Isn't LTG Wallace the same chap who commanded V Corps? If so, a thoroughly charming and incisive man I had the pleasure of briefing once.
Yes he commanded V Corps in the invasion of Iraq. He almost shot himself in the foot due to comments he made
during the invasion. He is a super officer.


Book Reviewer
tomahawk6 said:
Yes he commanded V Corps in the invasion of Iraq. He almost shot himself in the foot due to comments he made
during the invasion. He is a super officer.
ah huh who's he been caught shagging then ? Or did he tell Rummy the truth about US engagement in Iraq ? :cool:


Book Reviewer
tomahawk6 said:
Amazing gadget, Google.

Might have something to do with this.....

...thread discussing the US doctrine borrowed from Israelis

.....and this:

-------------------------extract NYTimes Septemeber 7, 2003------------------
All Soldiers Will Be Fighters in the New Army

FORT MONROE, Va., Sept. 4 — The Army is looking to instill the fighting spirit in some unlikely combatants — its cooks, mechanics and other support troops who are normally far from the front lines.

Unlike the Marine Corps, whose credo is that every marine is first and foremost a rifleman, the Army has too many soldiers who have lost touch with their inner warrior, said Gen. Kevin P. Byrnes, the Army's top training general.

And, he said, it is time the Army borrowed a lesson from the Marines.

"We've become too specialized," said General Byrnes, the head of Training and Doctrine Command here. "Ask a junior enlisted who they are, and they'll tell you, `I'm a mechanic,' not I'm a soldier. We need to change that culturally in the Army."

So beginning next year for soldiers and in three years for officers, the Army plans to formally inculcate what it calls a "warrior ethos" throughout the ranks.

Army officials are not worried about the battle-readiness of their front-line fighting ranks, like infantry and armor troops. But for support troops, many of whom rarely handle a weapon or drill for combat after basic training, the strategy will probably mean more marksmanship practice, tougher physical training and, for officers, more small-unit leadership skills in the field.

The issue of instilling a combat mindset in troops working behind the lines has taken on added resonance since the ambush of an Army supply convoy in Iraq in March that resulted in the deaths of 11 Americans and the capture of Pfc. Jessica D. Lynch and six other soldiers.

Although the soldiers had completed basic training, they were mostly cooks, mechanics and other support personnel who had little or no combat experience.

But Army officials here said that emphasizing a warrior mentality throughout the ranks had been under way for 18 months as leaders in the Pentagon designed a force for the future that would be agile as well as lethal, and prepared to fight on a battlefield, like Iraq, without traditional front lines and rear areas.

Under plans General Byrnes discussed with reporters here, freshly commissioned second lieutenants would take a new six-week basic leadership course after receiving their commission. Eighty percent of that leadership training would take place in the field.

Officers would then go on to training in their specialized areas, like infantry, armor or intelligence, as they do now after they receive their commissions.

General Byrnes said four pilot programs had been conducted at Fort Benning, Ga., to test the concept for officers and proved successful enough that the training for new officers Army-wide would begin in early 2006. Similarly, the warrior mindset will be included in enlisted soldiers' nine-week basic training courses and their speciality training after that, beginning next year. Support troops could be tested on marksmanship twice a year, like infantry soldiers, instead of annually, as they are now.

In some ways that new emphasis has started. Training instructors in Aberdeen, Md., recite the individual citations from Medal of Honor recipients to inspire recruits. Officials here said the new credo for all soldiers is "put the mission first, refuse to accept defeat, never quit and never leave behind a fellow American."

Maj. Gen. Raymond D. Barrett Jr., a top aide to General Byrnes, said the change meant that support troops would still have physical training requirements, but they might include going through obstacle courses under stressful conditions simulating a combat setting.

Or a mechanic might pass a final advanced training course by repairing an armored vehicle damaged during a mock ambush at night and under simulated hostile conditions.

"The question is, do they think they feel like a soldier?" General Barrett said. "This would test them as mechanics, but it would also test their perseverance."


So, was it talking or shagging that caused Gen Byrnes to fall from favour ?
No - the 'warrior ethos' he alludes to has been in train for a while now (6 - comment?)

If he's been removed from post for 'personal misconduct', then it's unlikely to be related to the article above, which would consitite 'professional misconduct' in any event.
Seems that he has been uuaght with his pants down (according to CNN & Fox). I think the 5-sided wind tunnel on the Potomac is trying to make an example of him since he was approaching retirement anyway. They're fighting all kinds of scandal allegations at the moment and need a fall guy.

Still, it's not all bad for him, it shouldn't hurt his pension and it means that he gets to go to that sweet little gig with Lockheed Martin/Raytheon etc. and triples his salary that much sooner.
Darth is correct that Byrnes was relieved for personal misconduct [infidelity]. The IG had investigated him for several months. It may involve a civilian or a subordinate. In any event he wont be retiring as a General. At best
he will only be reduced to LTG. If his wife divorces him she would be entitled to half his retired pay.
Well she knows and she hasn't. So he had an affair? Big fat hairy deal. The USMIL and investigators have already said he didn't compromise his Military position. How many of the fools on the hill can put their hands on their hearts and say they haven't banged an intern or two. Billy Boy didn't resign as Supreme Commander, so why should this man? If I was his Lawyer, I'd certainly be getting that in as a precedent.

Let me guess, his values and commitment to Soldier First, and criticism of certain people (perhaps) have launched a witchunt?

I can't seem to remember that ever happening to any 3/4* who have said things against the party line. I certainly can't remember a hotch-potch of nasty little charges, and a sordid little whispering campaign about expenses, wives at briefings or personal *cough* interviews with junior officers of the opposite sex , in the American Heavies or TV media about any other Generals or Admirals that dared to stray from the party line. No siree Billy-Bob I don't.
A number of year's ago the Sgt Major of the Army Gene McKinney was retired at the rank of Master Sgt [E-8] for sexual misconduct. This is an Army values issue and a violation of the UCMJ. The big complaint is that when a senior officer gets caught doing something wrong he is allowed to retire with no penalty. From top to bottom you break the rules you pay the price.
Then maybe the UCMJ needs looking at again in the 21st Century? Sorry Tom6, I can see exactly what you are saying, but bearing in mind this Officer's drive, motivation and stated ambitions, especially in the Soldier First programme, wouldn't it be better to just fine him heavily and an entry in his records or some such?
He was due for retirement this fall. His divorce was finalized Monday. The affair was with a female private citizen.
I think military officer's need to maintain high personal standards of conduct. I remember the case of a Sgt in a unit I was in who had an affair with an E-4 [Spc]'s wife. He was busted to Corporal. Just because society has lowered its standards of behavior why should the military ?
I understand that they are looking at his entire career and that they may go back to the last point at which they can establish he wasn't being a "bad boy" and retire him off at that rank. i.e. if they can prove that his first infidelity was as a 3rd year Major for example then he would be retired on a 2nd year Majors pension. Bloody harsh if you ask me, and the US allowing the bible belt to much say in their Army. Also, this is a bad policy for security. A couple of years ago a mate of mine admitted to some strange "fee paying" habits with the ladies at a DV interview. The interviewer’s attitude was "no problem, just happy that you told me and we all know the score"; once you make people afraid of being honest because it could destroy their career you create the security threat, because you open them up to black-mail.
I doubt that. There is such a thing as a statute of limitations. The real issue is that he may have used his staff to enable the affair. General's at that level have several aides, a Warrant Officer to handle administration, ect. In addition they are slaves to a schedule. There are alot of demands on their time. I think he will lose a star and the matter will be closed. Some people think extra martial affairs are no big deal. For the average guy I suppose it isnt. If you are a senior military officer, politician ect. you are a potential security risk if you are conducting an illicit affair. In the cold war the Russian's were successful running so called "honey traps" to compromise their targets.
Hard to feel sympathy for an officer that has been applying the UCMJ against subordinates for all these years only to violate it himself.

Only Congress can change the UCMJ and you can call it hypocritic if you want, but that lot of adulterous barstewards have no intention to allow the soldiers the same benefits as they are entitled to. 80
This is more like asking someone to resign their commission for marrying an actress than anything a serious person could take seriously.
If you are a senior military officer, politician ect. you are a potential security risk if you are conducting an illicit affair.
I agree totally with the "sauce for the goose" argument but this is different. A person is only a security risk if they are worried that there are sanctions for private behaviour.

If there is an enlightened vetting regime whereby you can say "look, I'm having an affair and these people are trying to blackmail me" and the vetting staff say "thanks for letting us know, we'll look into it" then there's no security risk, is there?

If military personnel are conducting sexual relations with people who (A) aren't in their chain of command or (B) aren't married to a fellow soldier then I personally don't see what the problem is.

Apart, of course, from the moral hysteria in certain sections of the Republican religious right of course.

The law is what it is. When we raise our hand to take the oath we know what our obligation is. If we dont want to abide by military law then find a job on civvie street its that simple.

Latest Threads