Distrust or Derision?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/firs...st-recruiters/

"Napolitano: Veterans are Targets of Right-Wing Extremist Recruiters
Homeland security chief says report could have been written differently, but imperative was to release details on right-wing extremists.
......

It added that new restrictions on gun ownership and the difficulty of veterans to reintegrate into their communities "could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violent attacks.
......

Of particular interest among radicals is possible recruitment of returning troops with "combat skills and experience" so as to boost their "violent capabilities," the report said. "



She isn't saying much about military personnel, all their training, all their loyalty, all their discipline, all their commitment, all their sacrifice, all their professionalism, all their hard work, all their pride, blod sweat and tears so strongly manifested since the start of two major wars in this decade. Where in the he** is she getting such information and conclusions to make such a vile inference?

The Legion steps up to the plate:

"But American Legion National Commander David Rehbein, who is to meet with Napolitano on Friday, told FOX News on Sunday the evidence suggests that troops are more likely to be first responders than extremists during an attack on the homeland. He added that he is less concerned about the apology than about the way the department reached its conclusions. "

Well no kidding, a voice of reality amidst some downright stupidity coming from a national leader. I am enough of a fossil to recall the days when the Red Menace was a threat and people worried that the Russians might invade. Calmer heads prevailed saying they probably couldn't build enough ships to get that many men over here in the first place but if they did, millions of Vets with deer rifles would be backing up our military on the beaches.

Mr. Ricks started another conversation here discussing a trend with young people and national service.

I'm not sure where he is headed, and I'm not sure that even he knows, but it is interesting...

Quote:

---

After I spoke at Princeton the other night, I was surprised by the stream of young men who came up to told me that they are joining the Marines or Army after graduation.

On reflection, I shouldn't have been, because lately I've been noticing this phenomenon of graduates of elite universities going into the military. This isn't a tidal wave, or even a fad, but I think a steady self-selection.

Lately I have spoken with three men, by coincidence all 24 years old, who have good entry-level jobs in Washington foreign policy and journalism circles, who are planning to chuck all that and become Marine officers in the coming year. I also know Matt Pottinger, once reputed to be among the best Wall Street Journal reporters in Beijing and a fluent Mandarin speaker, who signed up and went to Marine Officer Candidates School. He is now serving in southern Afghanistan.

What is going on here? I think two things, one negative, the other historical.

---

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts...ve_drab?page=1

v/r

Mike

Quote:

---

from Goesh
Calmer heads prevailed saying they probably couldn't build enough ships to get that many men over here in the first place but if they did, millions of Vets with deer rifles would be backing up our military on the beaches.

---

In some circles (not only gun controllers, but also at DHS), fears exist about those "millions of Vets with deer rifles" - and all the non-vets with deer rifles as well. There are also fears of another Tim McVeigh. And, perhaps, the rightwing extremist report was released in an attempt by DHS to "balance" its 2008 and 2009 reports on leftwing extremism - which have more substance.

See this thread for more discussion on the political spin; and this one for more on "leftwing extremism".

Some civilians see the military as people because they know them as people. Others see the military as stereotypes because they do not know them as people.

good points, JMM99. The VFW, the Legion, the DAV and Auxilaries and other lesser Veteran groups stand in sharp contrast to ELF and the Anarchists.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517233,00.html


WASHINGTON — For the first time, an accused domestic terrorist is being added to the FBI's list of "Most Wanted" terror suspects that includes Usama bin Laden.

Daniel Andreas San Diego, a 31-year-old computer specialist from Berkeley, California, is wanted for the 2003 bombings of two corporate offices in California.

Authorities describe San Diego as an animal rights activist who turned to bomb attacks and say he has a tattoo that proclaims, "It only takes a spark."

I may start sporting a tattoo that says, "It only takes 5 lbs of trigger pull."

Why is it absurd to consider that US combat veterans may possibily join right-wing militias? The Army has well known and long-time gang problem -- so what is the difference? I suspect there may be other stereotypes projected here that are unrecognized.

However, the analysis was poorly done and its release smacks of political games. Your points are accurate, so are those made in the analysis but releasing in the midst of all the Tea Party stuff, intentionally or not, politicized it. Dumb move by Napolitano -- who has now managed to attack Canada... :rolleyes:

would be "From a spark a fire will flare up" - Iskra (spark), transliterating the Russki.

Goesh - youse tough - 5 lbs pull. I'd be thinking more in terms of ounces or grams. But then, I'm just a BB-gunner at heart - and like me, the pieces are old. :D

Ken - Absolutely correct on the bad timing. The release also occured near in time to Pres. Obama's trip to Mexico where the transnational arms trade was a topic (not handled well with respect to factual accuracy) and his recommendation for adoption of the treaty with respect thereto (ATT - Arms Trade Treaty).

Perception can be reality even when not supported by facts. The Hollister riots were blamed on WW2 veterans on motorcycles. The motorcycling industry, after the infamous picture of a drunken (staged) biker, collapsed. Veterans were marginalized. In the 1970s "going postal" became a catch phrase and was often blamed on homicidal Vietnam veterans given preferential treatment entering the Post Office. A subtle misdirection ignoring management, issues with employment, substandard pay, and incidents contrary to the narrative.

I agree that it is not absurd that combat Vets could join radical right wing groups but the salient fact remains that the numbers of disconcerted Vets from the Viet Nam war did not swell the ranks of such groups and there can be no doubt some of their number could have been prime pickins' - a number of my generation got into Left leaning/anti-war type groups - and I would venture to say the number of disgruntled Nam vets far exceeds the current crop of combat Vets. A classic example of Vets going rogue is Gordon Kahl and the Possee Commatatus up in N. Dakota in 1983. He was a WW2 combat Vet and he killed 2 US Marshals and one other Lawman in Arkansas before they put him down for good.

As many of us on here are such, just a few thoughts:

1. What is the root cause that creates disgruntled Vets?
--- I have my own opinions, as do most of us, but wondering what others think is the main cause for this? Yes, everyone is different, but on some levels I think the root cause could be dwindled down to a few reasons, so why not fix those vs. lumping Vets into this?

2. Would returning Vets not be sought by all violent groups, those who want to increase their violent capabilities, or to learn countermeasures? Just a few examples but I think most get my point.

Then sometimes you gotta love the timing of things and how they all get spun by the media and politicians.
Marine with explosives
Fair report by AP at the link, but when googling it, there are numerous different tales told by the headlines.

I have to wonder, as standards are lowered or drafts are instituted how many more potential Vets become disgruntled? Is there a corelation?

This generalization could be boxed up with the civilian vs military perceptions. Unfortunately those few bad apples cause the generalization of the masses.

on both sides of the ideological divide. Some will join other groups that are not mainstream.

Most will not do those things. Well over 90% won't join anything that's too far out of the mainstream simply because they've already done their out of the mainstream thing.

The number who will join is directly proportional to the total number of veterans -- thus a draft might influence it but lowered entry standards will have little to no effect; in fact, those who tend to join fringe outfits are the sharper folks. The occasional dummy will get sucked in as a gofer but that's rare -- it's the guy or gal who believe they're smart who fall for it and join.

"2. Would returning Vets not be sought by all violent groups, those who want to increase their violent capabilities, or to learn countermeasures? Just a few examples but I think most get my point." (OBD)

If I were an extremist leader on either side, I would be very suspicious of any young Vet wanting to join up nor would I recruit them unless I had solid proof of an undesireable discharge. ELF geurrillas are not Vets and they have torched a lot of property and learned what they needed off the net.

and now I'm pissed off...

Returning vets... a threat??? Really???

Will some returning vets join fringe/extremist movements that MAY use violence as a means of expressing their displeasure with the current state of affairs??? Absolutely, but...

I would argue that the returning vet who does go that route, would have gone that route regardless of service to their nation... In fact I would argue that they join in spite of their service to the nation.

After some contemplative thought... the military de-radicalizes far more than it might radicalize... Imagine how things might be if millions in our society who served and seperated hadn't learned - teamwork, discipline, selfless service, and confidence - Now that is a scarry thought....

So yeah I'm pissed that our society/government has somehow lost such touch with what those members of their warrior tribe instill and hold dear...

Then again, as a former SAMS graduate and operational planner for two divisions and geographical command, I couldn't get a job with DHS/FEMA as an emergency crisis planner despite the fact that I had completed all the on-line course wear

To me a threat group is........a threat group. Right Wing or Left Wing or No Wing shouldn't have anything to do with it. Defining them in a public security report as Right or Left is just being inflammatory.

and I think you'll find my gripe was with the idea of identifying returning Vets as a threat... I suppose if you take a small enough sampling of any group you will find a percentage that might be "radicalized".

My beef is that they lumped vets in with either grouping...

Training does not make a person or group a threat, because if it does...

I want to raise a warning regarding individuals who have earned a black belt in the martial arts... these "bad" men and women who also possess discipline, physical toughness/courage, and the ability to defeat most others in hand-to-hand combat... it doesn't matter that their training includes the proper use of force and discipline... using the logic of DHS... these people possess abilities that when employed inappropriately could form a dangerous disenchanted group...

someone tell me the difference???

Ahhh.... I hate feeling this disillusioned with my government

"Have fun storming the castle" an homage to WM

It's derision.

Actually, I'm much more concerned over the bit in the report where they singled out those folks who believe in the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution is relevant as being "extremist" than their focus on veterans.

Apparently, the Constitution is a "radical, extremist, terrorist" document...

But the folks pushing this report have always seen the Constitution as an obstacle to their designs, haven't they?

A Simple Desultory Philippic (Or How I Was Robert McNamara'd Into Submission)

Quote:

---

I been Norman Mailered Maxwell Taylored
I been John O’Hara’d McNamara’d
I been Rolling Stoned and Beatled ‘til I’m blind
I been Ayn Randed nearly branded
Communist ‘cause I’m left handed
That’s the hand I use well never mind

I been Phil Spectored resurrected
I been Lou Adlered Barry Sadlered
Well I paid all the dues I want to pay
And I learned the truth from Lenny Bruce
And all my wealth won’t buy me health
So I smoke a pint of tea a day

I knew a man his brain so small
He couldn’t think of nothin’ at all
He’s not the same as you and me
He doesn’t dig poetry He’s so unhip that
When you say Dylan he thinks you’re talkin’ about Dylan Thomas
Whoever he was
But it’s alright ma
Everybody must get stoned

I been Mick Jaggered silver daggered
Andy Warhol won’t you please come home
I been mother fathered aunt and uncled
Roy Halleed and Art Garfunkled
I just discovered somebody’s tapped my phone

---

Emphasis added by the poster, not the songwriter.

You might get to hear it at this link

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ken White

Some veterans will be attracted by fringe groups on both sides of the ideological divide. Some will join other groups that are not mainstream.

Most will not do those things. Well over 90% won't join anything that's too far out of the mainstream simply because they've already done their out of the mainstream thing.

The number who will join is directly proportional to the total number of veterans -- thus a draft might influence it but lowered entry standards will have little to no effect; in fact, those who tend to join fringe outfits are the sharper folks. The occasional dummy will get sucked in as a gofer but that's rare -- it's the guy or gal who believe they're smart who fall for it and join.

---

Ken, you made the point more succinctly than did the authors of the "assessment" and certainly far more than have most of political prattle spewing out over this. One big problem, in my personal biased opinion, is the abysmal quality of the so-called analysis - as well as the perhaps non-existent editing and dissemination approval process - that went into the piece. Hell, I would have never let one of my guys publish crap like that - its distribution would be embarassing. As it has proved to be in this case; definitely far beyond what the authors ever expected.

Whether it was approved by the branch or the division chief for distro, it is still an extremely poor reflection upon the quality of the personnel (capabilities, training and management) at the Extremism and Radicalization Branch, Homeland Environment Threat Analysis Division of DHS - and, I would venture to say, the entire "intelligence" structure at DHS.

Instead of becoming a political football fueling juvenile partisan bickering, this should be focusing attention on our continuing true lack of a real domestic intelligence capability. A review by any intelligence professional of the DHS and Bureau "assessments" that have thus far been leaked reveals systemic issues with poor writing, weak and unsupported analysis and faulty judgments. For those with access, the view is worse.

Sure, there are some good intel people in both agencies - but they are in a tiny minority. Experienced intel guys tend to go to agencies and organizations that are really focused in their intelligence mission. And for the organizations in question, the effort to grow-their-own analysts clearly has not met the intent. Unless the problem is recognized for what it is - a substantive problem with training, managing, and maintaining analytic capabilities - it will never get fixed. We'll just keep seeing more poor quality reports leaked out to be twisted for political ends in this continuing bitterly partisan environment.

'Course I could also say that it might be because I went to school back when they were still educating kids instead of teaching them. Or that I had rudimentary training in analysis in the days when the object was to arrive at your own conclusion based on the information available instead of producing a socially correct fluff piece that did what someone thought someone else might have wanted (past tense advisedly as prediction is seemingly eschewed today; might err...). Or even that I try to pay attention to what's going on rather than trusting today's media and the blunderitocracy...

However, being a Southron Gennelman, I will of course not say those things. ;)

Seriously, you make valid points and the apparent lack of competence in the overall community is sometimes disheartening. Knowing a few, I realize there's a lot of competence out there in the field but some of our education and training practices seem not well thought out and some of the released -- and leaked -- products are worrisome. So is the leaking worrisome. My sensing is that the bottom rungs work as well as they can but other concerns intrude as one moves up the chain. Nothing new in that but it seems far worse than it used to be. Could be that I'm just old, out of it and grouchy. :wry:

On an allied note, I also remain concerned that the triple dilemmas of Political Correctness (of the day...), Partisan foolishness and the regrettable fact that the law enforcement establishment has the lead in our CT / CE efforts are not doing us any favors.

Ken makes me want to take a shot of Southern Comfort before I go to church. :eek:

Stick with Bourbon, you can't go wrong. I'm afraid if I went to church, the roof would probably fall in... :D

Any brown liqour.