Matt Ortega

CBS News reported on an exclusive concerning the rise of gangs within the U.S. military. It is a truly shocking and disturbing trend likely brought on by the military’s decision to reduce enlistment standards due to poor recruitment numbers — a direct result of the unpopular Iraq War. (I know this first-hand, as I have long desired to serve my country but refuse to fight in an unjust war, and I know I am not the only one.)

The danger of these growing factions within the military is quite clear. Around this time last year, the New York Times reported in the rise of the Aryan Nations, and other hate groups, within the U.S. military. With young officers and soldiers — the backbone of our military’s future — leaving the military at such high levels, the armed forces will be continuously forced out of necessity to allow these criminals in their ranks. (The tragic irony is that self-preservation will beget the destruction of the military from within.)

Evidence of gang culture and gang activity in the military is increasing so much an FBI report calls it “a threat to law enforcement and national security.” The signs are chilling: Marines in gang attire on Parris Island; paratroopers flashing gang hand signs at a nightclub near Ft. Bragg; infantrymen showing-off gang tattoos at Ft. Hood. [emphasis added]

The deterioration of the military is a result of this tragic war that was reached from many, many different angles. This is just one of them. It makes you wonder just how long the military can hold before it begins to look like the cast of American History X.

My upbringing is such that I believe that there are certain things, certain types of conduct that are immoral. I believe that military members who sleep with other military members’ wives are immoral in their conduct, and that we should not tolerate that. I believe that homosexual acts between individuals are immoral, and that we should not condone immoral acts. So the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell allows an individual to serve the country, not — [inaudible] that allows individuals to serve their country. If we know about immoral acts, regardless of committed by who or — then we have a responsibility. And I do not believe that the Armed Forces of the United States are well served by saying through our policies that it’s okay to be immoral in any way, in any way, not just with regards to homosexuality. This is from that standpoint saying that gays should serve openly in the military to me says that we, by policy, would be condoning what I believe is immoral activity. And therefore, as an individual, I would not want that to be my policy, just like I would not want it to be our policy that, if were to find out that so-and-so was sleeping with someone’s wife, that we would just look the other way, which we do not. We prosecute that kind of immoral behavior between members of the Armed Forces.

–General Peter Pace, Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff
(Chicago Tribune, 03/12/07)

For the audio, listen here.

(Hat tip: Nico Pitney, Think Progress)

“We’ve got this thing that so many military believe that Republican administrations are good for the military. That is rarely the case. And, we have to get a message through to every soldier, every family member, every friend of soldiers that the Republican party, the Republican dominated Congress has absolutely been the worst thing that’s happened to the United States Army and the United States Marine Corps.”

–Major General Paul D. Eaton, U.S. Army (ret.)
(Real Time with Bill Maher, 03/09/07)

Eaton has two sons currently serving in the U.S. military. Think Progress notes from a recent Vanity Fair article:

“His new business cards say ‘consultant,’ primarily because he doesn’t know what else he now is. Since he spoke out, several possible defense-related jobs have mysteriously dried up. ‘Maybe it’s the way I part my hair,’ he says. In late January, his elder son, a 29-year-old Arabic linguist who is an army specialist, went to Afghanistan. His younger son, 27, an army captain who has already spent 14 months in Iraq, will probably go back before long.”

President Bush plans to expand the size of the military, the Washington Post reports. No specifics on numbers were discussed but the president acknowledged that the U.S. military is heavily strained.

President Bush said today that he plans to expand the size of the U.S. military to meet the challenges of a long-term global war against terrorists, a response to warnings that sustained deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the armed forces to near the breaking point.

In an interview with The Washington Post, Bush said he has instructed newly sworn-in Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates to report back to him with a plan to increase ground forces. The president gave no estimates about how many troops may be added but indicated that he agreed with suggestions in the Pentagon and on Capitol Hill that the current military is stretched too thin to cope with the demands placed on it.

There is Democratic support on the Hill for an expansion of the military.

The incoming chairman of the House Armed Services Committee spoke out forcefully today for increasing the size of the Army and Marines, noting that their leaders describe the services as “stretched and strained.” “We’re going to have to pay attention to this,” Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) told reporters. Saying the two services are “bleeding,” he added, “I think we have to apply the tourniquet and strengthen the forces. I think that will be a major part of our work.”

However, President Bush contines to be in a state of denial.

… Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell, a retired chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said on CBS’s “Face the Nation” on Sunday that “the active Army is about broken.”

[…]

Asked about Powell’s assessment, Bush chose a different term. “I haven’t heard the word ‘broken,’ ” he said, “but I’ve heard the word, ’stressed.’ . . . We need to reset our military. There’s no question the military has been used a lot.

It seems that Americans can add Sunday morning talk shows to the list of things President Bush doesn’t do.
President Bush is committing the same errors that exacerbated the extremist threat, as outlined in the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that said Iraq was a “cause célèbre.”

Updated 12/19/06 at 5:52pm: Atrios reminds us that co-chairman to the Iraq Study Group (and 9/11 Commission) Lee Hamilton said that the “next three months [in Iraq] are critical.”

The next three months are critical. Before the end of this year, this government needs to show progress in securing Baghdad, pursuing national reconciliation and delivering basic services.

That was three months ago. And Atrios astutely asks:

But, unsurprisingly, those things haven’t happened. So now what?

“Now what?” indeed.