WASHINGTON
– The extraordinarily large number of senior military officials being
relieved of duty during the Obama administration – nine generals and
flag officers this year alone and close to 200 senior officers over
the last five years – is part of the creation of a “compliant officer
class,” according to a U.S. Army intelligence official.
Since WND’s ongoing coverage of what some top generals are openly calling a “purge” of senior military officers who run afoul of Obama or his agenda, some military personnel have been speaking out.
According
to a veteran Army intelligence official who spoke to WND on condition
of anonymity, there is within the armed forces a major concern that a
“compliant officer class” is being created by the Obama administration.
So much so, he said, that it’s becoming harder and harder to find
“senior officers with a pair of balls in there [the military] now that
would say no to anything.”
“Maybe
at the rank of major or below, and possibly there are some in SOF
(Special Operations Forces), but to make colonel and higher is all
politics,” he said.
To
underscore this concern, the official said almost no public concern was
expressed by officers to the recent repeal of the “Don’t Ask, Don’t
Tell” policy or the decision to allow women into front-line combat.
“I didn’t read one piece of resistance to the DADT repeal, and I haven’t seen one peep about females in the infantry,” he said.
His
comments echo those of retired generals who have expressed alarm over
the high rate of dismissals of high-ranking officers in the Obama
administration.
Retired
Army Maj. Gen. Patrick Brady, a recipient of the U.S. military’s
highest decoration, the Medal of Honor, told WND Obama’s agenda is
decimating the morale of the U.S. ranks to the point that 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,” said Brady, former president of
the Congressional Medal of Honor Society.
Not
only are military service members being demoralized and the ranks’
overall readiness reduced by the Obama administration’s purge of key
leaders, but 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 a founding member of
Delta Force and later deputy undersecretary 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
said the future of the military is becoming increasingly concerning
because of the departure of its leaders who decline to jump onto 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.
Regarding
compliance with the new social order in the military, the Army
intelligence official told WND that as far as women in combat is
concerned, he is “pretty sure” Army officers will “cheat to make sure
one gets through basic training, as opposed to the Marine Corps which
tends to be the last to lower its standards.”
As
a consequence, he said, the Army is reevaluating physical fitness test
standards that will “accommodate all genders, meaning lowering the
standards.”
The
point has been debated hotly as Obama moves women into all parts of the
military. Obama supporters call for equal effort assessments for women
and men doing the same physical stress tests, while critics call for equal results, which is crucial in war.
“Without
going too far down the rabbit hole,” he said, “I can tell you, having
been in the infantry, that basic training isn’t a big deal. Where the
females are going to get damaged is during the field training exercises
and/or combat deployments.”
He
also pointed out that the Army is pushing to “get rid of ‘toxic
leadership.’ They’re even talking about a 360-degree evaluation system
for officers, where the troops get a say on the officers’ performance.”
He indicated that this type of evaluation could portend the departure of many more officers, many for questionable reasons.
He
said “toxic leadership” has been viewed as a result of the wartime
environment where people were promoted too fast, or their performance
wasn’t scrutinized very closely.
“I guess that’s the long way of saying probably a lot of officers need to be relieved,” he said.
That
concept was outlined in a 2005 “Strategy Research Project” paper at the
U.S. Army War College at Carlisle Barracks in Carlisle, Pa. It examined
the issue of “destructive leadership styles,” which apparently the Army
believes continues to exist in the officer ranks and would be subject
to purging.
The
paper, authored by Col. Denise F. Williams, identified characteristics
of toxic leadership to include incompetence, malfunctioning,
maladjusted, sense of inadequacy, malcontent, egotism, arrogance,
selfish values, avarice and greed, among others.
The
Army Times recently cited “toxic leadership” as referring to cases of
misconduct and abuse of authority by military leaders, which have
“proliferated across the services in recent years.”
In
one case, which it called bizarre, a Navy commander was fired after
subordinates complained that he poked them in “appallingly inappropriate
places with his flashlight.”
A
retort from one reader was that, “I would never make it in this kinder,
gentler Army. I wonder what happened to mission first. We won our war
and a war hasn’t been won since. The only thing toxic in my day was
gas.”
Boykin
has told WND that the rate of dismissals has approached 200 in the past
five years and that officers were dismissed on suspicion of disloyalty
or suspected disagreement with the Obama administration on policy or
force-structure issues.
He added that a number of officers have been relieved of duty for no given reason.
“Morale is at an unprecedented low,” Boykin said.
“Officers
want to train for war but are not allowed to” because of other
distractions such as allowing openly homosexual personnel in the
military, the integration of women into the infantry and rules of
engagement that favor “political correctness over our ability to fight
to win.”
This sentiment was echoed by a Coast Guard Reserve member who told WND he will be retiring soon.
“I
spend most of my ‘drills’ doing online training on things like
‘diversity’ and ‘preventing sexual harassment’ these days,” he said.
“It’s becoming a joke. This country is in trouble.”
Those reports include confirmation from Elaine Donnelly of the Center for Military Readiness,
who says Obama has done “great damage” to the military by taking away
resources and imposing “heavy burdens of social experimentation.”
“But
most flag and general officers are following orders, keeping their
heads down and, in my opinion, letting down the troops,” she said.
During
the Reagan administration, Donnelly was appointed by Defense Secretary
Caspar Weinberger to the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the
Services. And in 1992, Pres. George H. W. Bush likewise appointed her to
the Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed
Forces.
There have been nine cases this year alone of commanding officers and generals being removed from their posts. Several retired generals have accused the Obama administration of a “purge” and have linked the removals to political and social agendas.
Former Florida Congressman Allen West also has expressed alarm over the exit of top-level military officers and now is calling for congressional oversight hearings into
what he calls an “alarming trend” of dismissals and firings of
high-ranking military officers by the Obama administration, firings that
in a number of cases appear to be political.
West,
who as congressman served on the House Armed Services Committee, said
he recently had been in contact with Committee Chairman Rep. Howard
“Buck” McKeon – calling for hearings “to determine exactly why” so many
officers, especially senior officers, are being given the boot.
“McKeon needs to look at this problem,” West told WND. “There needs to be transparency. It is important to get the truth.”
Others have even stronger feelings.
In a recent interview with WND,
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Paul E. Vallely, who was the deputy commanding
general of the Pacific Command, similarly accused Obama’s close adviser,
Valerie Jarrett, of orchestrating the imposition of “political
correctness” throughout the military, affecting everyone from top
generals to the ranks of the enlisted.
Valerie Jarrett
In
pinning the blame on Jarrett, reportedly Obama’s closest and most
influential adviser, Vallely suggested her far-left, politically correct
influence is forcing senior officers to watch everything military
personnel say and do.
According
to Vallely, Obama is “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.”
No comments:
Post a Comment