So, “You take issue with the fact that I “would prefer to tacitly support an AFA agenda uncontested by the AOG.”” Well, I don’t buy that. Currently the AOG does tacitly support your position, which is made clear by your vocal support of DEI programs. The status quo serves your political ends perfectly. I suspect that if it did not, we would be hearing an alternate point of view.
I am not trying to rewrite the AOG bylaws in support of my political views, nor would I. I am not trying to repurpose the AOG into a mouthpiece to criticize the military for not conforming to my political views, nor would I. Seems like a very simple distinction to me.
You’re really caught up on the “no politics” aspect, and you refuse to acknowledge that the AOG is indeed involved in politics.
Sorry for being “caught up on” the clause of the bylaws that Unity is pretending to be focused on upholding in their attempt to undermine it.
I refuse to acknowledge that the AOG’s failure to loudly berate the military for enacting policies that some of us disagree with for political reasons means the AOG is “involved in politics.”
The military is rooted (at least since the 60s) in the implementation of political, social experiments. Some of good, some not so. The military is THE execution and testing ground of political, social agendas.
Interesting perspective. I have a slightly different take on that history.
The military became the segment of US society to take the lead on civil rights with desegregation beginning in 1948. This happened because Americans were disgusted by the mistreatment of Black soldiers returning from war to live under Jim Crow laws in the southern US.
Here are Truman’s words: “My stomach turned over when I learned that [Black] soldiers, just back from overseas, were being dumped out of army trucks in Mississippi and beaten. Whatever my inclinations as a native of Missouri might have been, as president I know this is bad. I shall fight to end evils like this.”
He believed enough Americans felt the same way that he could act to fight those evils and still win the next election. He was right, but just barely.
From Truman’s desegregation of the military in 1948 to the present, opponents of civil rights for disadvantaged minorities have consistently framed their objections to appear free of bigotry or bias. In the military, these objections have been presented as concerns about readiness, capability, morale, and recruitment, along with the claim that the military is no place for social engineering experiments. In the political sphere, the rhetoric has centered on reverence for the Constitution, states’ rights, property rights, individual freedoms, and the supposed threat of communism infiltrating civil rights movements.
Sadly, many well-intentioned people get caught up in the clever messaging that cloaks extremist beliefs in seemingly rational arguments.
Now, on a personal note, I get a good chuckle out of your description of my post as “enraged.”
In this entire thread there is only one instance of a reaction showing an emoticon of a person red-faced with fury. It’s your reaction to my first post here. Your chuckle seems a little strained.
It seems to me that you joined this forum for the expressed purpose of this topic and this topic alone. Your first post ever – on any topic thread – was here and it was all about “Orwellian” and “odious” fears you have and how you want people “drummed out” of the military. Who’s the enraged one? I think you’re a bit unsettled—and very politically driven.
Your posts show that you joined the site on September 17, 2024, and your first post in this thread was on September 17, 2024. I’m not sure what you’re accusing me of, but I can tell you exactly why my first post on this site was on this thread.
I read the mailing from Unity. I searched online for “AOG Unity slate” and found their site and this thread. I have already documented my reaction to their site and materials, and to their views, goals and methods.
I was alarmed at the attempted hijacking of the AOG. Then I looked here. I saw a site full of people connected to the Academy and I saw a person on that site who wanted to invite the hijackers on board and usher them to the cockpit. I saw that some people found this person’s arguments convincing.
This person was not only self-righteous, but also abusive, quick to attack the motives and integrity of anyone who might dare to disagree with him and his faction. For example, there was a post referencing fellow grad General Whiting “and his ilk” and accusing him of actions that were “despicable and cowardly.” There was also a disdainful dismissal of “what USAFA is matriculating now.”
I felt like someone had to offer a counterpoint to this arrogant, angry accessory to the hijacking attempt.
So, you see, Arbiter, you are the reason I posted here.
I will remain consistent and not attempt to obfuscate my political agenda. If that word upsets you, and it clearly does, please insert the word “principled.” It works. Perfectly.
Glad to hear it. What other military policies would you like the AOG to attack?
The amendments specify the entire Armed Forces as acceptable for targeting. The base naming issue often travels alongside demonization of DEI. Lohmeier has expressed his distaste for the renaming effort. Do you think we should revert Army base names back to honor great Confederate generals? Sure, they led armies trying to destroy the United States, but not at all for the preservation of the institution of race-based chattel slavery. It was all about their perfectly principled reverence for the Constitution, states’ rights, property rights, and individual freedoms (except for enslaved individuals).
Should the AOG advocate for restoring those base names in recognition of such inspiring integrity?
In what other ways might you and Unity want to use the AOG to support your perfectly principled political agenda?
