The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff has been sitting idly by without resigning in protest, while for over 4 years, Obama effectively fired over 200 of the brightest battle tested flag and general officers and senior officers. 

The Chairman didn’t resign, in protest, when Obama refused to issue “Cross Border Authority”, thereby preventing the US Military from launching a rescue mission to attack the 125 to 150 Al Q’ieda terrorists, in their rehearsed and coordinated commando attack on the US Mission in Benghazi, killing 2 US Navy SEALS who could have been easily saved.  Dempsey covered up the fact that armed Air Force F-16s in Aviona, Italy, 480 miles away, sitting on the tarmac on “Awareness Alert” were less than 2 hours of flight time away from Benghazi, and if they were launched and simply broke the sound barriers above the attacker’s, the attackers would have scattered and they would have saved the lives of the two Navy SEALs..

 

For over 4 years the Chairman has sat idly by without resigning as he watched civilian appointees of the Obama administration restrict the “Freedom of Religion” of members of the US Armed Forces by restricting the issue of bibles, preventing Chaplins from exercising their ”Freedom of Speech” in the pulpit reading letters from their Cardinals to their parishioners, forced Chaplins to allow same sex marriages in their Chapels in violation of their deepest held religious beliefs, forced commanding officers of various military bases to order the Color Guards of the US Armed Forces to march in gay pride parades in violation of US Military Regulations, which prevents military personnel in uniform from participating in any political activities at all.

 

Just before Admiral Mullen relinquished Command of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to General Dempsey, he instituted new and “very dangerous” Rules Of Engagement (ROE) that have been responsible for increasing Killed In Action (KIA) by 458%, and Wounded In Actions (WIA) by 358% in Afghanistan (The daily casualty statistics in Afghanistan that President Bush promulgated are no longer being promulgated by Obama).  Those very dangerous ROE, that heroic US military personnel must operate under were responsible for permitting the downing by the Taliban of a CH-47 Chinook helicopter in the Tangi Valley of Afghanistan using an RPG.  That occurred, because the request for suppression fire to prepare the landing zone was turned down because of ROE---34 Military personnel including 17 members of SEAL Team SIX were killed because of those new and dangerous ROE.  Even after the largest single casualty figures in one operation in the Afghan conflict,  Dempsey did not change ROEs to save the lives of US military personnel.   

 

The Chairman didn’t resign in protest, but instead presided over the reckless unilateral  “hollowing out” of the US Armed Forces, bringing it down to very dangerous levels below those of the US Military prior to WWII, while the US Armed Forces are engaged in combat operations in Afghanistan and in combat in the worldwide war on terrorism.  Obama is hollowing out the US military, while China, Russia, and Iran are building up their military strength.   Weakness emboldens aggression. such as we have witnessed and are witnessing in Crimea, Ukraine, Libya, Iraq, Iran, China, Afghanistan, Syria, and Palestine..

 

The Social Experiment On Diversity forced upon the US Armed Forces by civilian appointees of the Obama administration at DOD without Dempsey’s resignation, to object,  is responsible for a decrease in moral, the degrading of tip of the spear units by degrading the strength requirements, the loss of some of the finest Service Academy graduates after their first 5 year commitments are completed, and the sexually assaults on 14,000 young straight males in one year (read the Annual Report on Sexual Assault in the Military–May 2013),   These facts are closely guarded secrets by the Chairman, in order not to alarm US citizens.

 

The Chairman was complicit, by not resigning, when Obama freed the 5 most dangerous terrorist in the world who were imprisoned in Guantanamo, Cuba in exchange for an Army deserter.  According to the members of the deserter’s platoon, he was serving with in Afghanistan, he was accused of desertion in the face of the enemy, and the deserter put his fellow soldiers at risk when they were requited to search for him.  Not one of the deserter’s platoon mates has been interviewed by the Army, but they have been interviewed by the press.  The deserter has not been court-martialed for desertion, and he will probably be set free by orders from Dempsey.    . 

 

Now the Chairman has written the attached article for distribution, it is right in step with Obama’s double talk.  It would have received an “F”, if some of the professors I knew at the National Defense University in Washington, DC or the US Naval War College in Newport, RI were to grade it.  What would former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General George Marshal, General Omar Bradley, Admiral Arthur Radford, General Maxwell Taylor, Admiral Thomas Moorer, etc. have to say about that article, and about the above practices that have severely damage unit cohesiveness, unit moral and the “Combat Effectiveness” of the US Armed Forces. under Dempsey?

General Dempsey Attacks, Defeats Army of Straw Men in FP ArticleFinds battle he can win

 

BY: The Editors // July 28, 2014 5:10 pm

General Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and principal military adviser to President Obama, has written an article for Foreign Policy magazine, stating his view of the military’s role in America’s foreign affairs.Written in a slick, corporate-sounding, richly euphemistic style, the average reader may be left wondering just what, precisely, the point of the article is. Who could disagree with such comments as “a new century [has] brought new dangers,” or, “In each region of the world, we face serious—but very different—security challenges”?A Free Beacon translation of General Dempsey’s bureaucratic Newspeak reveals the plain meaning of some of the General’s more circuitous statements.For example, America’s senior military officer is not very bullish on the prospect of actually using America’s military:Just like after 1945, we now confront a situation in which the U.S. military is shrinking as calls for our leadership around the globe are expanding. With the opportunity cost of each of our actions increasing, we must be judicious in the application of military force and seize innovative ways to use it to best effect.Translation: Despite the fact that many believe that the U.S. military drawdown after 1945 was a strategic disaster, leading to—among other negative consequences—the near-loss of South Korea in 1950, I’m totally okay with reaping a peace dividend in a world without peace! And by being “judicious” and “innovative” in our use of military force, I mean that we shouldn’t use the military much, especially where fighting might be involved.In the Middle East and North Africa, centuries-old religious, ethnic, and tribal tensions challenge state authority and fuel violence. As the region wobbles along a fault line extending from Beirut to Damascus to Baghdad, there are no easy solutions for steadying it. In this environment, the traditional use of military power rarely yields expected results.Translation: I do not think the U.S. military should be deployed anywhere between Morocco and Iran, inclusive. At least not “traditionally”—with guns and bombs and stuff.In Europe, threats from Russia on the eastern flank and extremist groups on the southern flank are growing as countries trend toward parochialism at home. Russia’s activities in Ukraine are giving the world a disturbing image of the hybrid nature of military aggression in the 21st century. Europe is approaching an inflection point at which decisions to favor narrow interests or greater unity will transform the region.Translation: Things in Europe are terrible. We should probably not get involved in that coming “inflection point,” whatever that may mean. I don’t even know what that means!There’s certainly not a one-size-fits-all solution. But there are some common best practices that we should follow. First, wherever possible, we should view problems through a regional lens — not one country, one group, and one crisis at a time. Second, we should carefully integrate all our instruments of power, making sure that our policies leverage each instrument to its best use.Translation: The military is an “instrument” that has not been used well recently. Therefore America should probably not use it as much as we have been.To deal with our most pressing security challenges, the U.S. military will not be the only tool we use, nor should it be the principal one in most circumstances. Often the military is best used in a supporting role — especially if we want to achieve meaningful and enduring results. And we should “go it alone” only in the rarest of circumstances.Translation: Seriously, don’t use the military. And if you do, definitely don’t put it in charge of anything. Those folks at the IRS seem pretty ruthless—maybe it’s time for them to get more play?Our force will be smaller, so it must be more agile, more lethal, and postured to project power wherever needed. Of course, agility has its limits. The size of the military matters. Our nation’s elected leaders must ensure the armed forces have the resources they need to protect and promote the nation’s security interests.Translation: Rather than aggressively insist on the need for a larger defense budget, I am happy to negotiate with myself in public in the hopes of currying favor with those who hope to take all my money away.The emerging security environment also demands that we update our approach to building partner capacity. Armored divisions and bomber wings can blunt our enemies, but they cannot single-handedly preserve the peace. To do that, we need to construct stronger security partnerships with like-minded nations, so that all can contribute to the collective defense. Translation: Rather than fight, we should be training, say, small African nations to defend themselves. The military can do some stuff—just so long as it doesn’t involve actually fighting, which as we all know doesn’t work. Give partnership a chance!While the general gets no credit for plain speaking, he, like his commander in chief, excels at the creation and destruction of rhetorical straw men.For example:Some suggest that grand strategy is too difficult — that the grand strategies of the past were only discernible in hindsight, not the result of careful forethought and planning. Despite cynics’ arguments that grand strategy is a thing of the past, it is critical today — when calls for U.S. leadership and military power shift from crisis to crisis. Needless to say, everyone debating American foreign policy who believes we should not have a coherent strategy for dealing with the world must be feeling the sting of these remarks.General Dempsey’s insistence that military force cannot be considered in isolation from economic and diplomatic suasion suggests that there are those in the non-lunatic community who believe that it can be so isolated. This repeated emphasis is reminiscent of President Obama’s complaint in April that there are people in Washington who think that “each and every time a country violates one of those norms [of proper international behavior] the United States should go to war.” This is a belief held by approximately zero serious people.President Obama and Chairman Dempsey are well suited for each other. Neither man has faith in the U.S. military.