So I've heard a lot of posturing from individuals who seem assured that those who swore to uphold the Constitution -- that is, Military men, active and retired alike -- would rush to the aid of the people should things go to shit, and tyranny reign.
Even alleged "Red Team Planners" claimed that in a Civil War event, you'd see a majority of the rank-and-file defect, especially if a Dem was in office.
I've even seen posts from plenty of alleged former military personnel who claim their duty is to the Constitution first.
But, the relatively benign event that was the brief and largely peaceful occupation of the Capitol Building (use their language against them, it does work) showed the true colors of men of this caliber in my mind.
A lot of calls for mass arrests, charging the protestors/rioters with terroristic actions, decrying the peoples' right to demonstrate their dissatisfaction with the government, seriously likening it to a coup. Calling the protestors morons and damning them with their words.
The thing is... the Military is the global enforcement arm of the US Government, and frankly these days we ain't fighting for freedom when we invade some shithole in the Middle East; it's an invasion to benefit the Military Industrial Complex, the Bankers, the Swamp, the Globalist power structure. To send young men out to kill and die to maintain instability and fill war chests under the guise of patriotism.
That later part isn't something you can discuss in public, especially given how deadset our society is in lionizing military service. But, have that mindset when you see a military man; realize that even if they declare otherwise, their allegiance probably doesn't sit as deeply with the people as even they may think.
It used to be we were told that if 10 men in uniform were told to fire on a crowd of protestors, you'd expect 7 of them to abstain; now, we'll be lucky if one does.
Counter-point: were the people saying these things active duty, or were they high level former generals who are all politics now?
Because I know people who are currently active duty, and they have pointed out that the current divide seems to be that the behind the lines types (or, to use their own language, "POGs and REMF") are the problem children when it comes to this sort of stuff, with it generally being the higher up the food chain you get the worse it gets. But the actual grunts are still largely against this shit and are liable to frag their officers before they carried out their orders if it came down to "The Igloo has been built and you have to go break it."
Because Mattis coming out as being one of the globalist types did something I never thought possible: broke his "Sainted of the Marines" status.
Is the officer corps cucked like this article says?
Wokeness Comes to West Point https://archive.vn/JBvbt
It's been cucked for way longer, woke-ism is just a symptom of a much worse disease.
The goal of many officers that enter the Army is to serve 20 years so they can earn a retirement. That means you have to make O-5 (unless you were prior-enlisted, which means you can retire at O-4), because the latest you can promote to O-5 is at 18 years.
Only 20% of all officers that enter the Army make O-5. Twenty. Percent. There's a decent amount of attrition after junior officers complete their initial contracts, and again at about 8 years by O-3s that can market their experience as a company commander to become a mid-level manager in the civilian sector. After that, it gets very cutthroat.
Promotions are determined by your officer evaluation reports (OERs). If you aren't "top block" on at least the evaluations for your time in leadership, don't expect to make O-4. If you aren't "top block" for the majority of your positions, don't expect to make O-5.
What this ends up causing is disgusting levels of brown-nosing. The only thing an individual officer is incentivized to care about is the opinion of their rater and senior rater. It can be made into a functional system if people in positions of authority genuinely believe in their mission and care about their subordinates, but if you allow a few shitbirds to rise through the ranks, the rest of it quickly topples.
My experience is relatively recent, so I don't know how far along the dominos were when I started to see it, but I can't help feeling it's quickly coming to a climax.
Some cops, former military (the bias is already there, though). Some prior service enlisted to mid-range officers. Some team guys. Just mixed posts from all walks of Military life.
I'm sure the brass are in full force with this rhetoric, but I expect nothing less, because once you're high enough it's all politics to get that rank, not ability.