Thank you for the Coat of Arms information/link and also for Gilland's "clarification message". All the rest was in the original Breitbart article. On that note I want to point something out here...

Look carefully at the following statements from the Breitbart article --

"... Army Col. Terence Kelley, director of communications for West Point, said in a statement to Breitbart News:

Duty, Honor, Country is and always will be the motto of West Point. As we have done ten times in the past century, we have updated our mission statement, now including the Army Values, Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Integrity, and Personal Courage. ..."

"Duty, Honor, Country" -- Duty has apparently been preserved. Honor could, I suppose, be equated with Integrity. Where is Country?? Where. Is. Country.??. Perhaps I'm not the only one who noticed this glaring omission because, in the "clarification message" from Gilland that you provided, he felt a need to address this. Here's his comment on the matter --

"... The Army Values include Duty and Honor, and Country is reflected in Loyalty, bearing truth faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other Soldiers. ..."

Well, at least Country, our beloved country, the United States, gets a reflection and good on Gilland for adding "bearing truth faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution" (though I think he probably meant either "true faith" or "truth, faith", not "truth faith"). Real good for him to point to the Constitution. (And I certainly hope we're all referring to the same Constitution as I recall some talk in the past of an alternate).

Your question about just who these "external stakeholders" are is very important. I say this because this change to the Mission Statement to remove the motto and replace it with Army Values - which, in turn, include the nebulous "Loyalty" in place of Country - reeks of New World Order bullsh!t. The removal of Country reeks of NWO BS. Nice of Col. Kelley, the director of communications for West Point, to tell us what's been added/included; perhaps he can also address what's been removed.

We have a right to know exactly who these "external stakeholders" are. I'm guessing Gilland included that little nugget of information to signal that there are outside forces influencing decisions that are made in and for our military.

.

Your other point of the shift to "lifetime" from "career" is astute also - and one I missed as I was incensed that "Honor, Duty, Country" was removed from the Mission Statement. It's interesting, as you noted, to say the least. It's worth noting that many vets who weigh in on military matters on this board have it in their hearts that they take their oath of service most seriously and for life - as many have plainly stated. Our patriotic veterans and currently-serving servicemen and women are true warriors in heart and mind, honorable, brave and dedicated. Whatever games the evil swamp creatures have been and are playing with the military are not indicative of the heart and soul of our military patriots.

.

Finally, I added an edit to my above comment, but I want to reiterate my sentiment here as it's why I felt it was important to post this topic on the board -- Others are free to think that expressing outrage that "Duty, Honor, Country" is being removed from the Mission Statement is "click bait", but I'm of the mind that words matter and that the constant assault on both our language and our values by the evil swamp creatures should not now or ever be glossed-over or trivialized.

Thank you for the Coat of Arms information/link and also for Gilland's "clarification message". All the rest was in the original Breitbart article. On that note I want to point something out here...

Look carefully at the following statements from the Breitbart article --

"... Army Col. Terence Kelley, director of communications for West Point, said in a statement to Breitbart News:

Duty, Honor, Country is and always will be the motto of West Point. As we have done ten times in the past century, we have updated our mission statement, now including the Army Values, Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Integrity, and Personal Courage. ..."

"Duty, Honor, Country" -- Duty has apparently been preserved. Honor could, I suppose, be equated with Integrity. Where is Country?? Where. Is. Country.??. Perhaps I'm not the only one who noticed this glaring omission because, in the "clarification message" from Gilland that you provided, he felt a need to address this. Here's his comment on the matter --

"... The Army Values include Duty and Honor, and Country is reflected in Loyalty, bearing truth faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other Soldiers. ..."

Well, at least Country, our beloved country, the United States, gets a reflection and good on Gilland for adding "bearing truth faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution" (though I think he probably meant either "true faith" or "truth, faith", not "truth faith"). Real good for him to point to the Constitution. (And I certainly hope we're all referring to the same Constitution as I recall some talk in the past of an alternate).

Your question about just who these "external stakeholders" are is very important. I say this because this change to the Mission Statement to remove the motto and replace it with Army Values - which, in turn, include the nebulous "Loyalty" in place of Country - reeks of New World Order bullsh!t. The removal of Country reeks of NWO BS. Nice of Col. Kelley, the director of communications for West Point, to tell us what's been added/included; perhaps he can also address what's been removed.

We have a right to know exactly who these "external stakeholders" are. I'm guessing Gilland included that little nugget of information to signal that there are outside forces influencing decisions that are made in and for our military.

.

Your other point of the shift to "lifetime" from "career" is astute also - and one I missed as I was incensed that "Honor, Duty, Country" was removed from the Mission Statement. It's interesting, as you noted, to say the least. It's worth noting that many vets who weigh in on military matters on this board have it in their hearts that they take their oath of service most seriously and for life - as many have plainly stated. Our patriotic veterans and currently-serving servicemen and women are true warriors in heart and mind, honorable, brave and dedicated. Whatever games the evil swamp creatures have been and are playing with the military are not indicative of the heart and soul of our military patriots.

.

Finally, I added an edit to my above comment, but I want to reiterate my sentiment here as it's why I felt it was important to post this topic on the board -- Others are free to think that expressing outrage that "Duty, Honor, Country" being removed from the Mission Statement is "click bait", but I'm of the mind that words matter and that the constant assault on both our language and our values by the evil swamp creatures should not now or ever be glossed-over or trivialized.