7 ms·

It's incredibly reassuring to know that there are solid honorable people in our armed forces that eschew politics in favor of doing the right thing. I'm sure th

It's incredibly reassuring to know that there are solid honorable people in our armed forces that eschew politics in favor of doing the right thing. I'm sure they don't hear it enough, but thank you if any members read this.

MichaelApproved 6y ago
At the same time, it’s pretty scary that things got so bad, the armed forces had to weigh in on a political matter.
- systemvoltage 6y ago
  > "things got so bad". We had an assault on the Capitol. What could be possibly worse?
  - parrellel 6y ago
    The loons could have been about two minutes faster through the doors. That'd have been much worse. The joint chiefs could have been sympathetic with Trump, and then we'd be in Junta-land.
    - systemvoltage 6y ago
      Damn, that's absolutely terrifying.
rayiner 6y ago
Yes, incredible to read this. My family left Bangladesh when it was being run by a military government. We are so fortunate to have the military we do. Its not an idea or a principle or a law. It’s culture. It’s a norm that has been socialized into members of the military, especially the leadership, for hundreds of years. I live in Annapolis now by the Naval Academy and it’s quite a joy to see each new cohort of naval officers carry on the tradition.
refurb 6y ago
In case you haven’t noticed, US politicians (and military leadership is definitely political) love to proclaim they are defenders of the constitution (when it benefits them) and make excuses why the constitution doesn’t apply (when it benefits them). ** Edit to respond to reply below asking if there are no honorable people in the military. ** Not saying that there are no honorable people in the military. There are plenty. What I’m saying is getting to leadership position in the government, business or military requires a lot of political savvy. Of course everything the Joint Chiefs said is accurate, but also view it through the lens of how saying it now benefits the person saying it. It’s pretty apparent that the Capitol Riot has led to a major shakeup across the entire government. It’s apparent that everyone is looking to position themselves as best they can for the post-Trump world. Think of it like after Germany was defeated in WW2. Collaborators told stories of how they bravely resisted. Those who just laid low painted themselves as brave partisans. Some hated Germany for their own selfish reasons but post-war could exploit their resistance and claim to be nationalists. Others saw a power vacuum and realized now was the time to exploit it. It’s quite interesting to watch.
- bostonsre 6y ago
  Are you saying there are no honorable people in our armed forces that wouldn't ignore their politics to do the right thing? Yes, obviously there is politics in the military (e.g. making rank at the cost of your men and/or duty) just as there are people looking to make a paycheck. From the ones I've met and heard stories about the majority are hard working honorable people who truly believe in doing the right thing. It seems kind of horrible and short sighted to make such a broad all encompassing statement that doesn't take into account the possibility that there are honorable, hard working individuals that have given their life to an idea they think is greater than themselves.
  - adolph 6y ago
    Are there no honorable and deluded people? The joint chiefs statement could be interpreted to make a pragmatic case for people in the military that a fight about election fraud is over and that maintaining the country and constitution is more important.
smitty1e 6y ago
It's not the military I worry about. Rather, NPR.
- oliwarner 6y ago
  What's wrong with NPR?
  - Yetanfou 6y ago
    I assume the parent is referring to NPR's rather single-sided ideological lens which diminishes its credibility when reporting on politically charged issues. Given the fact that nearly everything is being politicised and the fact that your country is divided in half along political lines this means that NPR is seen as an oppositional propaganda channel by nearly half the population.
    - oliwarner 6y ago
      But compared to other organisations sharing their opinions? The others all seem to have abandoned balance, some more than others, obviously. So who's doing better?
      - Yetanfou 6y ago
        The difference here is that NPR, like PBS, is publicly funded and with that should be politically neutral.
        oliwarner 6y ago
        So again I ask, who does it better? I ask because I'm not sure it's possible to be politically neutral, well before asking whether it's desirable. Everybody has a political opinion on almost everything. Even if you're only reporting what has happened, you will find people questioning why you're looking at these things, and not others. NPR absolutely has political influence, but is it disproportionate? I don't think so. Is it unbalanced? I don't think so. I think we've just spent 6 years beating each other up over extremes, pushing every envelope, that we struggle to recognise neutral coverage. I know you didn't write the head comment, but I think we need to regain trust in neutrality. Perhaps reinstate some laws to redress balance in things calling themselves "news"... I know I don't know, but what I know is NPR seems like one of the goodies.
dragonwriter 6y ago
> It's incredibly reassuring to know that there are solid honorable people in our armed forces that eschew politics in favor of doing the right thing. On the other hand, it's distressing to know why this letter to the military had to be issued reminding service members that the law prohibited them from engaging in insurrection: the presence of military (active and retired) among the insurrectionists, and the danger that would also be the case in the imminently-planned follow-on attacks.

MichaelApproved 6y ago

At the same time, it’s pretty scary that things got so bad, the armed forces had to weigh in on a political matter.

systemvoltage 6y ago
> "things got so bad". We had an assault on the Capitol. What could be possibly worse?
- parrellel 6y ago
  The loons could have been about two minutes faster through the doors. That'd have been much worse. The joint chiefs could have been sympathetic with Trump, and then we'd be in Junta-land.
  - systemvoltage 6y ago
    Damn, that's absolutely terrifying.

rayiner 6y ago

Yes, incredible to read this. My family left Bangladesh when it was being run by a military government. We are so fortunate to have the military we do. Its not an idea or a principle or a law. It’s culture. It’s a norm that has been socialized into members of the military, especially the leadership, for hundreds of years. I live in Annapolis now by the Naval Academy and it’s quite a joy to see each new cohort of naval officers carry on the tradition.

refurb 6y ago

In case you haven’t noticed, US politicians (and military leadership is definitely political) love to proclaim they are defenders of the constitution (when it benefits them) and make excuses why the constitution doesn’t apply (when it benefits them). ** Edit to respond to reply below asking if there are no honorable people in the military. ** Not saying that there are no honorable people in the military. There are plenty. What I’m saying is getting to leadership position in the government, business or military requires a lot of political savvy. Of course everything the Joint Chiefs said is accurate, but also view it through the lens of how saying it now benefits the person saying it. It’s pretty apparent that the Capitol Riot has led to a major shakeup across the entire government. It’s apparent that everyone is looking to position themselves as best they can for the post-Trump world. Think of it like after Germany was defeated in WW2. Collaborators told stories of how they bravely resisted. Those who just laid low painted themselves as brave partisans. Some hated Germany for their own selfish reasons but post-war could exploit their resistance and claim to be nationalists. Others saw a power vacuum and realized now was the time to exploit it. It’s quite interesting to watch.

bostonsre 6y ago
Are you saying there are no honorable people in our armed forces that wouldn't ignore their politics to do the right thing? Yes, obviously there is politics in the military (e.g. making rank at the cost of your men and/or duty) just as there are people looking to make a paycheck. From the ones I've met and heard stories about the majority are hard working honorable people who truly believe in doing the right thing. It seems kind of horrible and short sighted to make such a broad all encompassing statement that doesn't take into account the possibility that there are honorable, hard working individuals that have given their life to an idea they think is greater than themselves.
- adolph 6y ago
  Are there no honorable and deluded people? The joint chiefs statement could be interpreted to make a pragmatic case for people in the military that a fight about election fraud is over and that maintaining the country and constitution is more important.

smitty1e 6y ago

It's not the military I worry about. Rather, NPR.

oliwarner 6y ago
What's wrong with NPR?
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  I assume the parent is referring to NPR's rather single-sided ideological lens which diminishes its credibility when reporting on politically charged issues. Given the fact that nearly everything is being politicised and the fact that your country is divided in half along political lines this means that NPR is seen as an oppositional propaganda channel by nearly half the population.
  - oliwarner 6y ago
    But compared to other organisations sharing their opinions? The others all seem to have abandoned balance, some more than others, obviously. So who's doing better?
    - Yetanfou 6y ago
      The difference here is that NPR, like PBS, is publicly funded and with that should be politically neutral.
      - oliwarner 6y ago
        So again I ask, who does it better? I ask because I'm not sure it's possible to be politically neutral, well before asking whether it's desirable. Everybody has a political opinion on almost everything. Even if you're only reporting what has happened, you will find people questioning why you're looking at these things, and not others. NPR absolutely has political influence, but is it disproportionate? I don't think so. Is it unbalanced? I don't think so. I think we've just spent 6 years beating each other up over extremes, pushing every envelope, that we struggle to recognise neutral coverage. I know you didn't write the head comment, but I think we need to regain trust in neutrality. Perhaps reinstate some laws to redress balance in things calling themselves "news"... I know I don't know, but what I know is NPR seems like one of the goodies.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> It's incredibly reassuring to know that there are solid honorable people in our armed forces that eschew politics in favor of doing the right thing. On the other hand, it's distressing to know why this letter to the military had to be issued reminding service members that the law prohibited them from engaging in insurrection: the presence of military (active and retired) among the insurrectionists, and the danger that would also be the case in the imminently-planned follow-on attacks.