Purge of Military Is Commander-in-Chief\’s Prerogative, Says Hagel
Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 1 Nov 2013 | John Semmens
Posted on Saturday, November 02, 2013 2:47:22 PM by John Semmens
The ultimate ass-kissing “political officer,” Dempsey “takes care” of his high-ranking pals while trying to destroy the careers of better men than he. A case in point is LTC Matt Dooley. More on him later on in this story.
GEN. WARD AND HIS WIFE LIVED “HIGH ON THE HOG”
A good example of Dempsey’s blatant double standard of justice is his attempt to get his pal, former Africa Command boss, Gen. William “Kip” Ward, out the back door, retired as a full four-star general. This, despite Ward being nailed in a Department of Defense I.G. investigation as having “engaged in multiple forms of misconduct related to official and unofficial travel.”
According to (shadowy anonymous blogger) Sorcha Faal the Russian military’s GRU foreign intelligence unit presented a report to Kremlin leadership late last month that said Obama removed one of the United States Navy’s most powerful admirals from his command (in the wake of Benghazi 9/11) specifically because he fears a military coup is being planned against him.
According to this report, yesterday (27 October) Obama ordered the immediate removal of Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette from his command of the powerful Carrier Strike Group Three (CSG-3) currently located in the Middle East.
CSG-3 is one of five US Navy carrier strike groups currently assigned to the US Pacific Fleet. US Navy carrier strike groups are employed in a variety of roles, which involve gaining and maintaining sea control and projecting power ashore, as well as projecting naval airpower ashore.
After numerous flips and flops by the Obama administration, which originally attempted to paint the incident as a Muslim outcry over an anti-Islamic video, whistle blowers throughout the U.S. government, including within the White House, the State Department, national intelligence agencies and the U.S.military have made available stunning details that suggest not only did operational commanders have live visual and audio communications from drones overhead and intelligence assets on the ground, but that some commanders within the military were prepared to go-it-alone after being told to “stand down.”
The latest hot rumor flying around the internet is that General Ham of Africon, whose departure was announced last week, was actually fired for attempting to buck Obama’s order not to rescue Ambassador Stevens.
He’s not exactly leaving early for his type of command, plus, he’s still in command, I have to assume, since his replacement still has to be confirmed by the Senate. Even if it’s an urban legend, it’s such a cool one that it’s kind of a duty to pass it on. Here’s the text most-often seen in emails, message boards and blog posts: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.
In the last few days, Obama administration officials have frequently faced the question: Is the fighting in Libya a war? From military officers to White House spokesmen up to the president himself, the answer is no. But that leaves the question: What is it?
In a briefing on board Air Force One Wednesday, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes took a crack at an answer. “I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone,” Rhodes said. “Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end.”
Rhodes’ words echoed a description by national security adviser Tom Donilon in a briefing with reporters two weeks ago as the administration contemplated action in Libya. “Military steps — and they can be kinetic and non-kinetic, obviously the full range — are not the only method by which we and the international community are pressuring Gadhafi,” Donilon said.
Rhodes and Donilon are by no means alone. “Kinetic” is heard in a lot of descriptions of what’s going on in Libya. “As we are successful in suppressing the [Libyan] air defenses, the level of kinetic activity should decline,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said in a meeting with reporters in Moscow Tuesday. In a briefing with reporters the same day from on board the USS Mount Whitney, Admiral Samuel Locklear, commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, said, “The coalition brings together a wide array of capabilities that allow us to minimize the collateral damage when we have to take kinetic operations.” On Monday, General Carter Ham, head of U.S. Africa Command, said of the coalition forces, “We possess certainly a very significant kinetic capability.” And unnamed sources use it too. “In terms of the heavy kinetic portion of this military action, the president envisions it as lasting days, not weeks,” an unnamed senior official told CNN Saturday.
Full story here.