you misrepresent?
I know it. You can't rewrite history based on resentment.
America was not founded until 1776.
America was founded on the principles of equality, though it took time to achieve those lofty goals.
The idea that the patriots fought the American Revolution in large part to preserve slavery in North America can easily be dismissed as a flat out lie. (one of many)
If you want to educate Americans on slavery and its consequences one shouldn't do it based on falsehoods, distortions and significant omissions.
Then why do you insist on doing exactly that?
American history goes way back for thousands of years before July 4th, 1776...
Do you not understand it’s premised upon a lie? America didn’t revolt from Britain because of slavery. There is literally zero evidence to support that contention. But it’s propaganda, so reality didn’t matter.
Are you even familiar with the thing you are trying to defend?
Are you?
Yes I am. BTW, distinguished historians have disputed aspects of the project.
Are you also a supporter of revisionist history being taught to our children?
That was just a shot?
Some might call that trolling. (the forgotten rule around here)
From what I can tell, The 1619 Project is telling the parts of history that are conveniently left out of our whitewashed history books. It stresses history from the perspective of black people and reinforces the fact that the American experience was inextricably intertwined with the people who we consider the founders of our country. Indeed, the focus is on the fact that black people, both while enslaved and freed, were instrumental to not only the founding but to the continuing struggle to make us live up to the words of the Declaration of Independence: "...all men are created equal."
Thomas, you are welcome to your opinion. The 1619 project was an idea to reframe history in a very reckless way. I think many people, including historians condemn it as myth. Progressives will also take the blame. You see, ideas have consequences too!
You are mistaking what it claims it’s purpose is, to what it actually did.
Ideas do have consequences. One must consider the sources of all information, both those in favor and those critical, when making up ones mind as to the validity of the data, the arguments presented and, the the conclusions drawn from those arguments before being able to parse out what is truth, what is falsehood, what is problematic, and what is opinion.
It is true that some historians consider it less than adequate and factually incorrect at certain parts, such as Hannah-Jones statement
According to LESLIE M. HARRIS from an opinion piece in Politico entitled " I Helped Fact-Check the 1619 Project. The Times Ignored Me. " and subtitled " The paper’s series on slavery made avoidable mistakes. But the attacks from its critics are much more dangerous."
He further goes on to state:
So, while some might dismiss the work out of hand, I prefer not to.
If you claim that it did something, then spell it out.
f you claim that it did something, then spell it out.
I have numerous times. Many progressives don't seem to care about facts though. For starters, there is no evidence that the US revolt from Britain was premised on protecting slavery.
Think the cause of our revolution is an important detail that is imperative to get correct when teaching students? The 1619 project prefers to lie in service of its corrupt narrative.
Here's Grant Wood, possibly the leading historical expert on the revolution, on his response (Wood is an actual historian, not an agenda driven journalist like the leader of the 1619 project)
"I read the first essay by Nikole Hannah-Jones, which alleges that the Revolution occurred primarily because of the Americans’ desire to save their slaves. She claims the British were on the warpath against the slave trade and slavery and that rebellion was the only hope for American slavery. This made the American Revolution out to be like the Civil War, where the South seceded to save and protect slavery, and that the Americans 70 years earlier revolted to protect their institution of slavery. I just couldn’t believe this.
I was surprised, as many other people were, by the scope of this thing, especially since it’s going to become the basis for high school education and has the authority of the New York Times behind it, and yet it is so wrong in so many ways ."
The World Socialist Web Site (of all places) invested the time and energy to interview actual leading historians and their devastating critiques of the project.
It is the message of 1619 apologists.
[Deleted]
Try reading the link?
You should stop describing yourself as "we". You speak only for yourself.
[Deleted]
You are about the last person on the face of the earth or here that I would take any advice from. I didn’t say we in the post you attempt to correct me on.
Actually, Split Personality's point is well taken. Entertainment media is hardly a platform for serious discussion.
You say that Split Personality avoids your point. What was your point? You deny outright that serious ideological division portends civil war, but rather than support your contention, you post to a brief flick. How are we to know what is your point.
You then offer as an axiom the military fights wars but doesn't make them. What does that mean? Do you allude to a long-past abandoned notion of Congressional declaration of formal war? Or do you refer to the fact that for the past 30 years, the US has adopted 'war' as standing policy, merely deploying the military to 'fight' war wherever the ruling elite believes it can open up new markets, access dirt cheap labor markets, or gain some imperial strategic advantage?
Should we acquire a deck of Tarot cards and in that way seek enlightenment as to what you mean, or are you willing to tell us outright without our having to recreate your twisted imaginations in our own minds in order to take a guess as to why serious ideological division won't portend civil war?
Could it be that you see yourself as supplying cover for your ideological playmates in the militia movement and/or military and/or police agencies that are already plotting Washington Coup II?
If someone constantly refers to him or herself as "we", it can be assumed they are also referring to the voices in their head.
Yet if you follow your own comments, 1.3.43 was in response to 1.3.18 which was in response to 1.3.17
You're welcome.
The military is always supposed to be non-political. Just like Obama's FBI, IRS and DOJ should have been.
you post to a brief flick.
Which was intended to draw on a relevant analogy from 1861. I'm sure our readers got it.
You then offer as an axiom the military fights wars but doesn't make them. What does that mean?
Again - The military cannot be political. It cannot belong to Nancy Pelosi. It does not swear it's oath to Joe Biden.
Should we acquire a deck of Tarot cards and in that way seek enlightenment as to what you mean.
Do what you must.
Then it shouldn't be taught in schools, should it?
It's like defending a program that teaches kids that the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor because it sends the right message.
You'd think people would recognize that basic factual accuracy is the sine qua non of an acceptable history course, but apparently indoctrinating an anti-American narrative means more.
The parts that are provably not factual should be shown to be not factual. Parts of the 1619 Project are correct and certain parts are not. I have not argued otherwise.
On the balance, I think that this would be a good way to teach students how to critically think. Here is one claim. Here is another. Is one true and one false? Does one only show one side of a story. Do both show competing sides? Are they biased in favor of one point of view? By actually digging into these questions and remaining open and objective, teachers can demonstrate and teach how to critically think about something, to be more able to distinguish fact from fantasy and to note that even the most learned among us can be wrong or incomplete in their knowledge. It can even show that well written, articulate authors can be and are trapped in the themes of their times.
Are you sure? Spain landed half a century earlier, and had a day of great celebration. IT wasn't called 'thanksgiving,' but what's in a name?
Alternatively, the military cannot be non-political. Military actions uniformly pursue political policy.
Sort of like the Red Army vs the White Army
Or
When Adolph Hitler substituted his name for that of Germany in the traditional oath of allegiance by the German Army.
Think of it as a corollary to Carl von Clausewitz' famed dictum: 'war is politics by other means.' Namely...
I think they have to be very careful with this.
Active duty or retired military may, if on their own time and not in uniform, participate in political rallies and protests.
Retired members who are arrested and convicted of federal offenses for being inside the capital building should face all legal consequences. And the same for active duty members who are arrested and convicted of any offense while being inside the capital building, as well as (IMO) being discharged from the military for failure to abide by their oath.
But if leadership goes after any active duty or retired military for only expressing an opinion or legally protesting then they have gone a step too far.
Unfortunately Joe Biden was elected.
Didn't people understand what that would mean?
The American people well understood that the election of President Biden meant the end of the evil and corrupt, and unfortunate, Trump regime.
Once all the executive orders and Obama appointments sink in the American people will have to come to terms with what they did with their own hands.
I am quite grateful for President Joe Biden.
[DELETED]
The sky is falling!
The sky is falling!
Oh no, Biden made an EO that undid a donald EO.
Life will never be the same!
The irony here after the last four years is off the charts...
So in other words, you think people made proclamations about donald so it is needed to make proclamations about the Biden administration.
So it is only a tit for tat...
And they were not about donald?
Have you not signed your papers yet?
Better get on that. Big Biden is watching.
You wouldn't turn me in, would you?
Not me. I don't swing that way.
That’s for sure!
It would seem that many did not until now...
If this is the limit of it, I agree. I don't think the military has any business getting into the beliefs of personnel. There should be no litmus tests.
But leadership can set an example that their personal beliefs do not change their duty. Leadership should be sending the message that members have a duty to protect the Constitution, respect our political process, and safeguard our institutions. You might think the president is a piece of shit, but he's still your president and commander in chief. It is contrary to duty to force political change through force.
what a ridiculous statement.
What's ridiculous is that I have to remind people that the Constitution applies to the military, too.
Signs of white supremacy, extremism up again in poll of active-duty troops
From the Military Times Kavika posted:
This is presumably one of the responses to the survey because it is in quotes and part of the article. When you join the military, you take an oath to defend the constitution and you also scede some of your rights.
This is a telling graphic from the article. It would seem, given that there are no physical boundaries between members of the armed services, that just what constitutes "white nationalism or racism" is not consistent between minorities and whites.