The Purge Of The Military Continues. The Only Way To Advance Is To Adhere To Obama's Strategies.

Whistleblower Magazine published by World Net Daily (WND)

October 31, 2014

Redacted from an article by F. MICHAEL MALOOF

WASHINGTON – Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the US military’s highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, as well as other top retired officers, say President Obama’s agenda is decimating the morale of the US ranks to the point members no longer feel prepared to fight or have the desire to win.

“There is no doubt he (Obama) is intent on emasculating the military and will fire anyone who disagrees with him” over such issues as “homosexuals, women in foxholes, the Obama sequester,” Brady told WND.

Not only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’ overall readiness being reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key leaders, colonels — those lined up in rank to replace outgoing generals — are quietly taking their careers in other directions.

Retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. “Jerry” Boykin, who was with Delta Force and later Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence under President George W. Bush, says it is worrying that four-star generals are being retired at the rate that has occurred under Obama.

Boykin points out that the military adheres to the constitutional requirement of a civilian leadership over the military. As a consequence, officers are not allowed to criticize their civilian leadership, as occurred when Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal was relieved in 2010 of his command of the International Security Assistance Force and commander of US Forces in Afghanistan. He was relieved due to what has been described as unflattering remarks made about Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials in a Rolling Stone magazine article.

Boykin said the future of the military is becoming more and more of concern, since colonels who would be generals also are being relieved of duty, if they show that they’re not going to support Obama’s agenda, which critics have described as socialist. As a consequence, he said, the lower grades therefore have decided to leave, having been given the signal that there is no future in the military for them.

“These officers want to train for war but are not be allowed to” because of the preoccupation not only with sequestration, but what Boykin said were other concerns surfacing in the military under Obama as commander-in-chief.

He referred specifically to the recent repeal of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” which now allows openly homosexual personnel in the military. In addition, he said the integration of women into the infantry “will reduce readiness of units.” He also was critical of the rules of engagement which he says favor “political correctness over our ability to fight to win.”

WND reported that three of the nine firings by Obama this year alone were linked to the controversy surrounding the Sep. 11, 2012, terrorist attack on the CIA special mission in Benghazi, Libya.

In one case, US Army Gen. Carter Ham, who commanded US 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 available 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 ultimately was relieved of his command and retired.

“It is no accident that the president used the Obama sequester and shutdown to punish the military family,” he said. “It is part of his DNA. In fact it is in the psyche of the entire liberal/progressive establishment — the elite. President Clinton outed himself and this ilk when he declared his loathing of the military. Who could believe progressives/liberals care about veterans and military?”

Army Major Gen. Paul E. Vallely similarly has been very vocal in his opposition to the Obama administration. Vallely said the White House won’t investigate its own officials but finds it easy to fire military commanders “who have given their lives for their country.”

“Obama will not purge a civilian or political appointee because they have bought into Obama’s ideology,” Vallely said. “The White House protects their own. That’s why they stalled on the investigation into Fast and Furious, Benghazi and Obamacare. He’s 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.”

F. Michael Maloof, staff writer for WND and G2 Bulletin, is a former senior security policy analyst in the office of the secretary of defense.

- See more at: http://israel-commentary.org/?p=9962#sthash.aSvya8ho.dpuf

Repeating History

Over the past couple months,  we have tried to make the point that cuts in the military, although fashionable, will come back to kick us in the backside.  In the following article, Admiral James Lyons does a great job of communicating the issue we are facing.

We do not want to face another Pearl Harbor, but the drastic cuts being proposed and required under the Debt Limit crisis, will create a similar environment as was the mood in the country prior to WWII.  At that time we were, as a country, very isolationist. We did not want to intervene in the European or Asian War.  We had no dog in those fights. 

However, Pearl Harbor changed all that. We now had been attacked and within days were in full wartime mode. Cars, appliances and most manufacturing were turned into war production.  Consumer goods were put on hold so the plants could turn out goods to support the war effort.

We must learn from the past, it is a good teacher, if we listen!  Will we learn the lessons or repeat them?  We think there is a good chance of repeating them. 

David, who is a faithful commentator on this blog is indicative of the prevailing attitude expressed very well by him.  It is their beliefs (and Ron Paul's) that should pull back our troops, cut back spending, and reduce or eliminate new programs.  He is entitled to his opinions, however, we disagree.

America is the only Superpower, at this moment. With that role comes some responsibility to the world to maintain some sort of order.  We have troops in (way to many countries, in our opinion) over 90 countries which definitely could be reduced. However, by having troops in countries like South Korea, we are the stabilizing force. If we pulled out, the North would attack within months but they will not if we are there.

Reducing military levels, equipment and readiness is a poor decision and we hope those in  Washington will come to agree with us.

What do you think? Do you agree with me or is David right?

Conservative Tom

Today’s defense cuts are recreating conditions that led to Pearl Harbor

By Adm. James A. Lyons

The Washington Times

December 12, 2011

As we mark the 70th anniversary of Imperial Japan’s attack on Pearl Harbor of Dec. 7, 1941, America is on the verge of committing the same mistakes that helped plunge our nation into its most grievous war. The first mistake then was to impose the strategic restraints of “political correctness” on our Hawaiian military commanders. Adm. Husband E. Kimmel, commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet, was ordered by Chief of Naval Operations Adm. Harold R. Stark to prepare the fleet for deployment but not do anything provocative that might offend the super-sensibilities of the Japanese. Lt. Gen. Walter G. Short, commanding general of the U.S. Army Force in Hawaii, who was responsible for the air defense of the Hawaiian Island including Pearl Harbor, was ordered not to take any offensive action until the Japanese had committed an “act of war.”

Does it sound familiar? The political correctness imposed on our commanders leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, regretfully, resonates in today’s military, including the war on terrorism and our efforts to defend ourselves from China.

A second mistake then – about to be committed again – is the gutting of our military readiness, which, at the time of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, was a national disgrace. It was so bad that Gen. George C. Marshall, chief of staff of the Army, and Adm. Stark wrote a joint letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt, asking him not to issue any “ultimatum” to the Japanese because they knew the U.S. Pacific Fleet was numerically inferior to the Imperial Japanese Navy. Compounding the problem, Gen. Short was not provided with basic resources, including adequate surveillance and fighter aircraft. He was given only three mobile radar stations with coverage out to 120 miles that could only be operated between 4 a.m. and 7 a.m. each day due to lack of personnel and power.

Fortunately, over the years we have learned the hard lesson that unpreparedness invites aggression. President Reagan’s “Peace through Strength” is as valid today as it was 30 years ago. The Cold War was won based on that strategy. Today, however, with fighting two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our military as well as our resources have been severely strained. While we still have the resources to protect our national security and achieve our objectives, political correctness has imposed restricted “rules of engagement” on our warfighters, resulting in many unnecessary fatalities.

No enemy has been able to defeat our military. Our forces represent the best of America and guarantee not only our national security but provide the recognized military underpinnings to support our friends and allies against aggression.

The threats we face today cannot be ignored. We are being challenged by China not only in the western Pacific but globally. Their spread of nuclear weapons technology to North Korea, Pakistan and Iran has been destabilizing. Nor can their transfer of weapons and missiles to Iran be swept under the rug. A resurgent Russia, plus an unstable Middle East with a nuclear-equipped Iran, must be factored into any threat equation. Since we have not displayed political will when directly confronted by Iran, a nuclear Islamic Republic will be uncontrollable in the Middle East and possibly elsewhere.

While our military has always had the conventional resources to eliminate Iran’s nuclear weapon infrastructure, that capability will be severely constrained in the future as a result of the supercommittee’s budget stalemate. Panetta has stated that such severe cuts will “gut the military.” With the threats we now know exist, our national security will be in danger.

There are some members of Congress who have suggested that the mandatory cuts to defense should be modified. In a recent Politico-Battleground poll, the American people by an overwhelming 82 percent reject further cuts to our national defense. However, that sentiment does not appear to resonate with President Obama, who has categorically stated that he will veto any change to the mandated defense cuts. Clearly, such draconian cuts place our national security in jeopardy. One of the president’s key duties under our Constitution is “to provide for the common defense.” A presidential veto would raise the question: What is the real objective? What lesson do we have to learn over again?

Retired Adm. James A. Lyons was commander in chief of the U.S. Pacific Fleet and senior U.S. military representative to the United Nations.

What Will Be The Effect Of A Smaller Military Be To The US?

At a time where the world is getting more dangerous with Iran's potential acquisition of nuclear weapons as well as having missiles do deliver them and China's dramatic growth of their military, this does not seem to be the time when we make the military smaller. Yet that is what the US is doing. Does that make any sense to you?  It does not to me.

While we agree that moving troops out of Serbia, Germany, England and Italy makes sense, we have to be judicious as to what countries of the 90 nations in which we have troops, should be allowed to defend themselves.  Can you imagine the South Koreans facing the North without their big brother the US there to backstop them? The same goes for Formosa.  

It is not the number of personnel we have in these places, it is the effect it has on the enemy.  For example, North Korea knows that if they attacked the South, it would bring the United States into the battle very quickly. It would be an immediate loss if they were to attack. However, if we removed our combat personnel, not only would it take time to relocate them to the South, there could be pressure from the American people, Congress and maybe even the President not to to be involved in a Asian conflict.

Yes, we do have treaties that cover the mutual defense and that might win the day. However, if there was enough angst against the conflict, those treaties might be breached. No one can guarantee that we would follow through on our responsibilities as laid out on any piece of paper.

Adding to the personnel issue, there are major replacement systems, for example the F-22 Raptor and the F-35, have been cancelled.  Fighters are only good for a certain number of years and then they must be replaced for a couple reasons. First, the planes, their systems, and their metal/composites become more brittle with age and become less reliable. Secondly, systems continue to advance. Would you want to be in a dogfight with a 1970's airplane against a 2000's airplane? We sure would not.

Cutting the military sounds like a great way to save money. We are the strongest in the world today and don't need all the systems and personnel to meet the challenges of today. However, if we start cutting and others gain parity, what will happen when our national interests are challenged?  Do we really want to find out?

What do you think?  We would like to hear your comments? Am I way off the reservation or do you agree that we need to maintain a superior force?

Conservative Tom

Pentagon chief: Smaller military means extra risk

By Robert Burns January 5, 2012 1:39 pm

          

Text Size: A A A

WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Barack Obama vowed Thursday the United States will maintain the best-equipped military in history despite deep and looming defense budget cuts, but Pentagon leaders acknowledged the changes present additional risk.

"Our military will be leaner, but the world must know the United States is going to maintain our military superiority," Obama said in a rare appearance in the Pentagon briefing room.

Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and several top military brass lined up on the stage behind him, underscoring Pentagon support for cuts that Panetta and others said they know will be criticized as too drastic.

Obama said the emerging strategy overhaul is designed to contend with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget cuts and refocus the United States' national security priorities after a decade dominated by the post.-Sept. 11 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The strategy, devised through a comprehensive review by civilian and military leaders, centered on the military the country needs after the "long wars of the last decade are over," Obama said.

Panetta said that smaller military budgets will mean some tradeoffs and that the U.S. will take on "some level of additional but acceptable risk." But Panetta said that at this point in history, in a changing world, the Pentagon would have been forced to make a strategy shift anyway. He says the money crisis merely forced the government's hand.

The president announced that the military will be reshaped over time with an emphasis on countering terrorism, maintaining a nuclear deterrent, protecting the U.S. homeland, and "deterring and defeating aggression by any potential adversary."

Those are not new military missions, and Obama announced no new capabilities or defense initiatives. He described a U.S. force that will retain much of its recent focus, with the exception of fighting a large-scale, prolonged conflict like the newly ended Iraq mission or the ongoing war in Afghanistan.

"As we end today's wars and reshape our armed forces, we will ensure that our military is agile, flexible and ready for the full range of contingencies," the president wrote in a preamble to the new strategy, entitled, "Sustaining U.S. Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense."

The strategy hints at a reduced U.S. military presence in Europe, notwithstanding a continuing close relationship with NATO, and says Asia will be a bigger priority. It also emphasizes improving U.S. capabilities in the areas of cyberwarfare and missile defense.

Obama's decision to announce the strategy himself underscores the political dimension of Washington's debate over defense cuts. The administration says smaller Pentagon budgets are a must but will not come at the cost of sapping the strength of a military in transition, even as it gets smaller.

In a presidential election year, the strategy gives Obama a rhetorical tool to defend his Pentagon budget-cutting choices. Republican contenders for the White House already have criticized him on a wide range of national security issues, including missile defense, Iran and planned reductions in ground forces.

The new strategy moves the U.S. further from its longstanding goal of being able to successfully fight two major regional wars - like the 1991 Gulf War to evict Iraqi forces from Kuwait or a theoretical ground war in Korea - at the same time.

The document released Thursday made clear that while some current missions of the military will be curtailed, none will be scrapped entirely.

"Wholesale divestment of the capability to conduct any mission would be unwise, based on historical and projected uses of U.S. military forces and our inability to predict the future," the document said.

The administration and Congress already are slashing projected defense spending to reflect the closeout of the Iraq war and the drawdown in Afghanistan. The massive $662 billion defense budget planned for next year is $27 billion less than Obama wanted and $43 billion less than Congress gave the Pentagon this year.

The Pentagon announced no specifics on the size of expected troop reductions; the Army and Marine Corps already are set to shrink beginning in 2015. The document said the Pentagon will have to find savings in pay and health care benefits for members of the military, but it offered no specifics.

Panetta in recent months had previewed the main themes of the strategy by emphasizing a need to continue pressuring al-Qaida and paying more attention to Asian security challenges, including China and North Korea.

Factors guiding the Obama administration's approach to reducing the defense budget are not limited to war-fighting strategy. They also include judgments about how to contain the growing cost of military pay and health and retirement benefits. The administration is expected to form a commission to study the issue of retirement benefits, possibly led by a prominent retired military officer.

The administration is in the final stages of deciding specific cuts in the 2013 budget, which Obama will submit to Congress next month. The strategy to be announced by Panetta and Dempsey is meant to accommodate about $489 billion in defense cuts over the coming 10 years, as called for in a budget deal with Congress last summer. An additional $500 billion in cuts may be required starting in January 2013.

A prominent theme of the Pentagon's new strategy is what Panetta has called a renewed commitment to security in the Asia-Pacific region.

The administration is not anticipating military conflict in Asia, but Panetta believes the U.S. got so bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan after 9/11 that it missed chances to improve its strategic position in other regions.

China is a particular worry because of its economic dynamism and rapid defense buildup. A more immediate concern is Iran, not only for its threats to disrupt the flow of international oil but also for its nuclear ambitions.

---

Ben Feller and Pauline Jelinek in Washington contributed to this report