Jump to content

Commanders are dropping like flies this year


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said:

If I ever have to be the IO that writes a 150 page report on why some BGen extended her TDYs by a day to attend retirement ceremonies costing the Gov a whopping $690 per occurrence, I’m doing whatever I can to eject from the AF. The amount of effort that went into that exhaustive investigation boggles my mind. There are so many real tactical problems out there to be solved, and so many $billions wasted on bad acquisitions, and some poor guy devotes all his waking hours to this.

Accurate. It was also quite a boring/anticlimactic read skimming through it, TBH.

Now, I’d like to see the IG report on the former 317 AW/CC...I’m sure that would be a far more interesting read!

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Jaysus... sick douche bag.   **break break** I'm grateful to say that I got through my sq/cc tour without a link being posted in this thread about me getting fired.  Today was my last d

Two points that have irked me. First, nothing in the letter he sent was classified information. Having spent 18 years in the Navy, I’m pretty familiar with what reporting requirements are classif

Well, this must be the first time that someone who reads Baseops.net has been the subject of a roiling speculative discussion about some publicly embarrassing, scandalous event that happened to them,

Posted Images

It's surprising to me that after a 25+ year career she didn't understand the potential issues with charging her hotel to a cadet's GTC....a cadet making 10% of what she makes per month, and who is subordinate to her command.

Previous comment nailed it: these kind of travel anomalies exist everywhere, it's when you've pissed off too many people that the IG complaint lever is pulled and it all comes tumbling down.

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole topic of these pardons is interesting to me. On one hand, the US tries really hard to hold war criminals responsible because it helps legitimize our foreign actions and keep international courts out of our business. On the other, it is clear the military justice system is beyond the limits of the individual rights it's supposed to protect. One or two bad commanders can simply rail road someone's career because they do not like them. I am not sure in the cases of the 3 recent pardons that they are not guilty to some degree, but the nature of the MJS causes me to doubt the findings either way. 

The other day I learned if you are arrested by base police, and you will recieve NJP for the crime, you cannot view the police report written about you before you submit your rebuttle. This seems absolutely ridiculous to me. In fact, you will only see the police report after submitting a FOIA request on yourself. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, FLEA said:

The whole topic of these pardons is interesting to me. On one hand, the US tries really hard to hold war criminals responsible because it helps legitimize our foreign actions and keep international courts out of our business. On the other, it is clear the military justice system is beyond the limits of the individual rights it's supposed to protect. One or two bad commanders can simply rail road someone's career because they do not like them. I am not sure in the cases of the 3 recent pardons that they are not guilty to some degree, but the nature of the MJS causes me to doubt the findings either way. 

The other day I learned if you are arrested by base police, and you will recieve NJP for the crime, you cannot view the police report written about you before you submit your rebuttle. This seems absolutely ridiculous to me. In fact, you will only see the police report after submitting a FOIA request on yourself. 

Then fact you can be found guilty by 3/4rds majority (was 2/3rds until a year ago) and can have down to eight members on a panel (where it used to be five) by people who outrank you, not a "jury of your peers" is insane. The non-unanimous requirement to convict is the military justice system to get around hung juries (sts). But the Gallagher case is a good example at why the military justice system isn't proficient at handling high profile trials. I wonder if Gallagher would've even went to trial if the DOJ had tried the case?

I'm sorta of surprised the amount of active duty, and former, military members who don't understand that those appointed and uniformed in the DoD, follow the orders of the CINC. The CINC doesn't follow the orders from those appointed in uniformed in the DoD. I wouldn't be surprised to see RADM Green submit to retire soon as well.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole situation with sending our men and women into harms way, and then judging them like we would a police officer here in the US, is complete feces. I'll side with the American soldier having to make a judgement call under duress every time. It would have to be so egregious that there was no doubt for me to even consider holding someone accountable to the extent of jail time (or even a reduction in rank). Don't send warriors into situation where you really want police or social workers.

Note: I'm not talking about the obvious war crimes like rape or simply killing everyone you come across for "fun".

Edited by bfargin
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, bfargin said:

The whole situation with sending our men and women into harms way, and then judging them like we would a police officer here in the US, is complete feces. I'll side with the American soldier having to make a judgement call under duress every time. It would have to be so egregious that there was no doubt for me to even consider holding someone accountable to the extent of jail time (or even a reduction in rank). Don't send warriors into situation where you really want police or social workers.

Note: I'm not talking about the obvious war crimes like rape or simply killing everyone you come across for "fun".

So I’ll be the asshole. 

I know plenty of dead guys who are dead because they played by the rules. They didn’t pose with bodies, or kill prisoners, or fire where the risk of harm to civilians existed (or in the case of the Army Lieutenant, specifically target then).

And their honor on the battlefield under the established rules of “civilized” warfare is why some of them aren’t with us anymore.

They don’t get a pardon. They’ll pay their sentence for eternity for playing by the rules.

Seems like an injustice to pardon those who went out of their way to break the rules which played a part in the deaths of great men. 
 

RANT - OFF (P)

  • Like 7
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, war007afa said:

So I’ll be the asshole. 

I know plenty of dead guys who are dead because they played by the rules. They didn’t pose with bodies, or kill prisoners, or fire where the risk of harm to civilians existed (or in the case of the Army Lieutenant, specifically target then).

And their honor on the battlefield under the established rules of “civilized” warfare is why some of them aren’t with us anymore.

They don’t get a pardon. They’ll pay their sentence for eternity for playing by the rules.

Seems like an injustice to pardon those who went out of their way to break the rules which played a part in the deaths of great men. 
 

RANT - OFF (P)

You aren't wrong. I think most of us on here want to see war criminals punished and dont condone the alleged actions of the pardoned. For me, particularly the Army Green Beret that executed a prisoner in his custody. This is unacceptable to me. 

But what is also unacceptable, is the miscarriage of Justice by the military. I have seen enough times to count on two hands, commanders who just put a Target on someone, and went out of their way in every way possible to crush a person. We can't, in earnest, advocate that mileygate was an abuse of Justice and instances like therse were not.

Are the crimes reprehensible? Sure. But just because a crime is reprehensible doesn't mean you bend the rules to see a person convicted. One of the things we have to accept about a fair trial, a jury among peers, a high proof of burden, is that sometime people will get away with shit. It happens. In the mean time though, you protect everyone else from the long arm of the government trying to control a population. In the military, you don't have those protections, and somehow, millions of service members and vets became convinced that when you join the military you give up some constitutional rights. This is patently false. The very basic definition of human rights is they apply to all humans, regardless of circumstances, and cannot be given up. 

Your anger shouldn't be directed at the pardoned. (Or not entirely) it should be directed at corrupt commanders and prosecutors who cultivated a system that casts doubt on whether Justice is actually being done. 

Edited by FLEA
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, war007afa said:

So I’ll be the asshole. 

I know plenty of dead guys who are dead because they played by the rules. They didn’t pose with bodies, or kill prisoners, or fire where the risk of harm to civilians existed (or in the case of the Army Lieutenant, specifically target then).

And their honor on the battlefield under the established rules of “civilized” warfare is why some of them aren’t with us anymore.

They don’t get a pardon. They’ll pay their sentence for eternity for playing by the rules.

Seems like an injustice to pardon those who went out of their way to break the rules which played a part in the deaths of great men. 
 

RANT - OFF (P)

That's my issue with what we are doing ... "civilized" warfare. Screw that, warfare isn't civilized and sending fighters/warriors in with dangerous rules of engagement is ridiculous. Use diplomats to talk and work with each other to come to a resolution.  If that's impossible use the stupid UN which we pretty much fully fund to "monitor". And if that still gets us no satisfaction and it's worth a bloody fight, then fight. Once the decision makers make the call for war, it should be war. If it's not worth fighting, don't start kinetic action and don't send our people into harms way.

I don't know all of the facts in any of the three most recent cases (I've read the news but there are always 2 or more sides to every story) but still think the bar should be incredibly high to prosecute someone for war crimes. Dumbass stunts like posing for pictures with a dead guy aren't war crimes even if they show a lack of sound judgement. And, overzealousness in shooting who you think are bad guys, doesn't translate to a "reprehensible" crime to me. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bfargin said:

That's my issue with what we are doing ... "civilized" warfare. Screw that, warfare isn't civilized and sending fighters/warriors in with dangerous rules of engagement is ridiculous. Use diplomats to talk and work with each other to come to a resolution.  If that's impossible use the stupid UN which we pretty much fully fund to "monitor". And if that still gets us no satisfaction and it's worth a bloody fight, then fight. Once the decision makers make the call for war, it should be war. If it's not worth fighting, don't start kinetic action and don't send our people into harms way.

I don't know all of the facts in any of the three most recent cases (I've read the news but there are always 2 or more sides to every story) but still think the bar should be incredibly high to prosecute someone for war crimes. Dumbass stunts like posing for pictures with a dead guy aren't war crimes even if they show a lack of sound judgement. And, overzealousness in shooting who you think are bad guys, doesn't translate to a "reprehensible" crime to me. 

There are more implications to the ROE than chaining or unchaining our troops. Going all out sounds great until you find out how you have to go home because the host country that was going to let you stage an airbase didn't approve of your approach and denied you access to one of the only airfields within range of the conflict. 

There are also moral implications that are well written about in Just War theory and other philisophical approaches used to justify the condoned murder of thousands. 

Executing a prisoner under custody is indeed a war crime under articles 3 and 4 of the Geneva conventions. Posing for pictures demonstrates a lack of good order and discipline. Firing on a motorcylist who does not meet the criteria for a hostile PID is a disregard for ROE designed to control political and military narratives.

One of the reasons we avoid knee crippling power anymore is because as soon as you start slaughtering a civilization by the thousands, you start to turn the narrative of the conflict against you. This brings unwanted repercussions like economic sanctions, or drawing in additional adversaries. You can't fight the whole world. 

You can hate it all you want, but war, and the military, are by nature, political instruments. If you ignore the political component you are going to lose. 

  • Like 2
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, FLEA said:

we avoid knee crippling power anymore is because as soon as you start slaughtering a civilization by the thousands, you start to turn the narrative of the conflict against you. 

Curtis LeMay comes to mind here. Why? Because the last time we actually did this (WW2), we won. 
 

Do we need to flatten or firebomb cities? Perhaps not, but we have been fighting a war since 2001 so maybe it’s time to rethink the current ROEs?

Edited by Bigred
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
Curtis LeMay comes to mind here. Why? Because the last time we actually did this (WW2), we won. 
 
Do we need to flatten or firebomb cities? Perhaps not, but we have been fighting a war since 2001 so maybe it’s time to rethink the current ROEs?
Maybe it's the last time we had a coherent strategy in combat ops appropriate to the relevant theaters?
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Bigred said:

Curtis LeMay comes to mind here. Why? Because the last time we actually did this (WW2), we won. 
 

Do we need to flatten or firebomb cities? Perhaps not, but we have been fighting a war since 2001 so maybe it’s time to rethink the current ROEs?

Do you really think this group of camel jockeys with AK-47s poses the same kind of existential threat to the US as Nazi Germany?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did we discuss this one yet?

Quote

Three Star Lt. General Stripped of Star Following “Fat Shaming” Report

Image-505-1170x508.png

A three star Air Force lieutenant general has been stripped of one of his stars following a report that he created a toxic command culture and even openly fat shamed a female subordinate on multiple occasions.

Lt. Gen. Lee Levy was the head of the Air Force Sustainment Center and had upwards of 40,000 military members under his command at one point.

In reference to how Levy treated his subordinates and command structure, one witness told the Inspector General, “I think if he was in the battlefield, he probably would’ve been shot in the back.” The report says that every single military member they interviewed who served under Levy expressed similar sentiments... (full story at title link)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...