The POS in the White House is hellbent on destroying our military — the most powerful military in the world.
First, he got rid of the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy. But that wasn’t enough. Homosexuals are given preferential treatment in the military, whereas critics are silenced and punished.
Next came the purging of military officers, including five senior officers (Gen Carter Ham, Adm. Charles Gaouette, Gen. David Patraeus, Gen. John Allen, and Gen. James Mattis), as well as many lower-level officers. The latter include 157 U.S. Air Force officers who were fired on the eve of their retirement to avoid paying their pensions.
Next, VA hospitals are taking guns away from “disabled” veterans. (See “Obama regime prohibits disabled veterans from owning firearms and ammunition,” “Psychiatrist confirms Obama’s plan to confiscate guns from military vets,” and “CT police confiscated firearms from disabled Navy veteran.”)
Now, President Sauron has turned his evil eye to destroying the military’s command structure by requiring, for the first time in U.S. history, generals and admirals to be evaluated by their subordinates.
This change in military personnel policy ostensibly is to ensure that senior commanding officers will be people of good moral character. If you believe that, then you must also believe in the Easter Bunny. As if this president actually is concerned about moral character given:
- His admission in his autobiography that he did cocaine — an illegal narcotic — while in high school.
- According to Larry Sinclair, Obama’s use of cocaine continued at least into his years as an Illinois state senator.
- Then, there is the matter of his two homosexual hook-ups with Sinclair. (See “Obama’s Gay Sex Romps with Larry Sinclair,” May 31, 2010.)
- And don’t forget his patently fake birth certificate and his strange Connecticut-issued Social Security number.
There is no assurance that military subordinates will eschew politics in their evaluation of their superiors, nor is there a mechanism in place to prevent the intrusion of nonmilitary political matters into the personnel review process.
This whole thing stinks!!!
H/t Combat Veterans for Congress and FOTM’s WildBillAlaska
Here are excerpts from Thom Shanker’s article for the New York Times, April 13, 2013:
After a series of scandals involving high-ranking officers, the American military for the first time will require generals and admirals to be evaluated by their peers and the people they command on qualities including personal character.
The new effort is being led by Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, as part of a broad overhaul of training and development programs for generals and admirals. It will include new courses to train the security detail, executive staffs and even the spouses of senior officers.
Saying he was “disturbed about the misconduct issues,” General Dempsey said that evaluations of top officers needed to go beyond the traditional assessment of professional performance by superior officers alone. He said that he had decided the changes were necessary “to assess both competence and character in a richer way.”
“You can have someone of incredible character who can’t lead their way out of a forward operating base because they don’t have the competence to understand the application of military power, and that doesn’t do me any good,” General Dempsey said. “Conversely, you can have someone who is intensely competent, who is steeped in the skills of the profession, but doesn’t live a life of character. And that doesn’t do me any good.”
A significant number of military personnel have been investigated, penalized and fired in recent months for poor judgment, financial malfeasance and sexual improprieties or sexual violence. Others were relieved for inappropriate leadership judgment while in command.
General Dempsey said that regularly scheduled professional reviews would be transformed from top-down assessments to the kind of “360-degree performance evaluation” often seen in corporate settings. He acknowledged that the change had already drawn concern from some in the military’s senior ranks, who warned that it risked damaging a hierarchical command system based on discipline and adherence to orders from above.
[...] It is likely that the review will lead to a reduction in the overall number of generals and admirals, and the size of personal staffs, communications teams and security details. The review also looked at whether administrative staff members assigned to commanders had been used to run personal errands for officers and their spouses.
Among the serious cases of misconduct in recent months, the four-star general who previously served as the top officer in Africa, William Ward, was demoted to three-star general after an investigation into misuse of government funds, including lavish travel with his wife. A one-star officer, Jeffrey A. Sinclair, is facing a court-martial on sexual misconduct charges involving a subordinate.’
[...] Under General Dempsey’s plan, teams of inspectors will observe and review the procedures of commanders and their staffs. The inspections will not be punitive, but will provide a “periodic opportunity for general officers and flag officers to understand whether, from an institutional perspective, we think they are inside or outside the white lines,” he said. In addition, new programs will be instituted to ensure that a commander’s staff, and a spouse, are fully aware of military regulations.
[...] The list of subordinates asked to assess a senior leader would be drawn from those who had direct interaction with the commander.
General Dempsey said that both President Obama and Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel had approved the measures and given him free rein to carry them out as he saw fit.