The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: santahog on October 31, 2012, 04:16:39 AM
-
I know I must've posted this the other day but I can't remember where.
Just to be on the safe side, this is following up on the one that spun me directly into outer frickin space the other day..
************
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/
TRR: Is a General losing his job over Benghazi?
By James S. Robbins - The Washington Times
October 28, 2012, 12:32AM
See also the update that General Ham is retiring from the force.
(Updated 10/29) Is an American General losing his job for trying to save the Americans besieged in Benghazi? This is the latest potential wrinkle in the growing scandal surrounding the September 11, 2012 terrorist attack that left four men dead and President Obama scrambling for a coherent explanation.
On October 18, Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta appeared unexpectedly at an otherwise unrelated briefing on “Efforts to Enhance the Financial Health of the Force." News organizations and CSPAN were told beforehand there was no news value to the event and gave it scant coverage. In his brief remarks Mr. Panetta said, "Today I am very pleased to announce that President Obama will nominate General David Rodriguez to succeed General Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command.” This came as a surprise to many, since General Ham had only been in the position for a year and a half. The General is a very well regarded officer who made AFRICOM into a true Combatant Command after the ineffective leadership of his predecessor, General William E. "Kip" Ward. Later, word circulated informally that General Ham was scheduled to rotate out in March 2013 anyway, but according to Joint doctrine, "the tour length for combatant commanders and Defense agency directors is three years." Some assumed that he was leaving for unspecified personal reasons.
However on October 26, "Ambassador" posted the following RUMINT on TigerDroppings (h/t Jim Hoft):
I heard a story today from someone inside the military that I trust entirely. The story was in reference to General Ham that Panetta referenced in the quote below.
quote:
"(The) basic principle is that you don't deploy forces into harm's way without knowing what's going on; without having some real-time information about what's taking place," Panetta told Pentagon reporters. "And as a result of not having that kind of information, the commander who was on the ground in that area, Gen. Ham, Gen. Dempsey and I felt very strongly that we could not put forces at risk in that situation."
The information I heard today was that General Ham as head of Africom received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down. His response was to screw it, he was going to help anyhow. Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command.
The story continues that now General Rodiguez would take General Ham's place as the head of Africom.
This version of events contradicts Mr. Panetta’s October 25 statement that General Ham advised against intervention. But so far there is nothing solid to back it up. Maybe Ham attempted to send a reaction force against orders, or maybe he simply said the wrong thing to the wrong people. Perhaps he gave whomever he was talking to up the chain a piece of his mind about leaving Americans to die when there was a chance of saving them. At the very least U.S. forces might have made those who killed our people pay while they were still on the scene. The Obama White House is famously vindictive against perceived disloyalty – the administration would not let Ham get away with scolding them for failing to show the leadership necessary to save American lives. The Army's ethos is to leave no man behind, but that is not shared by a president accustomed to leading from that location.
The question remains why the repeated requests – which is to say desperate pleas – to send a relief force were refused. Perhaps Mr. Obama and his national security brain trust thought the terrorist assault would be a minor skirmish and quickly blow over. When it became clear that the attack was something more serious, they may have had visions of the rescue team getting involved in a Mogadishu-like firefight, a “Blackhawk Down 2.” This would have been too much for the risk-averse Mr. Obama, particularly in a Muslim country, and less than two months before the election. Instead they simply watched the live video hoped for the best. If there were American fatalities, they felt they could shift blame for the circumstance to the supposed Youtube video which they had already blamed for the riot at the U.S. Embassy in Cairo hours earlier. In fact the Embassy had sent out its “apology” tweets even before the Cairo riot commenced.
Hillary Clinton’s freakishly bizarre statement on September 14 is also worth noting. At a memorial service to the fallen she told Charles Woods, father of slain former Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, that “we will make sure that the person who made that film is arrested and prosecuted." In that situation one would expect her to vow to take down the terrorists who killed Tyrone, not the supposed instigator of the spontaneous mob action that never happened.
But since when does the Secretary of State feel it is her duty to promise to have an American filmmaker who has committed no crime arrested? For all the bowing and scraping to Islam that has gone on in the last four years, blasphemy against that or any other faith is still not illegal in this country. The First Amendment still exists. It is strange that Mrs. Clinton believed that the parents of the slain Americans would empathize with her outrage at the filmmaker, rather than reserve their anger for the extremists who actually did the killing. But as Mr. Woods said, he "could tell that she was not telling me the truth." Indeed the truth has been the fifth casualty in this entire tragic affair.
UPDATE: On Sunday October 28 I received the following communique from Pentagon Press Secretary George Little:
"The insinuations in your story are flat wrong. General Ham is an outstanding leader of AFRICOM. Future leadership changes at this important command have absolutely nothing to do with the attack on American personnel in Benghazi. The leadership changes have been long planned."
Of course I never suggested that General Ham was anything other than an outstanding leader of AFRICOM and in fact said as much. But why is an outstanding leader of this important command leaving after less than two years when all other combatant commanders have longer tenures? General Ham's predecessor stayed in the job much longer and was generally less well regarded. Further discussion of these issues may help begin to restore the administration's credibility on the Benghazi issue.
UPDATE 2: On Monday October 29 General Martin Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chief of Staff, released the following statement:
"The speculation that General Carter Ham is departing Africa Command (AFRICOM) due to events in Benghazi, Libya on 11 September 2012 is absolutely false. General Ham's departure is part of routine succession planning that has been on going since July. He continues to serve in AFRICOM with my complete confidence."
-
Anyone watching Last Resort ?
-
Anyone watching Last Stand ?
How about Rules of Engagement?
-
Is anything known about the health of the General and his immediate family ?
That is my first thought for "personal reasons".
Otherwise I suspect purge.
Who was the Admiral in the Med that was relieved that MB mentioned in his podcast ?
-
... Who was the Admiral in the Med that was relieved that MB mentioned in his podcast ?
http://centurylink.net/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA25UFI00%40news.ap.org%3E&ps=1011
Navy replaces admiral leading Mideast strike group
By ROBERT BURNS AP National Security Writer The Associated Press
Saturday, October 27, 2012 5:36 PM EDT
WASHINGTON (AP) — The U.S. Navy said Saturday it is replacing the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, pending the outcome of an internal investigation into undisclosed allegations of inappropriate judgment.
Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette is being sent back to the USS John C. Stennis' home port at Bremerton, Washington state, in what the Navy called a temporary reassignment. The Navy said he is not formally relieved of his command of the Stennis strike group but will be replaced by Rear Adm. Troy M. Shoemaker, who will assume command until the investigation is completed.
It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment.
The Navy did not reveal details of the allegations, citing only an accusation of "inappropriate leadership judgment" that arose during the strike group's deployment to the Middle East. Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's chief spokesman, declined to discuss the investigation.
The Stennis group deployed from Bremerton in late August and had entered the Navy 5th Fleet's area of operations in the Middle East on Oct. 17 after sailing across the Pacific. The Stennis made port visits in Thailand and Malaysia on its way to the Middle East.
It deployed four months earlier than scheduled in response to a request by the commander of U.S. Central Command, Marine Gen. James Mattis, to maintain two aircraft carriers in the Middle East. The Stennis replaced the USS Enterprise carrier group.
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta visited the Stennis and its sailors in Bremerton shortly before they departed. He thanked them for accelerating their deployment on short notice.
"I understand that it is tough," Panetta said. "We are asking an awful lot of each of you, but frankly you are the best I have and when the world calls we have to respond."
-
The Navy makes just weird personnel decisions.
How anyone makes it to O-4 and above, I'll never know?
-
I just happen to have the Navy Times article about "toxic leaders" here at my desk. Four of 15 COs fired this year were due to unfair treatment of subordinates, commonly referred to as "poor command climate." One of the Skippers pointed a loaded M( at crewmwmbers during a security drill. I'm sure they'll have an article on the ADM and why he was transferred shortly
-
My take is that the General and the Admiral were relieved because they disobeyed WH/Pentagon orders to stand down during the Benghazi attack on the consulate, and were preparing intervention teams when relieved.
Now, the public reason that the Pentagon trots out to smear them - well, who knows, but it will be ugly. And they will smear them.
-
Used to be a time when "Command decisions" were left to the Commander on the ground.
Apparently that is no longer the case.
-
Maybe BHO should put down Alinsky long enough to read Sun Tzu?
-
Maybe BHO should put down Alinsky long enough to read Sun Tzu?
I would prefer if my enemies hadn't read either one of them, they are somewhat interchangable and I would bet that along with Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, and Mao, Alinsky did indeed read Sun Tzu.
-
..................................
I'm sure they'll have an article on the ADM and why he was transferred shortly
Maybe you can post that for us. I would also want to know who his direct boss was and what legislator got his boss the appointment. Of course, we all know that doesn't matter, right? There aren't any "yes boys" who focus on career advancement in the military....right?
-
Maybe BHO should put down Alinsky long enough to read Sun Tzu?
No.. He needs to trot his narrow hind end out to meet with the people he was sending that Ambassador out to do his business with, and do what he seems so ready to have done for him.. >:( >:( >:(
-
No.. He needs to trot his narrow hind end out to meet with the people he was sending that Ambassador out to do his business with, and do what he seems so ready to have done for him.. >:( >:( >:(
What's that ?
Kiss some more Muslim azz ?
-
Maybe you can post that for us. I would also want to know who his direct boss was and what legislator got his boss the appointment. Of course, we all know that doesn't matter, right? There aren't any "yes boys" who focus on career advancement in the military....right?
In the mean time read this one...
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/11/general-failure/309148/?single_page=true
-
Thanks for posting that J.
Seems to me that 3 of the biggest problems with modern military leadership are,
1) the military Branches are not corporations and cannot be "managed" as if they were.
2) The current mindset of the officer corps is more focused on "ticket punching" than on destroying the enemies will and ability to resist.
3) You can not achieve victory until you can define it in one short sentence.
-
This appears to be no more than an observation, but damned if it doesn't fit as well as anyghint with what we know so far..
(I don't suspect that the author is suggesting that the sinking of HMS Bounty during the storm is what he was thinking here..)
http://teapartyorg.ning.com/forum/topic/show?id=4301673%3ATopic%3A1084086&xgs=1&xg_source=msg_share_topic
US military planned mutiny on the Bounty to topple Obama
Posted by Ralph E Wall,Sr,Admin on November 1, 2012 at 2:37pm in Tea Party
View Discussions
Today, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette was “fired” from his command of one of the three carrier battle groups back to Bremerton, Washington to face an investigation.
It is impossible to adequately state how unusual this is and how serious.
The Navy was clear that the charges had nothing to do with his personal conduct, no rape or sexual misconduct, no stolen money, no drug use, the things that usually bring down in the Navy, that and crashing ships into each other.
Gaouette was sent back because the Secretary of Defense found him unfit for command, sent him across the world in the middle of one of the largest combat exercises in history, one both timed prior to an election and one at a critical location, near the Straits of Hormuz in the Persian
Gulf.
Gaouette commanded nearly one third of the Naval and air combat forces in the region.
The decision was made based on a conversation with the Secretary of Defense who, at the end of the talk, believed Gaouette was part of a group of military officers who have been under suspicion for planning a “Seven Days in May” type overthrow of the US government if President Obama is re-elected.
-
You need to find better sources Santahog. A forum post with no way to verify its veracity to implicate a Carrier Strike Group Commander in a possible coup attempt? Really?
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2012/10/navy-stennis-carrier-strike-group-commander-sent-home-charles-gaouette-102712w/
"Inappropriate leadership judgement" usually means actions like purposely putting your ship on a collision course with another, taking undue risk or simply bad desicion making.
-
"Inappropriate leadership judgement" usually means actions like purposely putting your ship on a collision course with another, taking undue risk or simply bad desicion making.
Or cussing out a superior when you are refusing to stand down and calling them out on leaving people behind?
-
"Inappropriate leadership judgement" would be exactly what would be charged if the "coup" charge were correct.
It gets him into custody with out the absolute uproar that would occur if the actual facts became public.
The article Santahog linked listed no sources, how ever it restores my hope that at least some of our military leadership place greater emphasis on their duty, and their oath to the Constitution than on enhancing their careers .
It would not be the first time that US Naval Officers knowingly sacrificed their careers in the name of America.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolt_of_the_Admirals
The Revolt of the Admirals is a name given to an episode that took place in the late 1940s in which several United States Navy admirals and high-ranking civilian officials publicly disagreed with the President and the Secretary of Defense's strategy and plans for the military forces in the early Post-War period.
-
C'mon guys. Those Admirals and Generals were just betting on the next Kentucky Derby, conducting a pool in all innocence. That's not Seven Days in May, is it? Hmmm, should we check to see if EComCon set up on Mt Weather? Besides, if there is going to be a military coup in this country, it's gonna stem from the Chiefs and Sargeants not the Admirals and Generals who are part of the problem. Like the scuttlebut though so let's break out a keg of rum and celebrate.
-
Disagreeing with policy and sending letters to newspapers and Congress is not even in the same league as mutiny and coups.
BTW, the other senior leaders that were fired for the same blanket reason tended to be sent packing for hazing, or allowing hazing to contiue. The latest was at RTC Great Lakes. The RDCs, while not the CO or a CSG, PT'd recruits in a locked room for almost an hour while forcing them to drink excessive amounts of water causing at least 10 recruits to vomit or urinate on themselves. Six RDCs are facing Courts Martial and I'd bet the CO will also retire.