Whistleblower: The U.S. Army and its Internal Culture War
March 20, 2014  //  By:   //  Citizen Journalism, Investigative Reports, Politics  //  No Comment

For the average American, who only seeks out television and newspapers to stay informed, there may be little difference at first glance between the U.S. Army under the command of George W. Bush and that of Barack H. Obama. But when one starts to digest the cultural changes that have taken place since 2009, the differences are not only stark, but also alarming.

The U.S. Army in 2014 is an environment of forced political correctness, muzzled free speech and one that’s bent on some bizarre version of equality doesn’t lend itself to battle. And the oath each soldier swears to the U.S. Constitution, to protect it from enemies both foreign and domestic? That’s been replaced with an oath to leadership and to obey orders, be they illegal or not.

An internal whistleblower, who choses not to use his name, has given Veritas News exclusive use of his firsthand knowledge deep inside U.S. Military bases, where a dangerous game of division is being played. Some of the info is easily found from other sources and some are his first hand observations.

How Many Guns Do You Have?

While being deployed, our source, we’ll call him Major Alex Summers, received a gun questionnaire at several different bases in Ft. Bragg and Ft. Hood that hinted at a fear of mass shootings. The same type of mass shooting that happened at Ft. Hood a short time later. Coincidence? Probably, but this is an example of pushing a scenario on that turned prophetic. Could it be said that these gun questionnaires were, in effect, conditioning? Yes it can. And did they do anything to prevent what happened at Ft. Hood? Sadly, no.

The questions become quite personal, especially for men and women who are risking their lives around firearms, day in and day out. The below image is a snapshot of a questionnaire given frequently before the shooting at Fort Hood.

IMG_0817

 

A few of the questions pictured above read:

  • Does the soldier own a “Privately Owned Weapon” (POW)? NOTE: If soldier is interested, provide an opportunity to shoot assorted firearms prior to purchase through a gun registration program. Encourage soldier to purchase through AAFESPX (Military Exchange Store). 
  • What is the Privately Owned Weapon (POW) make and model?
  • How many?

In essence, the soldiers are being prodded to register private weapons that they purchase in a Federal database. Our armed forces are trusted to use the highest grade military weapons available on the planet both at home and abroad, but the Federal Government is pushing to keep tabs on their privately owned firearms?

Something doesn’t add up.

Political Correctness and the New Enemy

Major Summers has seen what he describes as a systemic infiltration by Muslims in the U.S. army, which is unlike past years where diversity was not necessarily a cornerstone strategy for that branch of the military.  It seems as if those of Muslim faith, in particular are being targeted for recruitment in to the army, even from overseas. This wouldn’t seem so odd, in general terms, if the United States hadn’t been engaged in two foreign wars which have dragged on for a decade and were being fought against what was described as “Islamic Terrorists.” In fact, when the Bush anti-terrorism documents were written up, there were over 100 references to Muslim terrorists. Now there are no mentions of Muslim terrorists at all from any wing of the U.S. government. It’s quite a feat to have conquered this enemy, as it would seem, but that begs a question: Why aren’t the wars over yet? And just exactly who is the enemy? That answer is not so clear anymore.

Another alarming occurrence that raised a red flag in Summers’ mind was an ordered exercise at Ft. Knox, during his time there. It was a post wide exercise, meaning that it involved everyone at the base. The opposition force was specifically described as “Tea Party” type protestors. Without considering the politics of any of those groups, it seems rather far fetched that a military intervention would be needed to take on political protestors, from the right or left, in the United States. Of course, there was the incident in 1970, at Kent State University, where student anti-war protestors were shot and killed by National Guard soldiers. It seems like quite a stretch that any Tea Party rally, based on their track record, would need anything more that perhaps local peace officers to stand guard. There is no substantial evidence to suggest the Tea Party is violent or intends to become violent. A movement similar in scope, “Occupy,” was not given the same sort of alarmist designation of “terrorist” group. In fact Tea Party groups do not share any characteristics with terrorist groups, but the soldiers at Ft. Knox were being trained to perceive them that way.

How long before their perceptions turn reality and another Kent State type of tragedy happens again?

Politicization and Squashing Dissent

Political dissent from within the military is not illegal. A soldier is actually quite within their right to have and express an opinion which may contradict his superiors. And yes, that includes the White House. Following orders is part of a soldier’s job description, but it is not their most important duty. They do not swear an oath to their superiors, or the political party in power. Their oath is actually sworn to the Constitution of the United States and that’s what they are to protect and uphold. This is key because during a time of two simultaneous decade long wars, many enlisted men, at all levels have questioned the motives of their commanders and the mission at hand. During the early stages of each war (Iraq 2003-2008 and Afghanistan 2001-2008) the Bush administration was repeatedly bashed directly by active duty military, according to Summers. Those who spoke out were looked upon with scrutiny by their fellow soldiers, but their public opinions did not subject them to any threats of UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) action. This includes, but is not limited to being dishonorably discharged, court martialed or imprisoned. However, that policy has changed under Obama, according to Major Summers. “Under the Obama administration, in the military, simply siding with the Republican Party, on any issue, is being used as a reason for punishment within the ranks. This is quite the departure and tantamount to a major civil rights violation.

Freedom of speech is an immutable right of soldiers, which has been understood in this nation since the days of the Revolutionary War. General George Washington was quite clear on the matter:

“If the freedom of speech is taken away then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter.”

The U.S. military, under President Obama is ignoring this maxim at the peril of all of us. This is not a partisan issue and Major Summers found it incumbent upon himself to blow the whistle on the squelching of free speech as it becomes standard operating procedure in the U.S. Military.

Put in to practice, this heavy handed approach to political orientation of military members bore itself out last fall. In an unprecedented move, President Obama fired 200 generals. These were not front line soldiers, but seasoned veterans who somehow did not fit the mold any more. It’s very clear within the ranks that these were political firings and had nothing to do with performance.

This reporter will further study the impact of politicization, political correctness and muzzled free speech in subsequent investigative reports.

(Gord Brody – VNN) (Image: http://desertseadesign.com/)

About the Author :