A Reader With Military Experience Points Out That The Army's "Hate Group" Letter May Have Had Official Sanction
Print Friendly and PDF

Re: James Fulford's article Diversity Is Strength! It’s Also…Repression. And “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” (=Amnesty) Means More Of It.

From: A Reader With Recent Military Experience [Email him]

Having just returned from the successful American Renaisance conference last weekend, I find it ironic that I happened to have driven by Fort Campbell, Kentucky, where Lieutenant Colonel [LTC] Rich, author of the "hate group" e-mail, is stationed, on the way.

It was Friday afternoon around "close of business" (COB), as they usually call it in the Army. Ft. Campbell is a large installation and is home to the famed 101st Airborne Division. As the book Dirty Little Secrets of the Vietnam War points out, combat arms units tasked with doing the fighting in any conflict have traditionally been disproportionately white, while the units that provide support functions (personnel, quartermaster, finance, etc.) are skewed to minorities. The disparity arises because patriotic young white men join the Army looking for adventure, not planning on making a career of it, while the minorities in the support units enlist for job skills or the stability of a career in the Army.

During my drive through Clarksville, Kentucky, where Ft. Campbell is located, I was treated to the usual vibrancy as these soldiers made their way home. Booming stereos, shuffling figures crossing streets at will against traffic and absence of crosswalks, businesses and restaurants with signs written in foreign languages, and a general sense of seediness prevailed. While I am certain that there are echelons of the 101st where whites are the majority, the infrastructure in Clarksville reflected to the lifestyles of the constituents of the support units.

Scanning the names of LTC Rich's e-mail leads me to believe that he is a battalion commander. The absence of any other LTCs on the distribution, the presence of only a few majors who serve as battalion executive officer or S-3 (staff officer in charge of operations), the presence of many captains who act as company commanders or staff officers, and a great portion of lieutenants as platoon leaders support my conclusion.

Given the vibrancy of the names involved and the presence of women, I conclude that this is also a support unit of some sort.

What has me troubled is that the good lieutenant colonel, in his culling of the SPLC website, has chosen to preface each of the plagiarized statements with "(U)." This symbol indicates that the following passage is unclassified. Its use in a typical work e-mail is unusual. This symbol is more typically found in official operational documents generated for Army use and for long-term archival.

The use of this symbol by LTC Rich leads me to suspect one of two things:

  1. Somewhere there is an "official" Army document, rather than simply an e-mail, where this SPLC-written garbage is accorded the status of doctrine and that LTC Rich cut and pasted from this document; or
  2. LTC Rich, in an effort to give credence, officiousness, and the appearance of Army sanction for his SPLC crib notes, simply added the (U) symbols as a prefix.

I suspect that Option 1 is probably the case. The Army has a massive Equal Employment Opportunity infrastructure to act as the emulsifier between groups that are otherwise immiscible.

I would not put it past somebody somewhere in the Army's Equal Opportunity Stasi to have produced a helpful handbook on "extremism" for leaders to draw their talking points from, in the style of this publicly available official document: Commander’s Equal Opportunity Handbook, Training Circular No. 26-6, Headquarters, Department Of The Army, Washington,D.C.,April 1, 2005. [PDF]

This incident should be the subject of an official investigation (military or Congressional) to find out where LTC Rich sourced the material for his e-mail.

The writer is more anonymous than usual.

Print Friendly and PDF