US news reports on Obama’s unprecedented firing of a powerful US Navy Commander during wartime state that Admiral Gaouette’s removal was for ‘allegations of inappropriate leadership judgment’ that arose during the strike group’s deployment to the Middle East.
This GRU report, however, states that Admiral Gaouette’s firing by President Obama was due to this strike force commander disobeying orders when he ordered his forces on 11 September to ‘assist and provide intelligence for’ American military forces ordered into action by US Army General Carter Ham, who was then the commander of the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM), against terrorist forces attacking the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya.
General Ham had been in command of the initial 2011 US-NATO military intervention in Libya who, like Admiral Gaouette, was fired by Obama.
And as we can, in part, read from US military insider accounts of this growing internal conflict between the White House and US Military leaders: ‘The information I heard today was that General [Carter] Ham as head of AFRICOM received the same e-mails the White House received requesting help/support as the attack was taking place. General Ham immediately had a rapid response unit ready and communicated to the Pentagon that he had a unit ready.
General Ham then received the order to stand down.
His response was ‘screw it’, he was going to help anyhow.
Within 30 seconds to a minute after making the move to respond, his second in command apprehended General Ham and told him that he was now relieved of his command…’
Of course, the MSM press just parroted the dubious Administration line that Gaouette was removed from his post (in mid-deployment, which is Moon-rock rare) because of a ‘ongoing investigation’ into ‘inappropriate leadership judgement’- say what?
In addition, Gen. Joseph Dunford -the Marine Corps’ 2nd in command- is also suddenly ‘stepping down’… maybe he too had a problem with just standing there while some Medieval savages rape and kill our ambassador and burn a US consulate to the ground. I clicked over to Wikipedia to see what the left-leaning ‘reference’ site had to say about all this, yet even they can only come up with the most foggy, vague explanation.
Intentional obfuscation…? Keeping this one opaque only helps Barack Obama…
Many believe this was a forced retirement due to General Ham speaking out of turn about the brewing Benghazi attack fiasco of September 11, 2012. A Navy Admiral, Rear Admiral Charles M. Gaouette, was also apparently involved in this confusing event as he was relieved of duty “until the matter is resolved.”
Others caught-up in the recent Obama power-consolidation-
and-truth-burying purge because they know too much
(re. Benghazigate) -like Hillary Clinton and Gen David Petraeus-
are gone or on their way out as well.
Hey, Kim Jong Un is up to the same sort of ‘purge’ thing lately too- maybe Obama can ring him up and chat about purging, basketball, exchange tips on interrogation/guillotine techniques, etc.
But if you ask me, the idea of a coup plot sounds really kind of far-fetched- perhaps it’s all just in Dear Leader’s (stoned) head, narcissists are known to be very, very paranoid.
BY: Washington Free Beacon Staff
“Word on the national security street is that General James Mattis is being given the bum’s rush out of his job as commander of Central Command, and is being told to vacate his office several months earlier than planned,” reports veteran national security correspondent Thomas E. Ricks.
Four Star General, Marine James “Mad Dog” Mattis
It now appears likely that Gen. Mattis, a Marine Corps legend, will leave his post as head of America’s most important combatant command in March, several months earlier than planned. Ricks continues:
Why the hurry? Pentagon insiders say that he rubbed civilian officials the wrong way — not because he went all “mad dog,” which is his public image, and the view at the White House, but rather because he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran.
Some of those questions apparently were uncomfortable. Like, what do you do with Iran once the nuclear issue is resolved and it remains a foe? What do you do if Iran then develops conventional capabilities that could make it hazardous for U.S. Navy ships to operate in the Persian Gulf? He kept saying, “And then what?
Inquiry along these lines apparently was not welcomed — at least in the CENTCOM view. The White House view, apparently, is that Mattis was too hawkish, which is not something I believe, having seen him in the field over the years. I’d call him a tough-minded realist, someone who’d rather have tea with you than shoot you, but is happy to end the conversation either way. (complete article below)
The reported departure will have consequences for U.S.-Iranian relations, civil-military relations, Marine Corps morale, and inter-service politics, Ricks writes. “I am at the point where I don’t trust his national security team,” he adds. “They strike me as politicized, defensive and narrow. These are people who will not recognize it when they screw up, and will treat as enemies anyone who tells them they are doing that. And that is how things like Vietnam get repeated. Harsh words, I know. But I am worried.”
Obama is expected to pursue a diplomatic resolution to the Iranian nuclear program this year.
Evidence of Iranian entanglement in Iraq, low-intensity conflict zones in Africa and the Middle East, the Syrian civil war, Afghanistan, and in international terrorism continues to mount.
More from Ricks on the Mattis controversy here.