US general rumored to have been relieved for trying to rescue Ameriicans in Libya

#2
Seems a bit odd to be relieved after 15 months. The only previous commander of AFRICOM, General Ward was there about 4 years and I think combatant commands usually are about 3 years.

Unless it develops that General Ham has a person reason to retire (health, family problem) I would think it likely he did or said something that pissed of POTUS.scenario is that

edited to add:

Another scenario is that he was upset about being ordered not to attempt to rescue the diplomats and chose to resign. If so he may speak out about as soon as the ink dries on the retirement papers.
 
#3
That article is not the most fluent that I have ever read, but after several goes I cannot find what this chap actually did about Benghazi. As the author is suggesting he got fired for it, you would have thought it was sort of germane to the argument.
 
#4
That article is not the most fluent that I have ever read, but after several goes I cannot find what this chap actually did about Benghazi. As the author is suggesting he got fired for it, you would have thought it was sort of germane to the argument.
There is increasing chatter on twitter and other informal sources--as I caveated, this is not. Yet established but is plausible in the context of ever-increasing revelations of military assets standing up and then being stood down all the while Americans were in extremis.

All my instincts tell me this will not end well.
 
#5
So this chap is saying that there's a rumour that this General tried to get help to the Embassy staff whilst the Panetta fellow was determined that they should be left to perish? And that then the General was fired rather than Panetta?
 
#6
In an era where there is increasing criticism of our Generals for risk averse and career focussed decisions - it would be rather ironic if his moving on was due to a decision that leant in to military intervention to assist US citizens.
 
#7
In an era where there is increasing criticism of our Generals for risk averse and career focussed decisions - it would be rather ironic if his moving on was due to a decision that leant in to military intervention to assist US citizens.
My Bold.

Thread drift alert:

Not too sure about your military, but, here in Oz that is permeating right throughout the officer corps. Decision making is all but a distant memory. Must consult the appropriate doctrine/JSP/protocols before signing off, or better escalate it up the chain. Welcome to the modern army.
 
#8
So this chap is saying that there's a rumour that this General tried to get help to the Embassy staff whilst the Panetta fellow was determined that they should be left to perish? And that then the General was fired rather than Panetta?
That would seem to be gist of what was said. Still not sure that he was fired. It could be that when ordered to leave the ambassador to die the General decided to resign and retire. I would expect that the retirement might be delayed until after the election on November 6th.

edited to add: Saw this in the Washington Times
http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/robbins-report/2012/oct/28/general-losing-his-job-over-benghazi/
 
#9
It could be that when ordered to leave the ambassador to die the General decided to resign and retire.
Or it could be that the writer has made the whole thing up. Which, given the amount of evidence he has put forward (ie, none), is the perfect illustration of the pitfalls of the whole 'citizen journalist' thing.

I could write an article saying I'd heard a rumour that Mitt Romney dresses up in his magic underpants and buggers small boys, but with no evidence it would merely be an unsubstantiated smear put into the public domain purely for reasons of sowing confusion and defaming the man. If I were a 'reputable' journalist then to keep doing this would destroy my reputation and make me unemployable - but where you have axe-grinders and nutcases turning this stuff out for free, there's no quality control and indeed they seem to vie with each other to conjure up ever-more-fantastical scenarios.

This is a fault of both right and left partisans, before JJH accuses me of being ideologically committed to the US Democrat party.
 
#10
Or it could be that the writer has made the whole thing up. Which, given the amount of evidence he has put forward (ie, none), is the perfect illustration of the pitfalls of the whole 'citizen journalist' thing.

I could write an article saying I'd heard a rumour that Mitt Romney dresses up in his magic underpants and buggers small boys, but with no evidence it would merely be an unsubstantiated smear put into the public domain purely for reasons of sowing confusion and defaming the man. If I were a 'reputable' journalist then to keep doing this would destroy my reputation and make me unemployable - but where you have axe-grinders and nutcases turning this stuff out for free, there's no quality control and indeed they seem to vie with each other to conjure up ever-more-fantastical scenarios.

This is a fault of both right and left partisans, before JJH accuses me of being ideologically committed to the US Democrat party.
Pigshyt -

The blog speculates about the events but the fact is that SECDEF, at a press conference stated that Ham was being replaced by Rodrigues and Ham is 17 months into duty in a Unified Combatant Command when the ordinary period of duty is 3 years. Ham is clearly leaving early. That is fact. The question remains; was he fired or did he quit and for either possibility why.
 
#11
Pigshyt -

The blog speculates about the events but the fact is that SECDEF, at a press conference stated that Ham was being replaced by Rodrigues and Ham is 17 months into duty in a Unified Combatant Command when the ordinary period of duty is 3 years. Ham is clearly leaving early. That is fact. The question remains; was he fired or did he quit and for either possibility why.
Yes, I did manage to pry that much meaning out of it, the one actual fact in the piece. It then however goes on luridly to speculate that the Secretary of Defence intervened to ensure a US ambassador was left with his arse hanging in the breeze, and then sacked the One Good Man who tried to do his duty, and offers no evidence for that.

It's rather like me saying that Mitt Romney is a Mormon (accepted fact) and then going on luridly to speculate that he wears magic underpants whilst buggering small boys - it builds an inverted pyramid of piss on one single, by itself unremarkable, fact.
 
#12
There could be other reasons.

AFRICOM is the 3rd of the major military commands that have over 9 years conducted pro-active intervention and training in the Sahel region of Africa to help prevent the growth of terrorist organizations in the 11 partner countries.

On his watch its all gone to ratshit.

The recent UN resolution on Mali got the proposed ECOWAS/EU intervention action up and running - boots or "advisors" on the gorund before Christmas, etc etc.

Could the "overcoming of doubts and recent swing of US support to the ECOWAS/EU plan" reported in the last 3 days be related to this change in command?
General Ham was pretty robust during the Libyan Op. "Odyssey Dawn" was not without dispute at an international level (lack of agreement on intervention in Syria being one consequence)

Perhaps he was just not the right person for something requiring an even more delicate touch?
 
#13
A question for those who know about US rules:

The article states “General Ham has been commissioned for 36 years but did serve as an enlisted man prior to gaining his commission, so he might have the mandatory retirement 40 years of service.”

So does that mean that people are automatically retired after 40 years service? If so we may not need to look any further for reasons.
 

Wordsmith

LE
Book Reviewer
#14
If (and I emphasize if) the original blog is correct, this is potentially big trouble for people at the very top.

It could ruin Obama's re-election chances and make Panetta a real hate figure. Accordingly, they might react very ruthlessly to protect their position and fire him instantly.

The only flaw in this argument is that the best way to protect their position would have been to fire Ham after the election when they were safely re-elected. That way Ham was less likely to speak out before the elelction when he could damamge Obama and Panetta.

Whatever the merits of this, expect the Republican rumour mill to kick into overdrive...

Wordsmith
 
#16
Maybe he was sacked after his suitcase fell open in the airport to reveal a blonde fright wig, a gross of 'Jim'll fix it' badges and fifty tubes of KY jelly.

Given that he's leaving his post, it seems no more unreasonable an inference to draw than saying he was fired for trying to prevent the murder of a US Ambassador.
 
#17
Well, it must be true if it's on 'American Thinker'…

From their 'about us'… Neocon Nutjobs R Us

……The right to exist and the survival of the State of Israel are of great importance to us…….
 
#18
My Bold.

Thread drift alert:

Not too sure about your military, but, here in Oz that is permeating right throughout the officer corps. Decision making is all but a distant memory. Must consult the appropriate doctrine/JSP/protocols before signing off, or better escalate it up the chain. Welcome to the modern army.
You're not alone. The overriding whinge at Lt Col level in the British Army was that decisions/actions that would previously be dealt with at the worker bee SO2 level were automatically being bumped up to SO1. Remember when they used to say that Majors ran the Army?
 
#19
Maybe he was sacked after his suitcase fell open in the airport to reveal a blonde fright wig, a gross of 'Jim'll fix it' badges and fifty tubes of KY jelly.

Given that he's leaving his post, it seems no more unreasonable an inference to draw than saying he was fired for trying to prevent the murder of a US Ambassador.
Sorry--can't agree on this one as the myriad damning emails continue to come to light that are painting a picture of grotesque failure. While the cause(s) are obviously more obscure at this point, that there was an unconscionable lack of support to Americans in extreme distress cannot now be denied.

Further, it is clear that matters were such (as suggested by the leaking emails) that the highest reaches of government were aware of the true nature of the Benghazi attacks as coordinated and planned military assaults and not the too convenient scapegoat of an anti-muhammad film that the administration, including Him, continued to use for many days after the incident.

From my personal knowledge and experience and corroborated by the evidence continuing to surface, the violent overrunning of a diplomatic station and murder of Americans including the first ambassador in 30 years would be a crisis sufficient to be brought to the attention of the CinC and to activate the White House Crisis Situation room where events would be monitored in real time.

Contrary to to cynical suggestions/accusations that this disaster is merely a small thing made large for partisan politics, I believe it to be a failure of the most fundamental duty of the federal government---protection of its people AND honesty (even in an election season) to the people when appropriately held accountable.
 
#20
Sorry--can't agree on this one as the myriad damning emails continue to come to light that are painting a picture of grotesque failure.
Evidence which the writer of the opinion piece you linked to, conspicuously failed to produce - you're obviously better informed than he is.

As you have studied the matter in some detail, perhaps you could quote the emails that suggest the Secretary of Defence personally intervened to stop help being sent to the besieged embassy?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top