General Dempsey Attacks SpecOps Group for Protesting Whitehouse Leaks
Thread Starter
General Dempsey Attacks SpecOps Group for Protesting Whitehouse Leaks
General Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, recently attacked a group of former SpecOps and CIA Agents who are protesting the continuing leak of sensitive Classified Information that is alleged to be sourced amongst Obama White House National Security Staff or Senior Advisors to the President.
I felt compelled to tell the General what I thought of his comments about that group and what they are doing.
OPSEC is a very common concern here in this forum and I find it extremely odd that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would find fault with a group that were protesting the leak of operational information and techniques that plainly endanger serving SpecOps forces.
Was I too harsh on the General?
I felt compelled to tell the General what I thought of his comments about that group and what they are doing.
OPSEC is a very common concern here in this forum and I find it extremely odd that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs would find fault with a group that were protesting the leak of operational information and techniques that plainly endanger serving SpecOps forces.
Was I too harsh on the General?
General Dempsey,
I am a former Army Warrant Officer Helicopter Pilot and NCIS Special Agent. I take great offense at your comments about the former and Retired SEALS, SF, CIA and others who are speaking out about the continuing leaks of very classified information which appears to be coming from the White House Staff.
Your criticism of those who are speaking out is wrong headed, absolutely devoid of any consideration of their First Amendment Rights as they are no longer on Active Duty, and who take effective efforts to prevent Active Duty Personnel from violating restrictions against Military Personnel participating in political activities.
They are far more correct in their conduct than is Leon Panetta (SecDef). Panetta, as you well know allowed Military personnel to participate in the Gay Pride events around the country recently while wearing their Uniform.
I might remind you Sir....Gay Pride groups are patently political in their activities.
Are you blind to the hypocrisy in the position you and Panetta demonstrate with your decisions and comments?
I am shocked that you elected to criticize the SpecOps folks as you did.....and did not take a public stand against the Gay Pride participation by Uniformed Personnel.
You are supposed to be the Senior Military Officer in this country and are thereby charged with seeing to the very best interests of those forces.
I view your lack of Honor to be much the same as William Westmoreland's when he traded my generation's lives for his promotion to the number one Soldier's job after his tenure in Vietnam. He sold us out then and Sir....in my view you have sold out the current generation of Soldiers in our military today.
You owe the Troops both an explanation for your comments and an apology for having made them. I see this as being no less an insult to the SpecOps guys than Patton slapping the Soldier. Loyalty is a two way street General....you seemed to have forgotten that.
Instead of criticizing the SpecOps guys you should be leading the effort to get to the source of the leaks they SpecOps guys are protesting about. You appear to have your priorities upside down.
I am a former Army Warrant Officer Helicopter Pilot and NCIS Special Agent. I take great offense at your comments about the former and Retired SEALS, SF, CIA and others who are speaking out about the continuing leaks of very classified information which appears to be coming from the White House Staff.
Your criticism of those who are speaking out is wrong headed, absolutely devoid of any consideration of their First Amendment Rights as they are no longer on Active Duty, and who take effective efforts to prevent Active Duty Personnel from violating restrictions against Military Personnel participating in political activities.
They are far more correct in their conduct than is Leon Panetta (SecDef). Panetta, as you well know allowed Military personnel to participate in the Gay Pride events around the country recently while wearing their Uniform.
I might remind you Sir....Gay Pride groups are patently political in their activities.
Are you blind to the hypocrisy in the position you and Panetta demonstrate with your decisions and comments?
I am shocked that you elected to criticize the SpecOps folks as you did.....and did not take a public stand against the Gay Pride participation by Uniformed Personnel.
You are supposed to be the Senior Military Officer in this country and are thereby charged with seeing to the very best interests of those forces.
I view your lack of Honor to be much the same as William Westmoreland's when he traded my generation's lives for his promotion to the number one Soldier's job after his tenure in Vietnam. He sold us out then and Sir....in my view you have sold out the current generation of Soldiers in our military today.
You owe the Troops both an explanation for your comments and an apology for having made them. I see this as being no less an insult to the SpecOps guys than Patton slapping the Soldier. Loyalty is a two way street General....you seemed to have forgotten that.
Instead of criticizing the SpecOps guys you should be leading the effort to get to the source of the leaks they SpecOps guys are protesting about. You appear to have your priorities upside down.
Well SASless,
The general can have no doubt about the strength of your views but the problem is; will he ever see your letter?
The top brass is protected by a screen of minders who filter out things which, for whatever reason, they don't think the great and good should see. Your best chance of exposing this issue is probably through a sympathetic press. In UK many stories come to the fore because the newspapers (not necessarily national at first) get hold of the story. You might also find an ally in a congressman/senator with a spec ops background.
In Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) the forces lost a big advantage when some of their tracking methods were exposed and in the Falklands conflict, various leaks/speculation endangered military ops. Both these things were revealed by people who couldn't keep their 'gob' shut.
Good Luck
Old Duffer
The general can have no doubt about the strength of your views but the problem is; will he ever see your letter?
The top brass is protected by a screen of minders who filter out things which, for whatever reason, they don't think the great and good should see. Your best chance of exposing this issue is probably through a sympathetic press. In UK many stories come to the fore because the newspapers (not necessarily national at first) get hold of the story. You might also find an ally in a congressman/senator with a spec ops background.
In Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) the forces lost a big advantage when some of their tracking methods were exposed and in the Falklands conflict, various leaks/speculation endangered military ops. Both these things were revealed by people who couldn't keep their 'gob' shut.
Good Luck
Old Duffer
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't think that you were too harsh on the General.
However, the minute you tied your feedback about leaks into the issue about Gay Pride, you devalued your original point and condemned yourself into looking like a homophobe (in Their eyes).
IMO, you should have stuck to the point and maintained the moral high-ground over the single issue of OPSEC and it being spunked up the wall for the sake of petty political currency.
However, the minute you tied your feedback about leaks into the issue about Gay Pride, you devalued your original point and condemned yourself into looking like a homophobe (in Their eyes).
IMO, you should have stuck to the point and maintained the moral high-ground over the single issue of OPSEC and it being spunked up the wall for the sake of petty political currency.
Last edited by Finnpog; 23rd Aug 2012 at 05:29.
SASless
The way I read your letter, it seems to me it is less about OPSEC and more about the increasing untenable retrograde anti gay attitude that is regrettably still prevalent in the US Military.
As a straight Reserve member of the Canadian Forces, an organization that recognized gay rights over 15 years ago with zero effect on operational effectiveness I think like the institutional racism against blacks that existed 50 years ago, the Neanderthals in the Military will eventually be left behind as civil society demand they align themselves with what the what the majority have decided is now an unacceptable prejudice
The way I read your letter, it seems to me it is less about OPSEC and more about the increasing untenable retrograde anti gay attitude that is regrettably still prevalent in the US Military.
As a straight Reserve member of the Canadian Forces, an organization that recognized gay rights over 15 years ago with zero effect on operational effectiveness I think like the institutional racism against blacks that existed 50 years ago, the Neanderthals in the Military will eventually be left behind as civil society demand they align themselves with what the what the majority have decided is now an unacceptable prejudice
Thread Starter
Finn,
I posted that message at his Facebook Page....I bet someone read it!
The point is not Homosexuality or Gays in the Military. The point was the SecDef's pointed approval of allowing the wearing of the Uniform by Active Duty Military folks at the Gay Pride Events which are annual occurrences. In that Letter of Approval it was limited to just this year alone.....out of some sort of idea that a one time approval (Exemption from the Historical Policy of no Uniforms at Political Events, Protests, Rally's) was acceptable in light of the recent ending of DADT in our Military.
My point was to point out that allowing the wearing of the Uniform as approved by SecDef closely followed by Dempsey claiming the Military (even those out of Uniform and no longer on Active Duty) protesting the leaks ,was improper ,directly contradicts the SecDef's decision re Gay Pride events which are very political.
How can Dempsey condemn those not on Active Service and not in uniform....and not say the exact same thing about Active Duty Personnel in Uniform at the Gay Pride events. That is my point.....made by using a very recent and very high profile event that directly flew in the face of historical precedent and existing Military Policy.
At the first National Tea Party gathering in Washington DC, a few Military folks commuting from Work to Home happened to walk through the area where we were gathered. They were not part of the Protest....just simply guys and gals headed home after working in the Capitol Building in some liasion office. They were escorted out of the area by Police and I would bet some sort of report was made to their Command. Most of them pulled rain coats out of their back packs, removed their head gear, and took every effort to appear to be anything but Military upon realizing what they had walked into. That is how strict the rule is...and should be.
Dempsey is wrong....very wrong.
What is the difference between John McCain running for office as a Retired Naval Officer and these Spec Ops guys who are retired and voicing their concerns? Do we ban Retired and former Military people from running for office or participating in the political process they guarded with their lives?
This Dempsey guy is spineless....two faced.....and an embarrassment to those of us who served in the Military and does not warrant any respect at all. He of all people should be banging on doors demanding a full and prompt investigation into the leaks. Serving members are at risk due to the leaks....sources are being compromised.....and I bet lives either have been lost or are going to be lost as a direct result of the leaks.
BPF.....you need to hone your reading comprehension and also remember your history. The US Military was de-segregated by Harry Truman in 1948. The Military led the nation by almost 20 years in that. The Military has complied with the various policies set down re Homosexuals serving. The USMC which had the most resistance to the ending of DADT is leading the services in adopting the new policy. I would suggest your comments show a complete misunderstanding of both our history and the way in which our Miltary adapts to change.
I posted that message at his Facebook Page....I bet someone read it!
The point is not Homosexuality or Gays in the Military. The point was the SecDef's pointed approval of allowing the wearing of the Uniform by Active Duty Military folks at the Gay Pride Events which are annual occurrences. In that Letter of Approval it was limited to just this year alone.....out of some sort of idea that a one time approval (Exemption from the Historical Policy of no Uniforms at Political Events, Protests, Rally's) was acceptable in light of the recent ending of DADT in our Military.
My point was to point out that allowing the wearing of the Uniform as approved by SecDef closely followed by Dempsey claiming the Military (even those out of Uniform and no longer on Active Duty) protesting the leaks ,was improper ,directly contradicts the SecDef's decision re Gay Pride events which are very political.
How can Dempsey condemn those not on Active Service and not in uniform....and not say the exact same thing about Active Duty Personnel in Uniform at the Gay Pride events. That is my point.....made by using a very recent and very high profile event that directly flew in the face of historical precedent and existing Military Policy.
At the first National Tea Party gathering in Washington DC, a few Military folks commuting from Work to Home happened to walk through the area where we were gathered. They were not part of the Protest....just simply guys and gals headed home after working in the Capitol Building in some liasion office. They were escorted out of the area by Police and I would bet some sort of report was made to their Command. Most of them pulled rain coats out of their back packs, removed their head gear, and took every effort to appear to be anything but Military upon realizing what they had walked into. That is how strict the rule is...and should be.
Dempsey is wrong....very wrong.
What is the difference between John McCain running for office as a Retired Naval Officer and these Spec Ops guys who are retired and voicing their concerns? Do we ban Retired and former Military people from running for office or participating in the political process they guarded with their lives?
This Dempsey guy is spineless....two faced.....and an embarrassment to those of us who served in the Military and does not warrant any respect at all. He of all people should be banging on doors demanding a full and prompt investigation into the leaks. Serving members are at risk due to the leaks....sources are being compromised.....and I bet lives either have been lost or are going to be lost as a direct result of the leaks.
BPF.....you need to hone your reading comprehension and also remember your history. The US Military was de-segregated by Harry Truman in 1948. The Military led the nation by almost 20 years in that. The Military has complied with the various policies set down re Homosexuals serving. The USMC which had the most resistance to the ending of DADT is leading the services in adopting the new policy. I would suggest your comments show a complete misunderstanding of both our history and the way in which our Miltary adapts to change.
Last edited by SASless; 23rd Aug 2012 at 06:04.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: home
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
His criticism is only of people who are giving the impression that the military is aligned with a particular party.
His issue isn't with what they're saying. He even declined to comment on that. This is what he should do, because I don't think senior military figures should criticise the civilian administration in public.
I think you're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. All he says is it's unhelpful to him, which it probably is!
Re the pride march, it's not partisan political in this way and the US Military has officially endorsed equality of sexual preference so I'd say you're comparing apples and pears.
His issue isn't with what they're saying. He even declined to comment on that. This is what he should do, because I don't think senior military figures should criticise the civilian administration in public.
I think you're getting your knickers in a twist over nothing. All he says is it's unhelpful to him, which it probably is!
Re the pride march, it's not partisan political in this way and the US Military has officially endorsed equality of sexual preference so I'd say you're comparing apples and pears.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
SASLess, I agree with Finnpog. Regardless of any of the issues you raised, I think you failed in not maintaining your aim. While you may be valid in everything you say, feature just the main point and hammer that one alone. Westmorland is just an historic distraction. Dempsey, in your letter, would be collateral damage.
Old-duffer's suggestion is the best. I know you have posted the whole letter to his FB page but you can ensure it reached the light of day through an 'agent of influence'.
I know somene who placed a story through a former news editor which caused accute embarassment to the hierarcy who discovered the carpet was smaller than they thought it was.
Find a sympathetic journalist and go from there.
Old-duffer's suggestion is the best. I know you have posted the whole letter to his FB page but you can ensure it reached the light of day through an 'agent of influence'.
I know somene who placed a story through a former news editor which caused accute embarassment to the hierarcy who discovered the carpet was smaller than they thought it was.
Find a sympathetic journalist and go from there.
I got as far as your mention of gay-pride, then mentally threw your letter in the bin..
What an open and pluralist mindset you have.
SASless - good luck. We can only hope that the relentless misuse of the Armed Forces as a political tool by the tools in UK/US politics will one day cease.
It may take a coup d' etat first though!
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: home: United Kingdom
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless,
I also think that, whilst your point regarding OPSEC is perfectly valid, the mention of gay rights detracted from your point. It could - and I might add, probably will - allow the politicians to write you off as a homophobe whose points are invalid. As stated earlier - maintenance of the aim.
Duncs
I also think that, whilst your point regarding OPSEC is perfectly valid, the mention of gay rights detracted from your point. It could - and I might add, probably will - allow the politicians to write you off as a homophobe whose points are invalid. As stated earlier - maintenance of the aim.
Duncs
So just because you agree with the politicisation of the military when it panders to your particular leanings, it's OK to discard someones entire argument at the first mention of something you don't like?
The US Military was de-segregated by Harry Truman in 1948. The Military led the nation by almost 20 years in that. The Military has complied with the various policies set down re Homosexuals serving. The USMC which had the most resistance to the ending of DADT is leading the services in adopting the new policy. I would suggest your comments show a complete misunderstanding of both our history and the way in which our Miltary adapts to change.
Not doubting the OP's sincerity, but it's an election year, and there might be more to this controversy than meets the eye.
Joint Chiefs Chairman, Special Ops Officers Condemn 'Shameful' Anti-Obama Groups | ThinkProgress
That's one biased version from one side of the political divide. There is plenty from the other side as well.
None of which detracts from the OP's right to criticise. The same point has been made in the UK about the hypocrisy of encouraging uniformed military participation in Gay Pride events. It isnt (necessarily) a homophobic point of view. The OP's drafting might have made this clearer.
The OPSEC degradation problem is older than this administration, but this administration has done BLOODY FA to fix the problem.
Pols have been leaking stuff for their own reasons for decades, and please recall that
J. Deutsch who took home stuff classified high enough that had I done so, as a serving officer, I'd still be in Leavenworth.
End of rant.
General Dempsey forgot rule number one: never overlook a chance to keep your mouth shout.
Pols have been leaking stuff for their own reasons for decades, and please recall that
J. Deutsch who took home stuff classified high enough that had I done so, as a serving officer, I'd still be in Leavenworth. End of rant.
General Dempsey forgot rule number one: never overlook a chance to keep your mouth shout.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Waiting to return to the Loire.
Age: 54
Posts: 386
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SASless.
As I said earlier - I think that they way you tried to align the two issues devalues your critical point about OPSEC breaches endangering lives.
If your point is about increased politicisation of the military - then a better rant would be to condemn all of the stage-managed photo opportunities which the Chief Execs (POTUS / CinC in your corner of the world & the PM over this side of the Atlantic) are portrayed with a host of service personnel being used to "demonstrate the Leader's commitment to the military and to Truth, Justice and the Western Way).
Wearing the military as a 'badge' of virility for their own political ends and personal benefits devalues us all, particularly when the Covenant is something quickly swept under the carpet as necessity bites.
Think more like a Scout-Sniper when you make the point.
As I said earlier - I think that they way you tried to align the two issues devalues your critical point about OPSEC breaches endangering lives.
If your point is about increased politicisation of the military - then a better rant would be to condemn all of the stage-managed photo opportunities which the Chief Execs (POTUS / CinC in your corner of the world & the PM over this side of the Atlantic) are portrayed with a host of service personnel being used to "demonstrate the Leader's commitment to the military and to Truth, Justice and the Western Way).
Wearing the military as a 'badge' of virility for their own political ends and personal benefits devalues us all, particularly when the Covenant is something quickly swept under the carpet as necessity bites.
Think more like a Scout-Sniper when you make the point.
The value Gen Dempsey puts on Sasless's rant: $0
What it costs to be a certified "Seal Boater" (besides loosing all respect): $13 on Ebay for your Trident, another $20 if you want to "have been awarded" the Medal of Honor
For Sasless to out himself as such a right wing Tea Partier (see SAS I did not say Tea Bagger): Priceless
The Sultan
What it costs to be a certified "Seal Boater" (besides loosing all respect): $13 on Ebay for your Trident, another $20 if you want to "have been awarded" the Medal of Honor
For Sasless to out himself as such a right wing Tea Partier (see SAS I did not say Tea Bagger): Priceless
The Sultan
Thread Starter
Sultan.....you plainly ignore repeated attempts by many here to convince you that passing up an opportunity to keep your mouth shut and only appear stupid would be of real advantage to you.
What's wrong....too much heat in Jet Blast to suit you?
What's wrong....too much heat in Jet Blast to suit you?
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Annapolis, MD
Age: 86
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately, Dempsey is acting like a political hack for Obama, and for a man still in uniform that is not on. The folks he is talking about are veterans who are no longer in uniform, and they have the first amendment rights that they spent most of their lives defending. Dempsey should keep his mouth shut.
Bob C
Bob C
Thread Starter
There I was thinking he was of Mixed Race.....fancy that....Obama is Black!
I guess he is the "second" Black President then as Bill "Bubba" Clinton claimed the title of being the "First Black President" years ago.
Also...if we use the Liberal Media's Zimmerman Rule....that would make Obama a White Black!
I guess he is the "second" Black President then as Bill "Bubba" Clinton claimed the title of being the "First Black President" years ago.
Also...if we use the Liberal Media's Zimmerman Rule....that would make Obama a White Black!
Last edited by SASless; 24th Aug 2012 at 03:32.