Two more generals have been fired. Marine Generals.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
Like Tree13Likes

Two more generals have been fired. Marine Generals.

This is a discussion on Two more generals have been fired. Marine Generals. within the Military & Veterans forums, part of the Main Category category; Two more generals have been fired. Marine Generals. For failure to adequately protect a giant base in Southern Afghanistan from ...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cobbs Creek, VA
    Posts
    2,109

    Default Two more generals have been fired. Marine Generals.

    Two more generals have been fired. Marine Generals. For failure to adequately protect a giant base in Southern Afghanistan from attack. The first time, since the Vietnam war that 1 General, let alone 2, has been sacked for negligence after a successful enemy attack. Truth be told....they answered the question NO when it was preferred they said yes we will take up arms against Americans. There is a purpose for all these replacements...hussein is stacking OUR military with his terrorist brothers! or those who sympathize with them at the very least.

    Two Marine generals fired for security lapses in Afghanistan - The Washington Post
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Wisconsin
    Posts
    473

    Default

    Balderdash! These Marine Generals were not sacked because of any failure to say whether they would or would not "take up arms against Americans." They were sacked because of a failure of judgment in combat to take standard, prudent steps required in a combat zone to see that your position is not infiltrated, your men and materiel unnecessarily put at more risk. As a commander, you are responsible for everything that your command does or fails to do. If your staff failed, you failed. If your subordinate commanders fail, you have failed. It has always been this way, and needs to stay that way. The loss of a dozen Marines and an entire squadron of AV-8B Harriers was inexcusable under the circumstance in which it occurred. It was foreseeable, preventable with basic fundamental practices, and should not have happened.
    .
    By the way, the oath of office includes the phrase "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That phrase has never excluded Americans from being in a group against whom any oath taker might be asked to lawfully take up arms.
    Last edited by JCliff; 10-01-2013 at 03:29 PM. Reason: expand meaning

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    South Carolina/Charleston
    Posts
    2,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCliff View Post
    Balderdash! These Marine Generals were not sacked because of any failure to say whether they would or would not "take up arms against Americans." They were sacked because of a failure of judgment in combat to take standard, prudent steps required in a combat zone to see that your position is not infiltrated, your men and materiel unnecessarily put at more risk. As a commander, you are responsible for everything that your command does or fails to do. If your staff failed, you failed. If your subordinate commanders fail, you have failed. It has always been this way, and needs to stay that way. The loss of a dozen Marines and an entire squadron of AV-8B Harriers was inexcusable under the circumstance in which it occurred. It was foreseeable, preventable with basic fundamental practices, and should not have happened.
    .
    By the way, the oath of office includes the phrase "against all enemies, foreign and domestic." That phrase has never excluded Americans from being in a group against whom any oath taker might be asked to lawfully take up arms.
    Good answer--I am sure the thread writer was not expecting it. I hate this government and those governing it with a passion (exclusive of our military) and agree with your explanation of the firings and not the thread writer, even though I would not put it past our god king to make sure his behind is safe as he destroys this country. I can only dream that the portion of your reply "against all enemies, foreign and domestic" actually has some value when it comes to a moslem dictator wannabe who could not care less about the constitution, who is godles, who is a narcissist sociopath, and for all intents and purposes is a Manchurian Candidate.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Location
    Birch Bay, Washington, United States
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    Truth be told....they answered the question NO when it was preferred they said yes we will take up arms against Americans. There is a purpose for all these replacements...hussein is stacking OUR military with his terrorist brothers! or those who sympathize with them at the very least.
    Really brother?? Not plausible.

  5. #5
    dcselby1's Avatar
    dcselby1 is offline Denny
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Battle Creek Michigan
    Posts
    1,258

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    Two more generals have been fired. Marine Generals. For failure to adequately protect a giant base in Southern Afghanistan from attack. The first time, since the Vietnam war that 1 General, let alone 2, has been sacked for negligence after a successful enemy attack. Truth be told....they answered the question NO when it was preferred they said yes we will take up arms against Americans. There is a purpose for all these replacements...hussein is stacking OUR military with his terrorist brothers! or those who sympathize with them at the very least.

    Two Marine generals fired for security lapses in Afghanistan - The Washington Post
    So where do you come up with the assumption they were relieved for refusing to shoot Americans? I have not read that. Except here. From what I've read these two general officers were relieved for failure to properly secure their commands. I believed they were fired by their commander, as they should have been provided those charges are, in fact, true. Since they retired, I'm thinking that they agreed.
    Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia...Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

  6. #6
    S&W645's Avatar
    S&W645 is online now NRA Life Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    4,673

    Default

    My question is, is 0bama an enemy foreign or domestic? We know he is an enemy but how to classify him is the problem.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cobbs Creek, VA
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    Nobel Peace Prize Nominee: Obama Asks Military Leaders If They Will “Fire On US Citizens”
    By: Paul Joseph Watson
    2009 Nobel Peace Prize nominee Jim Garrow shockingly claims he was told by a top military veteran that the Obama administration’s “litmus test” for new military leaders is whether or not they will obey an order to fire on U.S. citizens.
    Garrow was nominated three years ago for the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize and is the founder of The Pink Pagoda Girls, an organization dedicated to rescuing baby girls from “gendercide” in China. Garrow has been personally involved in “helping rescue more than 36,000 Chinese baby girls from death.” He is a public figure, not an anonymous voice on the Internet, which makes his claim all the more disturbing.
    “I have just been informed by a former senior military leader that Obama is using a new “litmus test” in determining who will stay and who must go in his military leaders. Get ready to explode folks. “The new litmus test of leadership in the military is if they will fire on US citizens or not”. Those who will not are being removed,” Garrow wrote on his Facebook page, later following up the post by adding the man who told him is, “one of America’s foremost military heroes,” whose goal in divulging the information was to “sound the alarm.”
    Garrow’s claim is even more explosive given that the country is in the throes of a national debate about gun control, with gun rights advocates keen to insist that the founders put the second amendment in the Constitution primarily as a defense against government tyranny.
    It also follows reports on Sunday that General James Mattis, head of the United States Central Command, “is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned.”
    Concerns over US troops being given orders to fire on American citizens in the event of mass gun confiscation first arose in 1995 when hundreds of Marines at 29 Palms, California were given a survey as part of an academic project by Navy Lieutenant Commander Ernest Guy Cunningham which asked the Marines if they would, “Fire upon U.S. citizens who refuse or resist confiscation of firearms banned by the United States government.”
    The survey was subsequently leaked because many of the Marines who took it were shocked by the tone of the question.
    The US Military has clearly outlined innumerable civil emergency scenarios under which troops would be authorized to fire on U.S. citizens.
    In July 2012, the process by which this could take place was made clear in a leaked US Army Military Police training manual for “Civil Disturbance Operations” (PDF) dating from 2006. Similar plans were also outlined in an updated manual released in 2010 entitled FM 3-39.40 Internment and Resettlement Operations.
    The 2006 document outlines how military assets will be used to “help local and state authorities to restore and maintain law and order” in the event of mass riots, civil unrest or a declaration of martial law.
    On page 20 of the manual, rules regarding the use of “deadly force” in confronting “dissidents” on American soil are made disturbingly clear with the directive that a, “Warning shot will not be fired.”
    Given that second amendment advocates are now being depicted as dangerous terrorists by the federal government and local law enforcement, Garrow’s claim is sure to stoke controversy given that Americans are seeing their gun rights eviscerated while the federal government itself stockpiles billions of bullets.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cobbs Creek, VA
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    Two More Commanding Military Officials Suspended Pending Investigation Following Dismissal of Generals
    Posted by: Rick Wells
    The Army Times reports that two more high ranking military members, each with impressive resumes and service records, have been suspended from command duties during an ongoing investigation. That’s eleven this year, either suspended or dismissed, and it’s only October.

    No reason for the action was given other than “it is not related to criminal misconduct.”

    Have there been new “rules of engagement” for command issued? Are the players of old not melding with the rules of today?

    The latest to ride the bench are both members of the Army’s 143rd Expeditionary Sustainment Command, deployed to Camp Arifjan, Kuwait. One, Brig. Gen. Bryan W. Wampler, was the commanding general and the other, Command Sgt. Maj. Don b. Jordan, was the senior enlisted man. Major Thomas Campbell, spokesman for the 1st Theater Sustainment Command announced the suspensions effective October 10th.

    This comes on the heels of the firing of two of the generals who were guarding and securing our nuclear weapons.
    Campbell declined to comment on the ongoing investigation, other than his comment as to it not being related to any criminal misconduct.

    Something doesn’t seem quite right here. If there is no criminal investigation, then what are they investigating? Are they guilty of insensitivity to their pampered enemy, or some other insignificant violation? If the supposed offense is minimal, then why destroy the career and life of a loyal and capable member of the armed forces?

    With all of the recent military firings, there is a great deal of speculation of there being an intentional replacement of leadership, based upon new criteria, established by the Hussein Obama regime.

    The discussion centers around the existence and failure to pass a possible “litmus test” question of whether the service member would obey direct orders to fire on American citizens, in violation of their oath to the Constitution. Perhaps that kind of non-criminal misconduct is offensive in the new army and enough to get you relieved of duty.

    The Uniform Code of Military Justice provides the following protections to military officers:

    “804 ARTICLE 4. DISMISSED OFFICER’S RIGHT TO TRIAL BY COURT-MARTIAL

    01. General Provisions

    (a) If any commissioned officer, dismissed by order of the president, makes a written application for trial by court-martial setting forth under oath, that he has been wrongfully dismissed, the President, as soon as practicable, shall convene a general court-martial to try that officer on the charges on which he was dismissed.”

    I would love to see one of these guys take the Hussein Obama regime on and demand a trial for the supposed transgressions, calling witnesses and exposing any impropriety on the part of those responsible.

    That would take an extreme amount of courage and dedication and it might be more than one could be expected to voluntarily walk into, but if it were done, I can see the tremendous amount of heat being brought to bear on the villainous players in the matchup between patriot and despot.

    Given the value that many of these dismissed leaders put upon honor, I would not be surprised to learn that an application is already in the mail.
    [WATCH] Two More Commanding Military Officials Suspended Pending Investigation Following Dismissal of Generals - The Free Patriot
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Cobbs Creek, VA
    Posts
    2,109

    Default

    A little background on Obama 'gutting military' by purging generals
    By: F. Michael Maloof
    WASHINGTON – President Obama this year alone has fired some nine generals and flag officers, on top of at least four similar dismissals during his first term, suggesting that a purge may be the real reason behind the removals, which are being described as cases of personal misbehavior.

    Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, an outspoken critic of the Obama administration, claims it is part of Obama’s strategy to reduce U.S. standing worldwide.

    “Obama is intentionally weakening and gutting our military, Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged,” he charged.

    Duty personnel seem to back up this concern, suggesting that the firings are meant to send a message to “young officers down through the ranks” not to criticize the president or White House politics.

    “They are purging everyone, and if you want to keep your job, just keep your mouth shut,” one source said.

    The military is looked upon as one of the last bastions of conservative ideas, even though under the Obama administration, it, too, has become a testing ground for social experimentation. The efforts include openly homosexual behavior and women in combat.

    Three of the nine firings just this year were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sept. 11, 2012, attack on the U.S. special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

    In one case, U.S. Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded U.S. African Command when the consulate was attacked and four Americans were killed, was highly critical of the decision by the State Department not to send in reinforcements.

    Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements in the area that night.

    But Ham contends reinforcements could have been sent in time, and he said he never was given a stand-down order. However, others contend that he was given the order but defied it. He was immediately relieved of his command and retired.

    Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter – which remains under congressional investigation – was Rear Adm. Charles Gaouette. He commanded the Carrier Strike Group.

    He contends that aircraft could have been sent to Libya in time to help the Americans under fire. He later was removed from his post for alleged profanity and making “racially insensitive comments.”

    Army Major Gen. Ralph Baker was the commander of the Joint Task Force-Horn at Camp Lamar in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack.

    He was relieved of his command by Ham for allegedly groping a civilian. However, there has been no assault or sexual misconduct charge filed against him with the military Judge Advocates General’s Office.

    Six others were removed for a variety of alleged misconduct.

    Army Brig. Gen. Bryan Roberts, who took command of Fort Jackson in 2011, was relieved of duty and fired for alleged adultery. While the charge remains in the United States Code of Military Justice, it has rarely been used since the days of President Bill Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky.

    Roberts served in Iraq as commanding officer of the 2nd Brigade Combat Team. He was the deputy commanding general of the U.S. Army Recruiting Command at Fort Knox, Ky.

    Marine Corps Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant was director of Strategic Planning and Policy for the U.S. Pacific Command. He also was commander of the aviation wing at Camp Bastion, Afghanistan.

    Sturdevant was a highly decorated Marine with two Naval and Marine Commendations, two Naval and Marine Good Conduct medals and the Air Medal with a gold star.

    Sturdevant had complained about getting supplies to his command. Yet, he was one of two commanding officers fired from the military for alleged failure to use proper force protection at the camp after 15 Taliban fighters attacked the camp on Sep. 14, 2012, resulting in the deaths of two Marines.

    Marine Corps Major Gen. Charles M. M. Gurganus was regional commander in the Southwest and I Marine Expeditionary Force in Afghanistan. Gurganus had received the Defense Superior Service Medal, two Legion of Merit with Valor and three Meritorious Service Commendations.

    His indiscretion? Gurganus questioned having to use Afghan security patrols alongside American patrols after two of his officers were executed at their desk and a platoon was led into an ambush.

    Army Lt. Gen. David Holmes Huntoon Jr. served as the 58th superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y. While serving in Senior Planning and Education Services, he was “censored” for an investigation into an “improper relationship,” the Defense Department said. Yet, there was no mention on the nature of the improper relationship or whether an actual investigation ever took place.

    Navy Vice Adm. Tim Giardina was deputy commander of U.S. Strategic Command. He had served as commander of Submarine Group Trident, Submarine Group 9 and 10 where every one of the 18 nuclear submarines with nuclear trident missiles of those three groups came under his command.

    Among the commendations, Giardina earned six Legions of Merit, two Meritorious Service Medals and two Joint Service Commendation Medals. However, he was removed after coming under criminal investigation for the alleged use of counterfeit gambling chips while playing poker at a western Iowa casino.

    Air Force Maj. Gen. Michael Carey was commander of the 20th Air Force in which he oversaw almost 10,000 people and 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles at three operational wings. He also served in Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom.

    He was fired earlier this month for “personal misbehavior,” although no one is saying what that misbehavior was. His dismissal, however, came within 48 hours after Giardina was dismissed.

    During Obama’s first term, he also oversaw the firing of at least four other generals.

    Army Gen. David Petraeus, who retired to become the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, was pressured to leave that position after only a few months following allegations of adultery.

    Gen. John Allen was relieved of duty for “inappropriate communications” with a woman allegedly involved with Petraeus. However, he was promoted to head NATO, but decided to retire.

    Gen. Stanley McCrystal was fired by Obama for alleged comments he made in a Rolling Stone magazine article.

    Gen. David McKiernan was removed from his post while commander of the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan in 2009. He didn’t go along with a counterinsurgency strategy.

    He was replaced by McCrystal who did comply. However, Petraeus, who replaced McCrystal, reversed his restrictions on air power. Petraeus then was replaced by Allen, who abandoned counterinsurgency and refocused on training Afghans toward an orderly pullout by U.S. and NATO forces from Afghanistan.

    Read more at Obama ?gutting military? by purging generals
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Orchard Park NY
    Posts
    15
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Has anyone heard about the LITMUS Test. this is where officers are being asked by the obama administration if they would open fire on civilians and if they say no they are out of the military

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •