Posted on 01/25/2013 7:53:06 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Obama Fires Top General Without Even a Phone Call Daniel Halper January 25, 2013 10:26 AM
President Barack Obama fired General James Mattis, the head of Central Command, without even calling the general to let him know he was being replaced.
"I am told that General Mattis was travelling and in a meeting when an aide passed him a note telling him that the Pentagon had announced his replacement as head of Central Command. It was news to him -- he hadn't received a phone call or a heads-up from anyone at the Pentagon or the White House," Thomas E. Ricks reports.
In another post, Ricks says Mattis was fired because:
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?"
There is also a belief that Mattis and Obama differed on Iran. "A particular point of disagreement was what to do about mischief Iran is exporting to other countries. Mattis is indeed more hawkish on this than the White House was," writes Ricks in yet another post.
"National Security Advisor Tom Donilon in particular was irked by Mattis's insistence on being heard. I cringe when I hear about civilians shutting down strategic discussions. That is exactly what the Bush administration did in late 2002 when generals persisted in questioning whether it was wise to invade Iraq. That led to what some might call a fiasco."
3 down, how many more to go?
Probably refused to fire on Americans...
Mattis was the last of our fighting generals.
So all we have left is political officers (aka Timm Curry in the Hunt for Red October).
Wow, he reached the rank of general with out learning you don’t challenge Democrats with tough questions.
That was my very first thought.
“A particular point of disagreement was what to do about mischief Iran is exporting to other countries.”
“Mischief”... Is that what we are calling Iran’s hand in terrorism these days?
Go figure....uneducated, biased and naive Obama Administration civilians get pissed because he pushed them to actually work and work out [gasp] options!
Chess is apparently beyond the capabilities of the administration.
If you don’t bow down and worship the boss, you’re out.
http://www.businessinsider.com/general-maddog-mattiss-best-quotes-2013-1
That is the new litmus test we're told.
Little Barry is such a wussie!
Always seeking respect but never giving any.
I can just hear Obama, "Fire him, I've got a tee-time in 20."
Me three.
looks like job opening for another boot licker
What exactly is Obama's view of Iran? As a matter of fact can anyone define America's policy regarding Iran at any time since 1981? We sold them weapons for hostages, armed Saddam Hussein so he could slaughter them, buy their oil (oil for food scam), sell them technology (through third party countries), threaten them, betray the people of Iran when they try to rise up, promise to negotiate, play footsie in the UN, give them a Predator drone and get really serious with more sanctions. I don't know how anyone could disagree about Iran since no one has a position on Iran.
No, it would be “I’ve got a tee time in twenuh.”
“...fired..., without even calling the general to let him know he was being replaced.”
I’d say that was dishonorable, contrary to good order and discipline, and undermines cohesion.
“...he pushed the civilians so hard on considering the second- and third-order consequences of military action against Iran.”
In many cases, the consequences of action, military or not, do not receive enough attention. But that seems to be the liberal way of thinking.
Getting rid of the warrior mentality and those stalwarts that would defend the constitution is all about bringing down the country. The mad marxist continues his destruction and any general who he views as a potential threat to his power is chopped off at the knees. WE are in desperate need of 3 good generals to step forward and relieve BO, and the head of the other 2 branches of govt. Bo, his bitch and his cronies to be immediately escorted to gitmo for indefinite confinement.
yeah, semper fi, Marine!
(WWII Marines know what semper fi really means; clue; not an abbreviation for semper fidelis!)
even the high brass may be catching on...soon???
Semper Watching!
*****
This kinda reminds me of the stuff Stalin did - just before WWII.
I think our only chance to go back to a constitutional govt. is for our military to uphold their oath to defend and protect the constitution by ejecting anyone from govt who has violated the constitution. Followed immediately by a new election.
My son tried to join the army. after a year of odd request he finally got them everything they wanted... then they LOST all his records. they are not looking for patriots. what r they lookibg for??
That is exactly what needs to happen.
That’s my guess.
I don’t know, but I would bet, that many Marines are loyal to General Mattis.
And, it is only going to get much worse. Bo has great plans for his race, his homosexuals, his left-wing killers, his gangsters, and his unions. None of his plans involve patriots who are viewed as his enemies.
Except when it comes to vindictive politics inspired by childish tantrums.
There are also plenty who are still furious with him for his failure to end the disgraceful Haditha prosecutions.
Ping
General James Mattoon Scott: Where are you, now that we need you?
Taken in a very broad context firing a general is a serious error.
While alive, the general and his fired former brothers in arms are free to plot the coup d’état
Ultra-liberalism is only a temporary facade for Obama. That is why he is going after guns. When he holds all the cards after consolidating his power, he will govern ultra-ultra hard right . . . Stalin style.
Yeh, you beat me too it. He answered the survey wrong.
Just remember Stalin got rid of his generals also.
I wonder if the good General has anything he can reveal to the American people? Maybe he will have a bone to pick with someone in the administration.
BO: “I don’t always fire my top generals, but when I do I use a Post-It note....” Stay classy, my friend.
I think this is the guy who Obama has slated to replace Mattis. (Replacing the Marines with the Army.) Anyone know anything about him?
General Lloyd Austin, United States Army
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Austin
“On 1 September 2010 he became Commanding General of US forces Iraq at a ceremony at the al-Faw palace in Bagdad, Iraq after the US combat missions ended...”
http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/2012/12/marine-james-mattis-lloyd-austin-centcom-120612w/
True, but do you think he pursued that on his own? I think they’ll dislike their new commanding Generals more so.
The mainstream news media is so carefully avoiding this story it’s likely they were directed by the White House to ignore it. Since last year it seems like there is an effort to decapitate the U.S. military.
It seems to me that Obama is taking his cues from his Ottoman empire building buddy Recep Tayyip Erdogan. I wonder when he will jail all of them as did Erdogan?
Faggots and lesbians who pretend they have the same abilities as real warriors.
He obviously passed the skin color criteria.
Mathis should refuse to leave his post until Obama comes there personally to relieve him of command in PERSON, and then right before Obama enters the building make a public announcement or hold a press conference that he is resigning in disgust/protest over the Obama administration.
Also if he is the general that recently said something about the “fire on the civilians” litmus test he should make that public as well.
Paving the way for soon-to-be female generals. The principal reasoning behind women in combat is so that they get a fair shake at reaching flag rank, something that would be otherwise out of reach for someone without combat exposure. (That’s “exposure” as opposed to “experience”; some flag officers got credit for being in a combat zone for a minimal period.) So women will be allowed to get their combat tickets punched, a reprise of the Vietnam fraud, so the admin can fast track them to flag rank. It’s not about breeding warriors, it’s about putting stars on female shoulders by any means available. That’s the true equality goal, to hell with battlefield results.
Well, at least team 0bama was nice enough not to put a bullet in his head then call it a suicide..
The only thing ‘females on front lines’ will accomplish is a dramatic reduction in female enlistments, which leaves only the gay problem to screw up the military.
Will we be surprised when he appoints that lesbian General as Chairperson of the Joint Chiefs?
Someone tell me this guy doesn’t have a dictator’s mindset.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
