It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum

Topics => Military News/Veterans => Topic started by: BigAlSouth on October 28, 2012, 01:15:52 PM

Title: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: BigAlSouth on October 28, 2012, 01:15:52 PM
http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazis-smoking-gun-obama-replaces.html (http://astuteblogger.blogspot.com/2012/10/benghazis-smoking-gun-obama-replaces.html)

Quote
BENGHAZI'S SMOKING GUN: OBAMA REPLACES AFRICOM'S COMMANDER
VIA GLENN REYNOLDS:

AS THE RETIRED MILITARY MAN WHO CALLED INTO RUSH EARLIER IN THE WEEK RELATED, AFRICOM HAS RESPONSIBILITY FOR LIBYA - AND, (AS ALL REGIONAL COMMANDS HAVE), HAD A RAPID RESPONSE FORCE READY TO INSERT INTO BENGHAZI.

NOW COMES NEWS THAT ON THE 18TH OF OCTOBER, OBAMA OFFICIALLY RELIEVED THE AFRICOM COMMANDER WHO WAS IN COMMAND ON 9/11/12 - GENERAL HAM, AND REPLACED HIM WITH GENERAL RODRIGUEZ.

THE RUMOR IS THAT WHEN GENERAL HAM RECEIVED THE ORDER FROM WASHINGTON TO STAND DOWN, HE DISOBEYED THE ORDER AND COMMANDED HIS FORCE TO TAKE ACTION TO SAVE THE AMBASSADOR.

AND THEN HIS SECOND IN COMMAND COUNTERMANDED HAM'S ORDER, OBEYED WASHINGTON AND MADE THE FORCE STAND DOWN.

IF THIS IS TRUE, THEN IT LEADS DIRECTLY TO PANETTA AND DEMPSEY AND THE WHITE HOUSE.

STAY TUNED.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: BigAlSouth on October 28, 2012, 01:23:21 PM
SECDEF Panetta weighs in:

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 said, according to The Associated Press. “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.”

They why "retire" Gen. Ham, Mr. Secretary?
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 28, 2012, 01:27:23 PM
Farging bastages!  If your getting sacked anyway I sure would like to see the General speak out!

We all know Obama made the call, stop effing lying to us!  Somebody tell the damned truth!
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: charlesoakwood on October 28, 2012, 03:23:07 PM

Well, the CIC must be certain flag officers obey every command.  Jano?

Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Pandora on October 28, 2012, 03:30:03 PM
Quote
AND THEN HIS SECOND IN COMMAND COUNTERMANDED HAM'S ORDER, OBEYED WASHINGTON AND MADE THE FORCE STAND DOWN.

Sonofa ....... then the head of this "perfumed prince" needs to roll as well.

Goldammy!
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Glock32 on October 28, 2012, 03:33:58 PM
Our system is at a breaking point. Civilly, militarily, culturally, it's all breaking down. Right now we are witnessing a government whose operating principle is "oh yeah? watch us". And so we do. And point impotently at words on parchment as if they have some intrinsic power.

"Just following orders" was not an excuse for the Nazis, and it won't be for anyone else either.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 28, 2012, 03:36:05 PM
Quote
AND THEN HIS SECOND IN COMMAND COUNTERMANDED HAM'S ORDER, OBEYED WASHINGTON AND MADE THE FORCE STAND DOWN.

Sonofa ....... then the head of this "perfumed prince" needs to roll as well.

Goldammy!

Yeah.  But we both know he'll be slated for fast-track to the top if Obama stays in power.  Mindlessly following orders that kill our own people is a career enhancer for Obamians.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 28, 2012, 03:38:58 PM
Our system is at a breaking point. Civilly, militarily, culturally, it's all breaking down. Right now we are witnessing a government whose operating principle is "oh yeah? watch us". And so we do. And point impotently at words on parchment as if they have some intrinsic power.

"Just following orders" was not an excuse for the Nazis, and it won't be for anyone else either.

Yes, I guess the concept of lawful orders, ethics and consequences is deleted from leadership matriculation.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: BigAlSouth on October 28, 2012, 06:23:39 PM
From Free Republic:

Quote
The latest rumor making the rounds is that Barack Obama replaced General Carter Ham at Africom after the general made a move to help the US security officials at the Benghazi consulate and annex. Ham was replaced by Gen. David Rodriquez on October 18. Tiger Droppings reported:

The information I heard today was that General [Carter] 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.

Sure enough Obama nominated Gen. David Rodriguez to replace Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command. The Stars and Stripes reported:

President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.

Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.

Rodriguez is the commander of U.S. Army Forces Command and has served in a “variety of key leadership roles on the battlefield,” Panetta said.

He’s “a proven leader” who oversaw coalition and Afghan forces during the surge in Afghanistan, and “was the key architect of the successful campaign plan that we are now implementing,” Panetta said.

In announcing Ham’s successor, Panetta also praised the work Ham has done with Africa Command.

“Gen. Ham has really brought AFRICOM into a very pivotal role in that challenging region,” Panetta said. “I and the nation are deeply grateful for his outstanding service.”

Hat Tip Tom

More… The Obama Administration also relieved the admiral in command of an aircraft carrier strike group in the Middle East, Rear Adm. Charles M. Gaouette. It is highly unusual for the Navy to replace a carrier strike group commander during its deployment. The Stars and Stripes reported:

The 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, Wash., 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.

Ace of Spades says the move to replace Rear Adm. Charles Baouette is likely not related to Benghazi.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2951223/posts (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2951223/posts)
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: BigAlSouth on October 28, 2012, 06:45:38 PM
We will find out AFTER the election why Gen, Carter Ham was sacked. I did find this little nugget over at Gateway Pundit:

Quote
President Barack Obama will nominate Army Gen. David Rodriguez to succeed Gen. Carter Ham as commander of U.S. Africa Command and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta announced Thursday.

Both appointments must be confirmed by the Senate.

Gen. Rodriguez will be required to testify UNDER OATH. This is gonna get really, really good, whether or not Pres. Choom wins a second term.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: charlesoakwood on October 28, 2012, 06:53:09 PM

"and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps"

Air Force? Air Force? Air Force?
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: charlesoakwood on October 28, 2012, 08:16:24 PM

This (http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1621.htm) is an entertaining read.

This GRU (Foreign Military Intelligence Main Directorate - Russia) report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette’s firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to “assist and provide intelligence for” American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
 
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 29, 2012, 07:23:49 AM

This (http://www.whatdoesitmean.com/index1621.htm) is an entertaining read.

This GRU (Foreign Military Intelligence Main Directorate - Russia) report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette’s firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to “assist and provide intelligence for” American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
 

I am not sure the GRU is my go-to source in many things, but in this case I think there is a strong likelihood that my suspicions were correct, notwithstanding the GRUs fantasy headline of a brewing military coup, hyperbople to be sure, the kind of coup needed I doubt there are flag officers with stones big enough to carry it thorugh.

Many sites seem to be fired up about this.  The Gen. Ham situation is definitely a big eff'n deal, the Admiral issue is still clouded.

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/benghazi-coverup-scandal-obama-regime-getting-rid-of-military-brass-to-hide-scandal/ (http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/benghazi-coverup-scandal-obama-regime-getting-rid-of-military-brass-to-hide-scandal/)

http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/benghazi-coverup-scandal-obama-regime-canning-military-brass-uss-stennis-rear-admiral-charles-m-gaouette/ (http://twg2a.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/benghazi-coverup-scandal-obama-regime-canning-military-brass-uss-stennis-rear-admiral-charles-m-gaouette/)

http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/27/questionable-reports-africom-general-ham-and-rear-admiral-gaouette-replaced-rumored-cover-connection-to-benghazi-slaughter/ (http://theconservativetreehouse.com/2012/10/27/questionable-reports-africom-general-ham-and-rear-admiral-gaouette-replaced-rumored-cover-connection-to-benghazi-slaughter/)

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/top-africom-leader-general-carter-ham-was-never-ordered-to-save-us-men-in-benghazi-video/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/10/top-africom-leader-general-carter-ham-was-never-ordered-to-save-us-men-in-benghazi-video/)

The issue of the Stennis being transitioned from the 3rd Fleet (West Cost) to 7th Fleet W.Pacific on 9-11 may or may not be an issue.  Certainly the "flash" traffic that day would not have been missed by the Stennis battle group, so it is entirely possible the Admiral may have said something to warrant the attention of pencil-pushing political weanies back in DC.  You just do not recall a strike commander mid-deployment for no damn reason!  And it was not announced he was releived until on station in the North Arabian Sea when Stennis relieved Enterprise, so some continuing "chatter" of the Benghazi affair could have taken place.  Perhaps it was the sacking of Gen. Ham that pushed the Admiral to do/say something.  I still say there is a very strong possibility the two cases are connected.  And it appears Obama is using force to quash all loose talk until the election is over, or perhaps permanently.  Congress needs to get Ham & Gaouette depositioned ASAP or whatever cover up Obama is up to will be locked down!

So far all we have is talk out of pol's!

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/republicans-tee-libya_658031.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/republicans-tee-libya_658031.html)

 ::cussing::  talk! ANybody can do that!  I want ACTION  goldammy!!!   ::outrage::   ::angry::   ::gaah::  ::gaah::  ::gaah::

Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: BigAlSouth on October 29, 2012, 08:47:01 AM
OK. Nothing will happen prior to election. MSM will play "keep away" and not even discuss this.

I hope John "pink undies" McCain will grow some stones and play hard ball for the next ten days. Or Lindsay.

(Sheesh, is this the best we got or does the MSM know what a couple of panty waists JM and LG are.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 29, 2012, 11:22:03 AM
OK. Nothing will happen prior to election. MSM will play "keep away" and not even discuss this.

I hope John "pink undies" McCain will grow some stones and play hard ball for the next ten days. Or Lindsay.

(Sheesh, is this the best we got or does the MSM know what a couple of panty waists JM and LG are.

I guess the MFM would rather risk having the First Black Prez impeached and removed in a second term than have the truth come out now that could avoid that mess, the MFM being ever so concious of what is always in the best interest of the nation, dontchyaknow?!

/
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: charlesoakwood on October 29, 2012, 11:25:56 AM

The storm will help him disappear this dust up.
 
And I suspect, "and Marine Lt. Gen. John Paxton to succeed Gen. Joseph Dunford as assistant commandant of the Marine Corps", also, is part of his problem.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Alphabet Soup on October 29, 2012, 11:27:25 AM
From Charles's conservativetreehouse link:
Quote
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.

This one hit me like a brick. Think about it for a moment. You're not a privileged member of the inner circle but you are a high-ranking officer and an important player in our military. Your record is spotless and you are highly regarded by all around you.  If you were to disobey a direct order from your boss, how long do you suppose it would take for him to respond, and in what way do you suppose it would come? How about if he was on the other side of the world? 30 seconds to a minute?!

IMO, what this means is that they were primed for him (General Ham) to disobey and had prepped his 2nd in command to relieve him. There is not a single time in the Øbozo regime where they have acted so quickly or so resolutely. Never. What does this tell you about where their collective heads are at (besides up their own butts)?

I hope to God to hear more from General Ham.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Pandora on October 29, 2012, 11:32:56 AM
From Charles's conservativetreehouse link:
Quote
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.

This one hit me like a brick. Think about it for a moment. You're not a privileged member of the inner circle but you are a high-ranking officer and an important player in our military. Your record is spotless and you are highly regarded by all around you.  If you were to disobey a direct order from your boss, how long do you suppose it would take for him to respond, and in what way do you suppose it would come? How about if he was on the other side of the world? 30 seconds to a minute?!

IMO, what this means is that they were primed for him (General Ham) to disobey and had prepped his 2nd in command to relieve him. There is not a single time in the Øbozo regime where they have acted so quickly or so resolutely. Never. What does this tell you about where their collective heads are at (besides up their own butts)?

I hope to God to hear more from General Ham.

I want to know who this "second in command" is.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 29, 2012, 11:40:11 AM
From Charles's conservativetreehouse link:
Quote
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.

This one hit me like a brick. Think about it for a moment. You're not a privileged member of the inner circle but you are a high-ranking officer and an important player in our military. Your record is spotless and you are highly regarded by all around you.  If you were to disobey a direct order from your boss, how long do you suppose it would take for him to respond, and in what way do you suppose it would come? How about if he was on the other side of the world? 30 seconds to a minute?!

IMO, what this means is that they were primed for him (General Ham) to disobey and had prepped his 2nd in command to relieve him. There is not a single time in the Øbozo regime where they have acted so quickly or so resolutely. Never. What does this tell you about where their collective heads are at (besides up their own butts)?

I hope to God to hear more from General Ham.

I want to know who this "second in command" is.

Indeed, and to 'Soup's point it could be this was anticipated (the potential act, not the specific circumstances) and the #2 was appointed to this posting just in case, but the General had to have seen the writing on the wall in that event, I would be surprised if he didn't have concerns about his XO leading up to this.  This whole thing stinks to high heaven, not since the revolt of the admirals have such levels of distrust existed in the upper brass.  And remember, Obama's had close to 4 years to reshape leadership  and move people around and the purging in the middle levels that have rippled through each branch.  If the SCoaMF is not booted out of office I fear the damage could be rather long lasting and possibly catastrophic!
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Glock32 on October 29, 2012, 11:40:57 AM
Reminds me of the USSR, where every military unit had an undercover political officer from the KGB.  It's as if the regime has seeded commands with such operatives.  30 seconds?
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 29, 2012, 11:43:36 AM
Reminds me of the USSR, where every military unit had an undercover political officer from the KGB.  It's as if the regime has seeded commands with such operatives.  30 seconds?

Yes, the nefarious political officer/goon!

 ::asskicking::

Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: charlesoakwood on October 29, 2012, 12:14:34 PM

Obama's man?

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/22/washington-weighs-mcchrystal-replacement/ (http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/06/22/washington-weighs-mcchrystal-replacement/)

Officials in Washington are scrambling to scrub potential replacements should McChrystal's command prove unsalvageable. Apart from Mattis and Allen, attention has focused on Army Lt. Gen. David Rodriguez, who currently runs day-to-day combat operations in Afghanistan while McChrystal focuses on strategic military-political issues.

Selecting Rodriguez, officials pointed out, would enable a seamless transition of command,


http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/09/ap-army-armed-forces-command-david-rodriguez-troops-spread-thin-091211/ (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2011/09/ap-army-armed-forces-command-david-rodriguez-troops-spread-thin-091211/)

Gen. David Rodriguez, who took over as head of U.S. Army Forces Command on Monday, said that as troops withdraw from Afghanistan, one brigade may have to take over where two have been working. And he said they must be trained to coordinate and use the high-tech surveillance, communications, and command and control systems that are flooding into the war zone.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Rodriguez (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_M._Rodriguez)

Military History: http://www.scribd.com/doc/15402700/LTG-David-M-Rodriguez (http://www.scribd.com/doc/15402700/LTG-David-M-Rodriguez)

Ending with:
US DECORATIONS AND BADGESDistinguished Service MedalDefense Superior Service MedalLegion of Merit (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters)Bronze Star Medal (with Oak Leaf Cluster)Defense Meritorious Service MedalMeritorious Service Medal (with 4 Oak Leaf Clusters)Joint Service Commendation MedalArmy Commendation Medal (with 2 Oak Leaf Clusters)Joint Service Achievement MedalCombat Infantryman BadgeExpert Infantryman BadgeMaster Parachutist BadgeAir Assault BadgeRanger TabJoint Chiefs of Staff Identification Badge
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Pandora on October 29, 2012, 05:05:01 PM
"The Pentagon today denied the replacement of the AFRICOM Commander had anything to do with what happened in Benghazi on 9/11."  Just heard on the radio "news".

Riiiiight.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 29, 2012, 07:08:31 PM
Leon the Liar, pants on fire!
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: IronDioPriest on October 29, 2012, 08:34:16 PM
So, let's see what General Ham is made of.

Unfortunately, it seems like brass often makes soldiers soft, and turns them into bureaucrats and political actors. If Ham was indeed relieved of his command because of something related to the murders in Benghazi, and he has information that would clarify this for the American people, let's see him dare to come forward with the truth, even if it places him at personal risk of either retribution from the administration, or culpability in the failure of security in Benghazi.

He could be an American hero, if he's willing to take the risk for the sake of his sacred oath.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: BigAlSouth on October 30, 2012, 04:16:41 AM
First thing: On Glenn Beck's program Monday (Glenn was out; it was Stu and Pat) it was stated that a confidential source told them that Gen. Ham was leaving to spend more time with his wife who is ill. Emphatically, they said Ham's removal had nothing to do with Benghazi.

Just throwing this out.

Nice compilation of "rumors" regarding Gen. Ham here at Red State

http://www.redstate.com/jamesmpratt/2012/10/27/breaking-africom-general-carter-ham-relieved-of-command-minutes-before-ordering-benghazi-rescue/ (http://www.redstate.com/jamesmpratt/2012/10/27/breaking-africom-general-carter-ham-relieved-of-command-minutes-before-ordering-benghazi-rescue/)
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: BigAlSouth on October 30, 2012, 04:35:40 AM
Quote
The questions concerning General Ham's role in the September 11 events continue to percolate. Congressman Jason Chaffetz, Utah Republican, said that General Ham told him during a visit to Libya that he had never been asked to provide military support for the Americans under attack in Benghazi. Former United States Ambassador to the U.N. John R, Bolton also mentioned Mr. Chaffetz's account, and contrasted it with Mr. Panetta's statement that General Ham had been part of the team that made the decision not to send in forces. "General Ham has now been characterized in two obviously conflicting ways," Mr. Bolton concluded. "Somebody ought to find out what he actually was saying on September the eleventh."

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/29/general-center-benghazi-gate-controversy-retiring/)
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: BigAlSouth on October 30, 2012, 04:53:01 AM
From BlackFive, explaining Leon Panetta's pathetic explanation as to why military assets were not deployed in Benghazi:

Quote
    Leon Penetta is Either a Dumbass or a Liar
     

    The Secretary of Defense, in his most determined way, continues to try to protect the President from the fiasco in Benghazi.  So desperate to shield the President he announced what will be forever remembered as the Penetta Doctrine:
     
    “(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.”
     
    Of course, in the circles that I ran with, it will be forever labeled “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine”.
     
    To be fair to Leon, however, his audience for this ridiculous statement was not members of the military and especially not for those in the Special Operations arena who immediately recognized that the entire statement is not a doctrine at all.  It is horsesh*t, nothing more.
     
    The “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine” was targeted toward civilians.  Read the doctrine carefully.  On the surface it makes a case for Force Protection being an overriding element of critical decision making and it should be and it makes sense.  The Secretary of Defense wants to ensure the safety of our troops and understands the value of “real-time information”.  Okay, makes sense, good job Leon, end of story, right?
     
    A couple of points however need to be made.
     
    First.  I am certain that Penetta realizes that we have very specially trained folks whose job it is to execute missions just like what was needed in Benghazi.  On the other hand, maybe he didn’t, since both of the Generals who he supposedly consulted with have a grand total of ZERO days duty in any Special Operations organization.  In fact, they are both old tankers.  The senior of which, General Dempsy, has a Master's degree in literature from Duke University, where he wrote a thesis on the Irish poet W B Yeats. He was a Captain then, and that thesis alone should have rendered him ineligible for promotion to field grade officer.
     
    Second, and this is very important. I don’t know what Penetta’s definition of “real-time information” is, but I suspect that, if Eisenhower had the same doctrine, we’d still be sitting in England waiting to invade Europe.
     
    Let’s review the real-time facts that we know so far.  The entire event was being streamed live to the State Department and, in all likelihood, the White House situation room.  That’s pretty “real-time” if you ask me, but it gets worse.  Not only were we watching the entire damn thing on expensive televisions; we had at least two highly trained special operators on the ground in direct communication!
     
    Do you think the whole Pointe Du Hoc event would have happened during the D-Day attack if Ike and boys had two Navy SEALs telling them that the artillery had been moved?
     
    Maybe MacArthur should have cancelled the Inchon landings in Korea because having a live tv stream and two highly trained individuals on the ground just wasn’t quite enough “real-time information”?
     
    And this is why “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine” is so ridiculous.
     
    The best “real-time information” possible is eyes on the objective.
    Even better is people on the objective with eyes on the enemy.
    Even better than that is people on the objective that are highly trained with years of special ops experience in direct communications.
     
    My God people, this was a perfect intelligence situation to execute a forced entry relief operation!
     
    I spent my youth (24 years) in Infantry and tier one Special Ops units and have been up to my ass is serious fighting on many occasions.  In all that time, I never hit an objective where two Navy SEALs were already there and feeding me all the information I could ever want!  Hell, that wouldn’t even be a raid, it would be a link-up!
     
    What more information do you need?  Or was this never about information at all?  Was it really the president deciding that the lives of four Americans wasn’t worth as much as a campaign talking point?
     
    In any case, this was not a military consideration made by Penetta or any Generals, it was purely political.
     
    And that pisses me off.

I think I'll spend some more time over at BlackFive.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 30, 2012, 07:27:32 AM
From BlackFive, explaining Leon Panetta's pathetic explanation as to why military assets were not deployed in Benghazi:

Quote
    Leon Penetta is Either a Dumbass or a Liar
     

    The Secretary of Defense, in his most determined way, continues to try to protect the President from the fiasco in Benghazi.  So desperate to shield the President he announced what will be forever remembered as the Penetta Doctrine:
     
    “(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.”
     
    Of course, in the circles that I ran with, it will be forever labeled “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine”.
     
    To be fair to Leon, however, his audience for this ridiculous statement was not members of the military and especially not for those in the Special Operations arena who immediately recognized that the entire statement is not a doctrine at all.  It is horsesh*t, nothing more.
     
    The “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine” was targeted toward civilians.  Read the doctrine carefully.  On the surface it makes a case for Force Protection being an overriding element of critical decision making and it should be and it makes sense.  The Secretary of Defense wants to ensure the safety of our troops and understands the value of “real-time information”.  Okay, makes sense, good job Leon, end of story, right?
     
    A couple of points however need to be made.
     
    First.  I am certain that Penetta realizes that we have very specially trained folks whose job it is to execute missions just like what was needed in Benghazi.  On the other hand, maybe he didn’t, since both of the Generals who he supposedly consulted with have a grand total of ZERO days duty in any Special Operations organization.  In fact, they are both old tankers.  The senior of which, General Dempsy, has a Master's degree in literature from Duke University, where he wrote a thesis on the Irish poet W B Yeats. He was a Captain then, and that thesis alone should have rendered him ineligible for promotion to field grade officer.
     
    Second, and this is very important. I don’t know what Penetta’s definition of “real-time information” is, but I suspect that, if Eisenhower had the same doctrine, we’d still be sitting in England waiting to invade Europe.
     
    Let’s review the real-time facts that we know so far.  The entire event was being streamed live to the State Department and, in all likelihood, the White House situation room.  That’s pretty “real-time” if you ask me, but it gets worse.  Not only were we watching the entire damn thing on expensive televisions; we had at least two highly trained special operators on the ground in direct communication!
     
    Do you think the whole Pointe Du Hoc event would have happened during the D-Day attack if Ike and boys had two Navy SEALs telling them that the artillery had been moved?
     
    Maybe MacArthur should have cancelled the Inchon landings in Korea because having a live tv stream and two highly trained individuals on the ground just wasn’t quite enough “real-time information”?
     
    And this is why “The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine” is so ridiculous.
     
    The best “real-time information” possible is eyes on the objective.
    Even better is people on the objective with eyes on the enemy.
    Even better than that is people on the objective that are highly trained with years of special ops experience in direct communications.
     
    My God people, this was a perfect intelligence situation to execute a forced entry relief operation!
     
    I spent my youth (24 years) in Infantry and tier one Special Ops units and have been up to my ass is serious fighting on many occasions.  In all that time, I never hit an objective where two Navy SEALs were already there and feeding me all the information I could ever want!  Hell, that wouldn’t even be a raid, it would be a link-up!
     
    What more information do you need?  Or was this never about information at all?  Was it really the president deciding that the lives of four Americans wasn’t worth as much as a campaign talking point?
     
    In any case, this was not a military consideration made by Penetta or any Generals, it was purely political.
     
    And that pisses me off.

I think I'll spend some more time over at BlackFive.

I spent my youth (24 years) in Infantry and tier one Special Ops units and have been up to my ass is serious fighting on many occasions.  In all that time, I never hit an objective where two Navy SEALs were already there and feeding me all the information I could ever want!  Hell, that wouldn’t even be a raid, it would be a link-up!   
What more information do you need?  Or was this never about information at all?  Was it really the president deciding that the lives of four Americans wasn’t worth as much as a campaign talking point?
     
In any case, this was not a military consideration made by Penetta or any Generals, it was purely political.
     
And that pisses me off.


And how!!!

“The Dumbest sh*t I Ever Heard Doctrine”
     


Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: charlesoakwood on October 30, 2012, 09:49:18 AM
And from Miltrainer:
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,7030.msg81316.html#msg81316 (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,7030.msg81316.html#msg81316)

http://commotioninthepews.com/?p=1564 (http://commotioninthepews.com/?p=1564)

"With that in mind I can state, without reservation, doubt, or hesitation that Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Leon Panetta have lied to the American public about the events in Benghazi. I know for a fact, not a supposition, that when that first message went out that the consulate was under attack it was given to the President within 10 minutes. I know this because I once had the authority and the burden of writing and verifying this kind of alert. There was no stopping it between me and the President once I pulled the trigger and the officer in charge of my detachment authorized it to go out. I would live or die by the results of that product and would face jail time if it was maliciously sent. It was an automatic wake up call to the President and the chain of command"

Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 30, 2012, 11:25:50 AM
They can call Joe and everybody else a racist all they want, but it does not change the fact one bit that this regime is flat out lying to us for rank partisan political purposes!!!  And people were allowed to die for these evil people!  Watergate did not kill ANYBODY!  Obama & Co have dozens of innocent blood on thieir hands!

And American's are fricken OK with this?  The MFM is OK with this?

 ::gaah::   ::gaah::   machinegun
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: IronDioPriest on October 30, 2012, 05:14:03 PM
At some point, media outlets are going to have to suffer the consequence of their enemy status.

Whatever that looks like, it needs to happen.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Glock32 on October 30, 2012, 10:39:22 PM
At some point, media outlets are going to have to suffer the consequence of their enemy status.

Whatever that looks like, it needs to happen.

I have been thinking the same for some time now. Like Pat Caddell has recently said, they are the enemies of the American people. I certainly do not mean to sound hyperbolic or provocative, but I can envision a scenario where prominent media figures simply start being taken out in a targeted fashion.

It's far beyond simple bias (intentional or otherwise), far beyond simply reporting things through a particular ideological lens. No they are active and willing participants in the effort to reduce us all under statist tyranny.
Title: Re: AFRICOM Commander Replaced Oct. 18. WHY?
Post by: Libertas on October 31, 2012, 06:58:17 AM
Our forefathers in the Sons of Liberty knew how to deal with this ilk.   ;)