Top Generals: Obama is ‘Purging The Military’

14
617
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

WND.com
October 31, 2013

WASHINGTON – Retired Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, recipient of the U.S. 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 U.S. 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.

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

“Over the past three years, it is unprecedented for the number of four-star generals to be relieved of duty, and not necessarily relieved for cause,” Boykin said.

“I believe there is a purging of the military,” he said. “The problem is worse than we have ever seen.”

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 U.S. 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. He was recalled to Washington where Obama accepted his resignation as commander in Afghanistan.

Boykin says that because of the fundamental civilian leadership over the military, McCrystal was “appropriately forced to retire.”

Read the words of the Founders, in “America’s God and Country Encyclopedia of Quotations.”

Some officers were involved in adulterous affairs and those situations, Boykin said, also were grounds for dismissal.

Boykin specifically said that because of the civilian-military relationship, he did not see any prospect for a “coup” coming from the military ranks.

“People I’ve spoken to would like to see the military ‘fulfill their constitutional duty and take out the president,’” Boykin said. “Our Constitution puts a civilian in charge of the military and as a result a coup would not be constitutional. You’re not going to see a coup in the military.”

Nevertheless, 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.

“I talk to a lot of folks who don’t support where Obama is taking the military, but in the military they can’t say anything,” Boykin said.

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.

Boykin referred to recent reports that Obama has purged some 197 officers in the past five years.

These reports suggest these officers were suspected of disloyalty or disagreed with the Obama administration on policy or force-structure issues. As Boykin pointed out, a number of them have been relieved of duty for no given reason.

“Morale is at an unprecedented low,” Boykin said, part of which is due to sequestration.

Sequestration has seriously cut back operational readiness for the military to the point where Boykin said that often they have no ammunition and are unable to conduct training because of the planned cuts.

“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.”

“The last time we won an all-out war was in 1944,” Boykin said. “Now, we don’t have the will to win.”

Brady, who was a legendary “Dust Off” air ambulance pilot in Vietnam and detailed his experiences in his book, “Dead Men Flying: Victory in Viet Nam,” said, “The problem is military people will seldom, while on duty, go on the record over such issues, and many will not ever, no matter how true.

“I hear from many off the record who are upset with the current military leadership and some are leaving and have left in the past,” he said.

Brady referred to additional problems in today’s military including “girly-men leadership [and] medals for not shooting and operating a computer. This president will never fight if there is any reason to avoid it and with a helpless military he can just point to our weakness and shrug his shoulders.”

Brady made similar references in a recent article he wrote for WND in which he said “just when you thought the leadership of this government could not get any worse, it does. Never in history has an administration spawned another scandal to cover the current one.”

The reference was to the recent firing of a number of generals to mask “Obama’s serial scandals, all prefaced by lies – Fast and Furious, Benghazi, NSA, IRS” among others.

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, 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 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.

Now, 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.

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 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 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.

“To understand the insufferable assaults on our military and veterans, who should be exempt from political squabbles but are often at the forefront of Obama threats, we need to understand the psyche of the elite in this country led by Obama,” Brady said.

“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?”

Brady said that some people who fear for the future of the United States believe it needs to be “re-moralized.”

“We cannot survive without increasing patriotism, a youth schooled in the Constitution,” Brady said. “If the uncommon common American is to prevail against the elite, we need to return to the truths of our Constitution.

“We need to realize that this recent assault on the military and veterans is no accident,” Brady added. “It is purposeful. The elite loathe our military, the one sure guarantor of our freedom. These elite – not a shutdown or default – and their assault on the Constitution and our military are the real threat to our future.”

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.”

Vallely served in the Vietnam War and retired in 1993 as deputy Commanding General, Pacific Command. Today, he is chairman of the Military Committee for the Center for Security Policy and is co-author of the book “Endgame: The Blueprint for Victory in the War on Terror.”

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.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/top-generals-obama-is-purging-the-military/#UTGlijtgZusohh8G.99

Share Button

14 COMMENTS

  1. The “real” reason the government wants more gays and women in the military is so “we” can get “our” asses kicked so they can usher in a one world government… “for our safety and security”… No offense to gays and women, I’ve met some pretty hardcore gays and butch women, but dude, if I was on the opposing team my morale would go through the roof if I knew I was fighting a bunch of gays and women.

    Also:
    http://youtu.be/Nrh5YOQHvFw

    • jacob, if you were on the SAME team your morale would go down. It’s common now for there to be a real disconnect between the sexes on the battle field and training both. The give the fairer sex duties they can perform instead of those they can’t so the guys get all the bust ass stuff that creates bad feelings. Think about being wounded and instead of some guy who can pick your ass up and shag you a couple miles even though he may be puking blood, you look up into your female soldiers eyes and see nothing but fear cause you and she both know your ass is grass. Yeah, combat ain’t such a great thing when it really come down to the nut cutting and there ain’t no nuts. I’m not down on women at all, they just weren’t made with lung capacity, upper body strength or strength anywhere like men. I can see them being as good as some things….those things that don’t require the ultimate test of strength. A great many women now admit they can’t perform physically like men and don’t feel they should be a yoke to the men. Israelis don’t mention it. I think they just suck it up and take it and they’re women are probably a bit more hardened but there’s only so much you can do with a body. We’d all be professional athletes, make the big bucks and have all the perks if everybody were equal. I dread the day we all are. Personally, I like women, like them a whole lot but that has nothing to do with battlefield conflict.

      • There’s some sort of miscommunication going on. I am on the “same” team. The team of actual patriots of this country. I don’t think there should be women on the battlefield, and totally agree with everything you said.

        That said, I have empathy for the patriots of other countries that “our” military is killing because they are told they are killing “terrorists”… not being told they are killing the exact reflection of themselves. If this country got invaded, I’d fight against the invaders, just like the Iraqis and Afghanis are fighting against “our” military for invading them.

        If the middle east actually posed a thread to “us” (which they do, except it’s not Iraq or Afghanistan posing the threat, it’s Israel and Saudi Arabia. Zionists can go fuck themselves), we should nuke them to oblivion. Not send in ground troops. And especially not send in a bunch of gays and women.

        • jacob, I got it backward..sorry. The problem is not with the people of the countries you named but with the pols and their influence in our govt. Of course just the way our govt is set up invites this. Use a nuke, then do it where it counts and that would be to purge the crooks who rule us. I always hope violence isn’t the solution as did our forefathers. Well, look how that turned out. We don’t have that good separation of time and distance any longer unfortunately. Iraquis and Aghanis for the most part are now convinced YOU and I are their enemies, just like Bushco and now BO convincing Americans that Muslims are the problem, lies all, but people believe this shit when you repeat it enough, just like Bushco said, say it enough times and it’s true. Of course they care no more for us than the foreigners, less, I’d suspect, since most of the people you named don’t hate the people, just the govt.

          • All good, and well said (yet again). I very much respect your viewpoint and the viewpoints of other highly opinionated people here.

            You’re totally right about the “Iraquis and Aghanis for the most part are now convinced YOU and I are their enemies”…. all thanks to the current corrupt government. Everything is going just as “they” need it to. Divide and conquer.

            I would like to retract my previous comment about “nuking them all”…because you’re right. It’s their (and “our”) governments that should be wiped off the face of the earth, not the public who is being used as pawns in this game of political chess (like they always are…). Always the people suffering, very rarely is it the actual instigators (government), just the sheeple perpetrators (brainwashed military).

    • The American military is becoming like the Roman Legions in the late empire period. That is, basically, just paid mercenaries who have no real skin in the game. Mostly, they are there because of “job opportunities” or to “learn skills.” Or because it’s better than working at Wal-Mart. They wield impressive technology and have the capacity to inflict great damage on inferior enemies. But the day they have to deal with a foe who is fighting for something – his kith and kin – it’ll be a rude awakening. Hell, it already has been (see Iraq, Afghanistan).

      As far as homosexuality and soldiery: Don’t forget Alexander of Macedonia, nor the Spartans (nor the Roman Legions at the time of Augustus and Tiberius). I would not want to go up against any of those guys – no matter how much they are into guys!

    • Jacob,

      I do not know the “real” reason that some in government want more gays and women in the military.

      Their sexuality or sex should have minimum to no effect on their ability to perform most tasks needed in a modern military. (I can only think of some physical tasks that requires strength or how some people interact with gays and/or women. There may other reasons, but I can not think of any at the moment.)

      Eric,

      Do you have a source regarding Alexander? I have read that there is some doubt regarding the evidence of his sexuality. (It would not affect his fighting ability in either case.)

      http://www.pothos.org/content/index.php?page=sexuality
      http://www.forbes.com/sites/booked/2011/02/10/alexander-the-great-gay-or-straight/

      (As my history teacher stated: we are prisoners of our sources.)

      • Hi Mith,

        Here’s an interesting synopsis:

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hephaestion

        The relevant passage is:

        “It has been suggested that as well as being close friends Alexander and Hephaestion were also lovers. None of the ancient sources states this in so many words. By the time the extant sources were written—some three hundred years later—homosexual affairs were looked upon with less favour than they had been in ancient Greece—Horace[45] speaks of the Greek vice—and so had already begun the process which has continued intermittently ever since, the “airbrushing” of Hephaestion out of history. However, Arrian[46] describes the occasion when Alexander and Hephaestion publicly identified themselves with Achilles and Patroclus, who were acknowledged by Plato and Aeschylus, among others, to have been lovers. It happened right at the beginning of the campaign in Asia when Alexander led a contingent of the army to visit Troy, scene of the events in his beloved Iliad. He laid a wreath on the tomb of Achilles and Hephaestion laid a wreath on the tomb of Patroclus and they ran a race, naked, to honour their dead heroes. Arrian discreetly draws no conclusions from this. However Robin Lane Fox, writing in 1973, says: “It was a remarkable tribute, uniquely paid, and it is also Hephaestion’s first mention in Alexander’s career. Already the two were intimate, Patroclus and Achilles even to those around them; the comparison would remain to the end of their days and is proof of their life as lovers, for by Alexander’s time, Achilles and Patroclus were agreed to have enjoyed the relationship which Homer himself had never directly mentioned.”[47]

        Hephaestion and Alexander grew up in a time and place where homosexual affairs were seen as perfectly normal, but the pattern that such affairs followed was not the same in every city-state. Roman and later writers, taking the Athenian pattern as their example, have tended to assume either that their sexual relationship belonged to their adolescence, after which they left it behind, or that one of them was older, the lover (erastes) and the other was the beloved (eromenos).”

  2. Wait, I thought we were all in favor of a smaller military…

    Did I miss a meeting?

    As for short-sited career officers taking off rather than wait out another 3 years or so, again, why is this a bad thing? Are we under threat of a full-on conflict with another superpower? All of the fighting since WW2 has been small regional conflicts that we stick our nose into (or to clean up the mess made by our dictators when they go too far). Do we need the largest military in the world? Do we need to have military spending in every Congressional district?

    And what of the engineers, scientists and tradesmen who, instead of being able to improve society, are drawn into the military industrial complex, paid in blood money to invent new ways of killing? We’ll never know what could have been done with their talent.

    And finally, what does having this standing army do to our values as a society? It wasn’t that long ago that our country sat on the sidelines while Europe fought one of its wars, choosing to stay away until Progressive thinkers decided America needed to choose sides. In for a penny, in for a pound as they say, and now not only do we get involved, a large segment of our population demands it. It’s very interesting that we seem to have drawn a line at Syria, choosing to ignore the problem of an “out of control” dictator. Perhaps the American people are learning. It seems the military and the government hasn’t.

    • Eric-G, sounds good to me. Get the whole gamutka down to the lowest common denominator and then tell them all to go home. Just got an email with 9 propositions in Tx, all of which take more taxpayer money for “special interests” and in almost all the cases those interests served ex-military. No thanks, I’ll pass on all 9.

    • Exactly. The military is not out to “protect America” it’s out to secure its ever increasing paychecks. A bullshit bureaucracy that is set out to protect the government, not the people. If “they” gave a shit about the people, they’d be securing America’s borders. Instead they’re killing the patriots of other countries who hate “us” because “we” occupy their lands, and kill their children and call it “collateral damage”.

  3. College cheerleader George W. Bush started the purge, hidden-homo Obama is completing it.

    Commander In Chief Launches Operation Fabulous

LEAVE A REPLY