Clammyc's headline announcing
The military is recruiting neo-nazis and hate groups caught my eye, as it evidently did many of yours. After reading his diary, I want to ensure you they most certainly are not.
(UPDATE below)
The most glaring problem with this diary is the use of the word
recruiting in the title. The NY Times article clammyc references as his source is titled
Hate Groups Are Inflitrating the Military, Group Asserts. Use of the word
recruiting in the dairly title implies that the military is actively seeking neo-nazis and their ilk to join the armed forces; nothing could be further from the truth. I do not know if clammyc intentionally or accidentally substituted
recruiting for
inflitrating, but it clearly led many respodents to believe the military is actively seeking racists for enlistment.
The NY Times article is based on a report from the Southern Poverty Law Center titled Racist extremists active in U.S. military. The article claims that the military "has relaxed standards designed to weed out racists extremists", not that the Army is actively seeking to recruit them. The article states "thousands of soldiers in the Army alone are involved in extremist or gang activity", quoting unnamed Department of Defense investigators. I'm not sure what they're basing that on, but based on my personal experiences I do not believe racist and gang activity is nearly as wide spread as this quote leads us to believe. I also disagree with the article's assertion that "(m)ilitary extremists present an elevated threat both to their fellow soldiers and the general public. Today's white supremacists become tomorrow's domestic terrorists." The only example I can think of is Timothy McVeigh, and he is used later in the SPLC article as the sole example. All of the incidents of domestic terrorism I can recall since Oklahoma City have been carried out by foreign born terrorists, including the plot thwarted today. I admire the SPLC for the great work they've done - especially Morris Dees - but I don't agree with all of the assertions in this article.
The NY Times article elaborates and quotes Scott Barfield, who is identified as a Department of Defense investigator. He claims that "(r)ecruiters are knowingly allowing neo-Nazis and white supremacists to join the armed forces, and commanders don't remove them from the military even after we positively identify them as extremists or gang members." I'm not sure what Mr Barfield means by these statements. I'm not sure how a recruiter can knowingly sign up a neo-nazi or white supremacist, or under what criteria they would reject them. I would assume any American has the right to join the military as long as they can meet the requirements and abide by the rules and laws of the Armed Forces. Since most racists are idiots, I assume they have a hard time achieving a passing score on the ASVAB. That goes for neo-nazis as well as the gang members that the SPLC article references.
Let's assume the racist or gang member enters the military. They're in for a very solitary life, as their beliefs aren't tolerated. The military has an extensive Military Equal Opportunity program, and all complaints are aggressively investigated. Again, I don't understand how Mr Barfield can make the claim that commanders aren't discharging Soldiers that violate regulations against racist activities. I would encourage him to file a complaint with the Inspector General if he believes commanders are negligent in their duties.
Are there racists and gang members in the military? Of course there are. The military is a reflection of society as a whole. The difference is that racists and gang members are not allowed to behave as they do in general society. A true racist would have an extremely difficult time serving in the military; it would be akin to trying to hold one's breath for an entire enlistment to avoid breathing in the stench of all the other races.
If, as the NY Times article asserts, the neo-nazis and white supremacists are joining the military to learn combat skills, then they can do that easily enough without having to serve with those they see as inferior races. The internet is full of web pages devoted to basic infantry and special forces tactics. Getting guns isn't a problem, so why bother serving with those you detest?
I was also irritated by clammyc's assertion that
So now we are taking members from our own hate groups, giving them a gun, very little training and sending them overseas to go kill.
The section that got me was the
very little training
bit. The enlisted Infantry course is
14 weeks long, and before a Soldier is deployed they go through several months of preparation with their unit. Statements like that show an ignorance of the military, so I'll make you a deal, clammyc; I won't comment on your profession if you'll stop posting fact-challenged and inflammatory diaries about the military.
What bothered me more than the diary were some of the responses, especially those that made Nazi or death squad comparisons. I've said it before and I'll say it again - ignorant and inflammatory comments like those give the Rethugs all the ammo they need to label Kossacks as extremist and anti-military. You can hate Bush and Rumsfeld all you want, but leave my brothers and sisters in arms out of it.
So there - I've had my say. The original article was recommended and had 556 comments when I posted this. Tip, flame, or recommend as you will. Someone has to stand up for the men and women serving our country.
UPDATE Saturday morning: Wow - I never would have believed this diary would generate 330 comments make it to the rec list. I also wouldn't have believed that I would allow myself to get so snarky and defensive. This is my mea culpa - I was an ass when I said "authoritative statements should be left to subject matter experts" and when I urged "tighten your tinfoil hat". I can't expect my point to be taken seriously if I don't take others seriously. Thanks again for reading.
Where I'm come from: I retired after 22 years active duty, and now train the men and women of our Armed Forces.