View Full Version : Dempsey: Military Must Be 'Apolitical'
BMT (RIP)
08-22-2012, 03:18
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/21/dempsey-disappointed-by-anti-obama-campaign-by-ex-military-members/
:mad:
BMT
The group seems to be most focused on the controversy over security leaks. Those leaks are currently under investigation by Justice Department attorneys.
IMO the security leaks issue is the issue and they went off message by starting with an "Obama didn't kill bin Laden" focus. If you watch all the interviews and press releases, BHO never made such claims, only that he was kept informed and made the decision for the mission to go ahead as the CINC. Rehashing it all unnecessarily detracts from the national security issue, and it comes across more along the lines of a sour grapes gripe before they even begin discussing the real issue - the importance and danger of leaks about US covert operations.
You only get one chance to make a good first impression with something like this...and they may have wasted theirs...like Dempsey wasted his with his comments on this one.
And so it goes...
Richard :munchin
Inflexible Six
08-22-2012, 05:33
I'd be very surprised if it hadn't been "suggested" to the General that he step in here and take one for Team Management. Otherwise there is absolutley no logical reason for him to say anything at all in public about the political activities of American citizens, regardless of their former military affiliations.
ddoering
08-22-2012, 06:29
Otherwise there is absolutley no logical reason for him to say anything at all in public about the political activities of American citizens, regardless of their former military affiliations.
Exactly. Why is he inserting his opinion into politics during an election year?
Exactly. Why is he inserting his opinion into politics during an election year?
CJCS is a political position - or - maybe it's PTSD over almost being shelled in Kabul the other day... :rolleyes:
Richard :munchin
easy Richard - his plane did get the paint scratched. I'm sure his minions are prepping another row of ribbons for presentation to him as I type this.
Badger52
08-22-2012, 07:47
CJCS is a political position - or - maybe it's PTSD over almost being shelled in Kabul the other day... :rolleyes:
Richard :munchinLet's be sensitive; the current SECSTATE was sniped at in Tuzla.
Dempsey refers to "using the uniform" as being wrong and I think he is right. But, they aren't using the uniform. They are all civilians and have every right to say whatever they feel. The only fly in the ointment is their name which does infer active folks.
longrange1947
08-22-2012, 08:45
Dempsey refers to "using the uniform" as being wrong and I think he is right. But, they aren't using the uniform. They are all civilians and have every right to say whatever they feel. The only fly in the ointment is their name which does infer active folks.
And that is why Dempsey was wrong in his statement. Being a retired military does not cause me to lose freedom of speech. Now being in the military does under certain circumstances.
If Dempsey had said guys in uniform should not.... then that is a horse of another color.
Oldrotorhead
08-22-2012, 11:38
The General works for those ex-service people as does the President. Since they are no longer serving in the Military they can say most anything the want and call themselves almost anything they like. The General is injecting himself into the affairs of civilians and should shut up and mind his own business.
If we could just figure a way to control the Armed Forces without Officers... :D
Inflexible Six
08-22-2012, 14:02
If we could just figure a way to control the Armed Forces without Officers... :D
:D:D
They always pop up at the most inconvenient times.
The General is way off base on this issue. He sounds like a shill for the present administration and since he is still in uniform he needs to take his own damned advice.
MOO, GEN Dempsey's comments raise questions about the ability of American civilians to understand the nuances of the criticisms being leveled at the president regarding SOF and OPSEC as well as who those civilians will hold responsible for that misunderstanding.
America is entering what I think will be a long interval of retrenchment. Previously, similar phases saw a deterioration of civil military relations. Based upon a specific work GEN Dempsey recommended while he was the chief of staff (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&ved=0CDIQFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.history.army.mil%2Fhtml%2Fboo ks%2F105%2F105-1-1%2FCMH_Pub_105-1-1.pdf&ei=aVs1UIr1B67iigKt8IDYAQ&usg=AFQjCNF0e20PiaYY_grVEBrPETWTtPYc8Q), as well as the text on American military history he would have encountered at West Point, and his own experiences serving during the 1970s under Carter (one can only wonder what it was like for the general to cross paths with James Fallows on 19 February 2012 (http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1202/19/fzgps.01.html)), I suspect that GEN Dempsey is trying to hedge against the recurrence of such a dynamic.
If we could just figure a way to control the Armed Forces without Officers... :D
Hand them all maps and tell them to follow the directions to the Dining In.
You'll never see any of them again...
...as well as the text on American military history he would have encountered at West Point...
Exempli gratia?
Exempli gratia?I have in mind the U.S. Army's Center of Military History, American Military History. Specifically, chapter 13, by Paul Scheips, Jr., “Darkness and Light: The Interwar Years, 1865-1898." Based upon my research, this chapter appeared in the early 1970s.
That chapter leans heavily upon Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (1957), which, in turn, leans on William Ganoe's The History of the United States Army (1924).
In that work, Ganoe draws upon the themes laid out in Peter S. Michie, The Life and Letters of Emory Upton, Colonel of the Fourth Regiment of Artillery, and Brevet Major-General, U.S. Army (1885) and Emory Upton, The Armies of Asia and Europe: Embracing Official Reports on the Armies of Japan, China, India, Persia, Italy, Russia, Austria, Germany, France, and England (1878).
Collectively, these works paint a picture of American civil military relations in which civilians range from indifference (Huntington) to hostility (Ganoe and Upton) towards the army and suggest that professional soldiers should defer to civilians on matters of politics while civilians should defer to soldiers on matters of policy.
As an egghead, I think the influence of Upton, Michie, and Ganoe upon American military historiography, military policy and civil military relations continues to this day and this interpretation is badly in need of revision.
XngZeRubicon
08-22-2012, 20:25
The General works for those ex-service people as does the President. Since they are no longer serving in the Military they can say most anything the want and call themselves almost anything they like. The General is injecting himself into the affairs of civilians and should shut up and mind his own business.
Here here. Personally, I've been flabbergasted he'd suggest any of us who USED to wear the uniform aren't protected by the First Amendment. It's surreal. I agree with all the folks who are concerned about the inference to active duty SEALs, but neither the title of the group nor the video really lend themselves to those caveats, IMO. And once you watch the video, I think they make it clear they're not active.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/22/ex-navy-seal-defends-group-obama-attacks-condemns-obama-bin-laden-ad/?test=latestnews
OPSEC, a group of former military and intelligence operatives and creators of a long-form political ad that blames President Obama for a series of national security leaks, is firing back against criticisms from the nation's highest ranking military officer.
Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey on Tuesday told Fox News he was "disappointed" by the political use of the military uniform.
"If someone uses the uniform, whatever uniform, for partisan politics, I am disappointed because I think it does erode that bond of trust we have with the American people,” Dempsey said in an interview with Fox News while flying back from a trip to Afghanistan and Iraq.
But Scott Taylor, a former Navy SEAL and the president of OPSEC, argues that Dempsey's criticisms can be applied equally to the Obama campaign's "One Chance" ad, which features images of Black Hawk helicopters in flight and military pilots. The video, which is still available online, suggests Gov. Mitt Romney would not have made the same decision to call for the raid that killed Usama bin Laden.
“The Obama campaign continues to promote a highly partisan attack ad that used military footage and photographs from the White House Situation Room to support sharp criticism of the president’s political opponent,” Taylor said. “The use of those in uniform and the work they do for partisan political purposes is not only unhelpful, as General Dempsey said, but is dishonorable, and the campaign should immediately remove the ad for good.”
Taylor also claimed that unlike the Obama campaign's ad, all of the men featured in the OPSEC video were former military and therefore have the right to speak freely.
"Speaking openly about protecting those in uniform is far more helpful than speaking about classified intelligence or Special Operations missions, tactics and capabilities, which bipartisan leaders have said has reached alarming levels under this administration,” Taylor said.
Dempsey had said that as the steward of his profession -- the military -- he thinks it imperative that the military remain “apolitical.”
OPSEC unveiled its 22-minute video on its website last week and pledged to go on air with a TV ad sometime in September.
In the video, an array of retired CIA agents and other intelligence personnel suggest the administration has been leaking security details for political gain, and specifically criticize the president over his public handling of the bin Laden raid.
"Mr. President, you did not kill Usama bin Laden. America did," Navy SEAL Ben Smith said in the video. "The work that the American military has done killed Usama bin Laden. You did not."
The Web video showed clips of Obama's press conference in early May on the Pakistan raid, highlighting his comments about directing the mission. The video left out the rest of the remarks in which Obama thanked the "countless intelligence and counterterrorism professionals" involved.
The Obama campaign, though, dismissed the video as akin to the 2004 "Swift Boat" ads.
"The Republicans are resorting to Swift Boat tactics because when it comes to foreign policy and national security, Mitt Romney has offered nothing but reckless rhetoric," Obama spokesman Ben LaBolt said.
The group seems to be most focused on the controversy over security leaks. Those leaks are currently under investigation by Justice Department attorneys.
The narrator in the video says former military and intelligence operatives who understand the importance of operational security "have had enough."
"Their mission -- stop the politicians from politically capitalizing on U.S. national security operations and secrets," the narrator says, as a picture of Obama flashes on screen.
Obama has condemned the leaks. He said in June that the issue is "a source of consistent frustration" for his and prior administrations.
Meanwhile, publishing giant Penguin Group has confirmed it has plans to release a book that provides a detailed, first-person account of the raid that killed Usama bin Laden. According to the publisher, the book, "No Easy Day: The Firsthand Account of the Mission That Killed Osama Bin Laden," is written under a pseudonym by a Navy SEAL who participated in the mission. It's co-authored with Kevin Maurer and is set to be released on Sept. 11.
A spokesman at Dutton, a group owned by Penguin, says proceeds from the book will be donated to charitable causes that benefit the families of fallen Navy SEALs.
Snip
Badger52
08-23-2012, 06:09
Sigaba, with hat-tip to your obvious serious academic skills (and not having read everything on GEN Dempsey's CoS list), this line from the synopsis of one at the top seems to fit the bill:
Based on his own experiences, Schofield understood
that politics determined policy and urged Army officers to execute
policy in a nonpartisan, disinterested, and even-handed manner.
I don't think this is as deep as many are making it; I think he simply screwed up in expanding the scope of his comments, or even commenting at all. As a veteran, and American first, I've neither violated the Hatch Act, nor abdicated my rights as a citizen. He could've just shut-up and stayed in his lane. He didn't, so he needs to take some of his own annual required training.
Perhaps a recurring item in the history section of any senior leaders's suggested reading list should be some refreshers of left & right limits.
Pretty good synopsis.
Do Navy SEALS have the right to criticize Obama?
http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=610&vid=300026329616524547
Richard :munchin
...Collectively, these works paint a picture of American civil military relations in which civilians range from indifference (Huntington) to hostility (Ganoe and Upton) towards the army and suggest that professional soldiers should defer to civilians on matters of politics while civilians should defer to soldiers on matters of policy.
Not that I disagree with your interpretation of these works, but what leads you to believe American Military History is the text used in US history, military art or military science classes?
BMT (RIP)
08-23-2012, 10:21
Disappointment. That is a very good word to use. Joint Chiefs Chairman General Martin Dempsey applied it recently. It seems the General, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the senior Officer in our Armed Forces, is “disappointed” that former service members have strongly expressed opinions regarding the conduct of Administration officials, including the President.
http://blog.usni.org/2012/08/22/general-dempseys-disappointment-with-free-speech/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+UsniBlog+%28USNI+Blog%29
BMT
Inflexible Six
08-23-2012, 17:15
The General is "disappointed" because his Commander-in-Chief is even more disappointed. I think at the level of Joint Chief's Chairman, politics can poison even an honorable Soldier's integrity.
miclo18d
08-24-2012, 05:40
What I find interesting about Dempsey is that he only commanded troops in combat at the Field Grade level, earning himself two Bronze Stars (at least one with Valor somehow).
He went on to be the Executive Officer of the 3rd Brigade 3rd Armored Division during Operation Desert Shield/Storm.
...Dempsey's command of the 1st Armored Division lasted until July 2005 and included 13 months in Iraq, from June 2003 to July 2004.
This guy doesn't have much maneuver room in my book.
Definitely has moved his way up the chain with very few assignments outside of armor. No doubt in my mind he has as much disdain for Special Operations that Schwarzkopf did.
Not that I disagree with your interpretation of these works, but what leads you to believe American Military History is the text used in US history, military art or military science classes?Razor, I failed to double check my notes and I failed to think through my word choice. I should have written Dempsey "might have" encountered the work in question. I do not have evidence that the text--which was produced for use in ROTC programs--was assigned at the USMA when Dempsey attended.:o
Let's be sensitive; the current SECSTATE was sniped at in Tuzla.
By Who?
Razor...
No worries. It may be that those majoring in History may use that text, but I was pretty confident based on past experience that those taking just the required History, Military Art and Military Science classes didn't use it. I did follow the link you provided and read the chapter--thanks for providing it.
Dozer523
08-25-2012, 07:57
Taylor also claimed that unlike the Obama campaign's ad, all of the men featured in the OPSEC video were former military and therefore have the right to speak freely. And this "right" is dirived from what source?
All Americans have a right to say whatever they want unless saying it is illegal.
"Mr. President, you did not kill Usama bin Laden. America did," Navy SEAL Ben Smith said in the video. "The work that the American military has done killed Usama bin Laden. You did not."
The President didn't say that.
But, this is okay? (Paul Brennan "Ladies and Gentlemen, We got him.") http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S02BHmWPZNs
Sounds to me like cherry-picking cantaloupes.
The President didn't say that.
They're prolly referring to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1DkS6LpuecE
Surgicalcric
08-25-2012, 14:17
Exactly. Why is he inserting his opinion into politics during an election year?
Because he holds a political position, GO.
By Who?
Those who were actually there, have no idea what she was talking about either..
Paragrouper
08-25-2012, 20:49
Those who were actually there, have no idea what she was talking about either..
In my recollection, most shooting incidents at the time involved an inebriated local, a jug of slivo, an AK and a convenient inanimate object (roof, tree, truck, etc...).
Loud? yes. Humorous? Sometimes. Dangerous? Not really.
There was, however, a story that originatedcirca 2008 with then candidate Hillary, that she came under sniper fire at Tuzla in March 1996:
Hillary Clinton has been regaling supporters on the campaign trail with hair-raising tales of a trip she made to Bosnia in March 1996. In her retelling, she was sent to places that her husband, President Clinton, could not go because they were "too dangerous." When her account was challenged by one of her traveling companions, the comedian Sinbad, she upped the ante and injected even more drama into the story. In a speech earlier this week, she talked about "landing under sniper fire" and running for safety with "our heads down."
Source (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/03/hillarys_balkan_adventures_par.html)
No mention of the fact that she was at Tuzla, with Bill late in 1995.
ddoering
08-27-2012, 05:49
The General is "disappointed" because his Commander-in-Chief is even more disappointed. I think at the level of Joint Chief's Chairman, politics can poison even an honorable Soldier's integrity.
Perhaps you meant to say,"The General is "disappointed" because his Commander-in-Chief is a disappointment.
Unapologetic Soldier
08-27-2012, 10:52
Pretty good synopsis.
Do Navy SEALS have the right to criticize Obama?
http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=610&vid=300026329616524547
Richard :munchin
Thanks for the post. I couldn't find anything wrong with it other then when lip stick mc gee opened her mouth for the second time around.