Wednesday, November 13, 2013

The Obama Military Purge, Benghazi and History

There is little need to prove that President Obama is incompetent to provide leadership for items on his own political agenda - Obamacare, the US economy, alternative wind and solar energy, corn-based fuels, the Middle East. And we are becoming increasingly aware that Obama is incompetent to manage matters that requires presidential leadership - Afghanistan, Syria, Iran, North Korea. In fact, it is now evident that Barack Obama cannot even manage a White House cover-up - Fast and Furious, NSA, IRS, Benghazi. We have learned this week that there is a secret diplomatic cable sent two weeks before the September 11, 2012, murder of US Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and three other American diplomats. The cable warned that the Benghazi consular compound could not withstand a “coordinated attack.” It is just more evidence underscoring the Obama administration’s inability to respond to intelligence. The White House knew the situation in Benghaz was dangerously unstable. Earlier in 2012, a series of attacks had taken place against western interests, including the American consulate itself. Repeated requests were made for increased security and were denied on the basis that the threat wasn’t sufficient to justify it. The new cable reveals there were “approximately ten Islamist militias and al-Qaida training camps inside the city of Benghazi.” If this newly revealed cable wasn't sufficient proof that increased security was needed, especially around the September 11, 2001, anniversary of 9/11, what would Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton have found sufficient for taking Benghazi security more seriously. Once the crisis broke, the administration simply set out - almost certainly under Obama's orders - to cover up their failure. ~~~~~ BUT, cover-ups require control of those who were involved. AND Obama could not control at least one major element - the senior United States military officers who were trying to protect those trapped in the Benghazi consulate. Perhaps never before in American history has a President created a second scandal to cover the first one. The second scandal concerning Benghazi was to fire a number of US military general officers to hide Obama’s dereliction of duty in refusing heightened security to the Benghazi consulate and then refusing to try to save the Americans trapped by the ensuing predictable terrorist attack. The Benghazi-related firings were : (1). US Army General Carter Ham who led the US African Command when the consulate was attacked. General Ham was highly critical of State Department refusal to send in reinforcements. Obama has insisted there were no reinforcements available that night. But Ham contends timely reinforcements could have been sent and he said he never was given a stand-down order, while others say he was given the order but refused it. He was later relieved of his command and retired. But, new information in the Washington Times reveals there were Delta Force personnel in Tripoli at the time of the attack and two members volunteered to be dispatched to Benghazi to assist in protecting the Benghazi compound contrary to stand-down orders from the State Department. (2). Another flag officer involved in the Benghazi matter, which is still under congressional investigation – was Rear Admiral Charles Gaouette, commander of the Carrier Strike Group. He contends 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.” (3). Army Major General Ralph Baker was the commander of the Combined Joint Task Force Horn of Africa at Camp Lemonier in Djibouti, Africa. Baker contended that attack helicopters could have reached the consulate in time on the night of the attack. ~~~~~ The general officers fired because they disagreed with the Obama-Clinton decision to abandon American diplomats in Benghazi under al-Qaida attack are just the tip of the iceberg in what is becoming known as "The Obama Military Purge." More than 197 general and senior officer level military have been fired under Obama - one every 8.8 days - unheard of until now in American history. Military purges are not unknown historically. Stalin systematically imprisoned and/or executed thousands of his own military officers in the 1930s. The majority of these executions and imprisonments were the result of Stalin’s discomfort with the growing modernization and strength of the Red Army. Stalin saw Army leaders as potential political threats. The loss of nearly the entire command structure of the Red Army had great negative effects on the ability of the Soviet Union to win a war, first with the Russo-Finnish war in 1939 and then during the first month of Russian involvement in World War II. Tiberius' political inability, poor judgment and jealousy led Rome into a dark age of political purges, murder and terror when Tiberius, who had waited a long time to be emperor and only became heir after the death of his two sons, realizing he was not the preferred successor, nevertheless with Augustus' death in 14 AD, claimed power and then purged the military to prevent its alliance with the Roman Senate to overthrow him. Most military purges have been political in nature - to protect a weak or unpopular leader. Unfortunately, bloodless purges can end up being bloody at one point or another. Worse, once one side or the other becomes dominant, the purge is extended from the national to the local, and from there, down to every day citizens. Thus purges throughout history have often led to shifts in power to an actual or de facto authoritarian dictatorship. The classic example would be found in the  Russian Communist Revolution, which actually evolved as successive political leaders reshaped ‘the revolution’ to suit their own needs. But you find the same things generally true in the French Revolution and in Mao’s Red China. ~~~~~ Dear readers, here is a Barack Obama quote from early in his first term : "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." It would not take great imagination to see a darker goal to the Obama Military Purge.

7 comments:

  1. “I am concerned for the security of our great Nation; not so much because of any treat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within.”
    ― Douglas MacArthur

    When you consider the implications of the current "purge" that is being conducted by President Obama and his band of merry men - the disastrous implications are terrifying.

    "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set." - B. Obama quote.

    Our military has NEVER failed to answer the call or complete the mission with the utmost professionalism. Why is the consideration on the table for a "civilian type military force' or should we simply call it what it is ... A Domestic Police Force to administer the upheaval that will occur when the Obama Doctrine is brought out of the shadows and into the sunlight.

    When this happens the word RIOTS will be an understatement

    ReplyDelete
  2. Except for the Truman/MacArthur saga we have never in our history been so close to a "split" in principal and authority" as we are today.

    In days of old the elected officials made policy and the military willingly went out and carried out their wishes. There was a bond, a high level of respect, a line neither side crossed. there is a document that establishes the boundaries and Obama is sadly lacerating this invisible demarcation line.

    Talk about uncharted territory. I have witnessed this serious situation in many countries in my past. The outcome was always the same ...riots, killing, citizen against citizen, upheaval of a system (seldom for the better), and unstable change for those that earned better.

    "When the people fear the government there is tyranny. When the government fears the people there is Liberty" - Thomas Jefferson

    Let there be freedom at any cost.

    ReplyDelete
  3. In his book "The Soldier and the State", Samuel P. Huntington described the differences between the two worlds as a contrast between the attitudes and values held by military personnel, mostly conservative, and those held by civilians, mostly liberal. Each world consisted of a separate institution with its own operative rules and norms. The military's function was furthermore inherently different from that of the civilian world. Given a more conservative military world which was illiberal in many aspects, it was necessary to find a method of ensuring that the liberal civilian world would be able to maintain its dominance over the military world. Huntington's answer to this problem was "military professionalism."

    Huntington focused his study on the officer corps. He first defined a profession and explained that enlisted personnel, while certainly part of the military world, are not, strictly speaking, professionals. He relegated them to the role of tradesmen or skilled craftsmen, necessary but not professionals in his definition of the term. It was professional military officers, not the enlisted technicians of the trade of violence, or even the part-time or amateur reserve officers extant in the mid-1950s (as opposed to the near "part time 'regular' " status characterizing reserve officers with extensive active duty experience, professional military education, and active combat experience in the post-Gulf War period), who would be the key to controlling the military world.

    Professionalizing the military, or at least the officer corps, which is the decision-making authority within the military world, emphasizes the useful aspects of that institution such as discipline, structure, order, and self-sacrifice. It also isolates the corps in a specialized arena in which the military professionals would be recognized as experts in the use of force. As recognized experts not subject to the interference of the civilian world, the military's officer corps would willingly submit itself to civil authority. In Huntington's words, such an arrangement maintained a "focus on a politically neutral, autonomous, and professional officer corps."

    In order for the civilian authority to maintain control, it needed to have a way to direct the military without unduly infringing on the prerogatives of the military world and thus provoking a backlash. Civilian leadership would decide the objective of any military action but then leave it to the military world to decide upon the best way of achieving the objective. The problem facing civilian authority, then, is in deciding on the ideal amount of control. Too much control over the military could result in a force too weak to defend the nation, resulting in failure on the battlefield. Too little control would create the possibility of a coup, i.e., failure of the government.

    Huntington's answer to the control dilemma was "objective civilian control." This was in contrast to "subjective control," in which direction would be more intrusive and detailed. To put it simply, the more "objective civilian control," the more military security.

    There is never a time that this strong yet teetering balancing act should be challenged by the civilian side. The military in American knows it's place, has kept it's place, and is professionally proficient in it's place. Conservative it is, but dutiful to the people always.

    ReplyDelete

  4. "January 21, 2013

    On Monday, renowned author and humanitarian Dr. Jim Garrow made a shocking claim about what we can expect to see in Obama's second term.

    Garrow made the following Facebook post:

    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."

    This is what this so called purge is all about ... TOTAL AND ABSOLUTE CONTROL OF THE MILITARY. Why is this necessary unless illegal and unconstitutional actions are forth coming!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Most of what we know about Benghazi is a White House manufactured lie. What we know about the obvious "purge" on senior military officers is at present a White House "secret' that when or if explained will become yet another White House lie.

    “There are three types of lies -- lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
    ― Benjamin Disraeli

    ReplyDelete
  6. This would be unthinkable of an American President or any leader in the Free World...

    ReplyDelete
  7. Obama is continues the unprecedented dismissal of scores of military officers, a number of high-ranking soldiers are coming forward to expose his motive.

    According to Medal of Honor recipient and retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a motive is “emasculating the military,” noting that Obama “will fire anyone who disagrees with him” on certain political and social issues.

    Among the most vocal critics of the approximately 200 firings during the Obama presidency, retired Army Lt. Gen. William G. Boykin said the “problem is worse than we have ever seen.” Furthermore, he explained that enlisted men and women are afforded little room to criticize the direction of the military.As a result of these policies, he said that morale among soldiers is “at an unprecedented low” as the administration obviously values “political correctness over our ability to fight to win.”


    Although there is plenty of direct blame for Obama, II believe that the real mastermind behind the purge is none other than Valerie Jarrett.

    As Obama’s top adviser, Vallely contends that she is using her influence to inject even more political correctness into the armed forces. Still, he ultimately places the onus on the commander-in-chief.

    Is Obama “intentionally weakening and gutting our military, while anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged. The real question isn't it.

    The disdain Obama and his ilk have toward the military is well-documented. Through this ongoing purge, he is able to put his ideology to work and simultaneously threaten America’s standing on the world stage.

    Unfortunately, far too many individuals are unaware of this concerted effort to gut the military. Those directly affected by such polices, however, are beginning to sound the warning bells by calling out the treacherous actions of this administration.

    ReplyDelete