Opinion: America's military needs to confront the enemy within

I would disagree with this: "There were signs of right-wing extremism in the military as far back as 2009. "
It goes much further back than that. Think Timothy McVeigh.

Want rough men to stand between peaceful civilians and the minions of terrorism and evil around the world? Or touchy-feely guys who can harmonize a version of Kum-Ba-Yah?

Anyone worth their salt at taking out desperadoes dug in in an urban setting without carpet bombing the neighborhood are not likely to be the kind of people who enjoy watching Rachel Maddow. It's just the way the world works.

FTA: "More than 18 million of US veterans nationwide swore an oath to defend our Constitution and volunteered to give our lives for this country. It's time for us to answer the call again. We should lead the nation in combating those who are attacking the very democracy we swore to protect. That starts in our own communities, combating the enemy within."

Great, let's start with MSM which has distributed information with such a deep and fanatic slant that normal Americans cannot tell truth from spin anymore.

It is entirely possible that the large percentage of vets on Jan 6 is because the military skews right, not because of any extremist ideology or procilvity. I personally believe that folks who are more inclined to conservatism are also more inclined to service in defense of the nation they love. Just my personal opinion to account for the fact that the military skews right.

To be clear, I condone neither the criminal acts of the extremists on January 6, nor ideological extremism - on either end of the spectrum. I condemn the attacks on January 6, just the same as the attacks throughout the country in response to police killings. I do not deny that ideological extremists exist within the military - again on both ends of the spectrum. I do not deny that identifying these individuals who are not compatible with good order and discipline would be beneficial to the military as a whole.

But... I DO deny that we need to conduct a witch-hunt to find these individuals. I also realize that there was a purge during the Obama administration of many high-ranking Officers. Many on the right have claimed this was a loyalty purge, ignoring the very real circumstances of many of the firings. Many on the left point to those same circumstances to justify the purge, while ignoring the overall pattern and dismissing any possible cause for concern. Regardless of the nature or intent of the purge, many senior right-leaning flag officers were dismissed, and many left-leaning flag officers moved up.

Taking into account the current MSM agenda which is shaping "the norms of our society" and the relatively recent promotion of left-leaning senior leaders, I am quite scared of what would be deemed "proper" and what would be "out-of-line." I am very hesitant to apply ANY attempt at "re-education" of the military which is - or can easily become - influenced by political ideology (on the right or the left). A program that seeks to remove or punish any speech "that violates the norms of our society or invites violence" and states that it "should not be tolerated in our country and it certainly cannot be allowed in our military" is exceptionally problematic. It is seeking to outlaw any speech which goes against the grain. If your view is unpopular (i.e. goes against societal norms) you are now not only an outsider, you can be legitimately ostracized by the entire nation and ALSO denied the opportunity to continue to serve the nation you love. The First Amendment will be, in effect, dead. No more speaking truth to power. No more opening a dialogue about opposing thoughts, ideas, or policies. No more voice for the minority. And those who lean left, or even are firmly on the left, should be equally opposed. What happens if/when Conservative ideology becomes ascendant?

I will conclude with admitting my personal bias. I have nothing really against McGrath. I almost voted for her in 2020, before eventually voting for Brad Barron. She is a bit too left for my personal preferences, but she always seemed logical and well-reasoned, even if I disagreed with her reasoning. I am not a fan of Paul Rieckhoff. I originally joined IAVA in an effort to connect and help fellow Iraq vets. I quickly realized that IAVA (and especially Rieckhoff himself) is little more than a political lobbying organization. In my opinion, all they want are names on the rolls for political clout, and money. Yes, they DO lobby for vets - but Rieckhoff billed IAVA when it was in its infancy as an organization that was dedicated to helping Iraq and Afghanistan vets connect and help each other, not as yet another group focused only on Washington. I will admit to entering this article with a negative bias just by reading his name. But I stand by my assessment, even after acknowledging and accounting for personal bias. I believe my assessment stands true, regardless.