Question for Liberals

[Kung Wu]

This is a dead serious question for our liberal Shockernetters: Does Obama's actions regarding the wholesale termination of our military's brass bother you at all?

Nine generals and flag officers have been relieved of duty under Obama just this year – widely viewed as an extraordinary number – and several sources put the total number of senior officers purged during the five years of the Obama administration as close to 200.

http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/purge-surge-obama-fires-another-commander/

I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm truly wondering if this is raising little red flags inside your head, or if this is just no big deal to you.

[kcshocker11]

Yes its a problem. Their dismissal no problem

[Kung Wu]

Yes its a problem. Their dismissal no problem

That's not clear to me and can be interpreted two ways:

1) There is a problem in the DOD and dismissing 200 of the military's brass is a good thing, or

2) Dismissing 200 of the military's brass is a problem, but these two guys needed to go.

Which were you trying to say?

[ShockRef]

Huh?

Citing ABC News?

Oh yea, they're credible and unbiased.

Tool!

[kcshocker11]

If you watch the entire video , its not just these two guys. Its a problem with ethics by many military brass. No I have no problem with dismissing these people. Will their knowledge be missed? Usually the people working closely with them can fill the gaps. And yes I am using ABC news, they are a credible source.

[Kung Wu]

If you watch the entire video , its not just these two guys. Its a problem with ethics by many military brass. No I have no problem with dismissing these people. Will their knowledge be missed? Usually the people working closely with them can fill the gaps. And yes I am using ABC news, they are a credible source.

Ok, so you are good with 200 of the top brass being replaced. Do you believe the charges of three generals (in addition to the two 4-stars) that ABC chose are representative of the other 197 people?

You don't find it suspicious at all that 200 of the men that have risen to the very top of our military organization, which theoretically are the best and brightest, are being dismissed? These aren't politicians that were elected. They are men that have outstanding career records and have gone through review after review in order to wind up in the position they are in.

This doesn't raise your eyebrows one bit?

[kcshocker11]

Ok, so you are good with 200 of the top brass being replaced. Do you believe the charges of three generals (in addition to the two 4-stars) that ABC chose are representative of the other 197 people?

You don't find it suspicious at all that 200 of the men that have risen to the very top of our military organization, which theoretically are the best and brightest, are being dismissed? These aren't politicians that were elected. They are men that have outstanding career records and have gone through review after review in order to wind up in the position they are in.

This doesn't raise your eyebrows one bit?

There were seven profiled and the story goes on to say that the services are cleaning up their acts. These are just some of the high profile cases. There are thousands of military brass, 200 is not a large number. The best and the brightest? The best and the brightest are the large number of military not committing these type of acts. I commend the branches of our military for having the courage to enact a positive change. You are right about one thing, it should make one wonder how some of these people were able to rise to leadership positions

[Kung Wu]

I see.

[pogo]

I think that the question is a little baiting. I think anyone whether conservative or liberal should have concerns about the dismissal of what is termed as high echelon military. I am interested in what percentage this number represents. Numbers mean little unless there is some context to go along with them. While in the military (5 years) I was often amazed at how some of the supposed senior commanders ever got to their respective ranks. It wasn't because they were really good at what they did but they were really good at making themselves look good. Or they were really well connected in high places. Example: A senior captain was guilty of leaving classified (secret) operational orders in a desk drawer in an unsecured area. Of course the counter intelligence team leader happened to find it in a random search. This type of breach could have meant prison time or at the least a letter of reprimand in his jacket. As it was, he was given a below average on his fitness report and the matter forgotten. Did I forget to mention that his father was a general in another branch of the service? There are transgressions like this that are isolated incidents but sometimes they are just a precursor to other transgressions. So to answer your question as an American...Yes I am concerned. But I am concerned about a number of the military policies that are in place as well as others that will come down the line in the future. Don't ask me about lowering the physical fitness standards of some of the units to be able to include women in them. There are many combat types of missions that women can fulfill while there are others they can't.

[martymoose]

Large corporations clean house all the time. If the guys at the top become complacent and aren't getting the job done, time to find someone who will.

[Kung Wu]

I think that the question is a little baiting.

Well if it is baiting it worked! I sucked you in like a tractor beam on the death star, Crusty.

Anyhow, I get that the good ol' boy network may be in full swing at the highest echelon, and that means POTUS needs to mix it up. It still gives me pause that 9 generals have been fired in a single year, and a large number of the colonels that would normally back fill those positions have been dumped too. It's unprecedented. Not having precedence doesn't mean it's bad -- maybe this was very, very long overdue. But I believe it should give anyone pause to really consider the motives and ramifications of such a drastic overhaul.

Mainly I just wanted to understand the liberal mindset on the topic and whether there was any consideration (positive or negative) about it or if it's just much ado about nothing in their minds.

[_kai_]

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/5920:the-pentagons-biggest-overrun-way-too-many-generals

[WuDrWu]

Like @pogo: said, it would be nice to see the overall numbers to get a better feel.

[ShockTalk]

See if this helps understanding the "numbers". 10 USC § 526 - Authorized strength: general and flag officers on active duty.

[pogo]

See if this helps understanding the "numbers". 10 USC § 526 - Authorized strength: general and flag officers on active duty.

Oh yeah its all clear to me now.