Trump-appointed Sec. of Navy departs over differences with Commander in Chief over “rule of law” and “good order and discipline” (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

 

[Nebaghead]

It appears it was a chain of command issue with Spencer’s forced resignation. I’m not buying Trump said no. He wants this guy to get off Scott free.

 

[Dadsdream]

So, here I am, a Marine Corps and Army veteran, 20-year military retiree with broad experience as a US Army Quartermaster Corps and Adjutant General's Corps trainer-of-trainers, senior instructor, master assessor, for MOS 92Y40 and MOS 71L40, certified Battle Staff Trainer and assessor ASI 2S, with over a decade of classroom experience teaching Military Leadership, Military Justice, Brigade and Battalion Staff Operations and Combat Orders, but from 20 years ago.

Anybody want to know what I think about this SNAFU?

 

[RegularChuck]

So, here I am, a Marine Corps and Army veteran, 20-year military retiree with broad experience as a US Army Quartermaster Corps and Adjutant General's Corps trainer-of-trainers, senior instructor, master assessor, for MOS 92Y40 and MOS 71L40, certified Battle Staff Trainer and assessor ASI 2S, with over a decade of classroom experience teaching Military Leadership, Military Justice, Brigade and Battalion Staff Operations and Combat Orders, but from 20 years ago.

Anybody want to know what I think about this SNAFU?

Depends.

 

[Dadsdream]

Depends.

Don't use them . . . yet.

 

[samiam5211]

So, here I am, a Marine Corps and Army veteran, 20-year military retiree with broad experience as a US Army Quartermaster Corps and Adjutant General's Corps trainer-of-trainers, senior instructor, master assessor, for MOS 92Y40 and MOS 71L40, certified Battle Staff Trainer and assessor ASI 2S, with over a decade of classroom experience teaching Military Leadership, Military Justice, Brigade and Battalion Staff Operations and Combat Orders, but from 20 years ago.

Anybody want to know what I think about this SNAFU?

Most of us know your resume well enough to be your talent agent. We see it at least once a day.

How about just saying what you think without the suspenseful commercial break.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

So, here I am, a Marine Corps and Army veteran, 20-year military retiree with broad experience as a US Army Quartermaster Corps and Adjutant General's Corps trainer-of-trainers, senior instructor, master assessor, for MOS 92Y40 and MOS 71L40, certified Battle Staff Trainer and assessor ASI 2S, with over a decade of classroom experience teaching Military Leadership, Military Justice, Brigade and Battalion Staff Operations and Combat Orders, but from 20 years ago.

Anybody want to know what I think about this SNAFU?

As a retired Air Force Aircraft Armament System Technician with extensive experience as a Quality Assurance Inspector, Loading Standardization Instructor, Exercise Evaluation Team Member and First Sergeant, I am eager to hear your assessment.

 

[RegularChuck]

As a citizen of this great nation, I would like to say that opinions from all are welcome.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I don’t recall seeing any reporting on what Trump said, one way or the other. Did you? What I saw only said the Secretary found out about the effort and asked for his resignation.

I am certain you will discount this due to the source but you asked.

Esper and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley spoke to Trump on Friday with the intention of persuading the president to allow the Trident review board to go forward with its inquiry. Instead, Esper learned that Spencer previously and privately proposed to the White House – contrary to Spencer’s public position – to restore Gallagher’s rank and let him retire with his Trident pin, the Pentagon said. When Esper recently asked, Spencer confirmed that he'd never informed the defense secretary about his private proposal.

Spencer asked Trump to let the Navy review board go forward, promising that the board would, in the end, allow Gallagher to keep his Trident and rank, effectively alluding to his willingness to fix the results of the board usually comprised of the defendant’s peers, a senior U.S. official told Fox News. Trump rejected the offer and said, “no, we’re done,” prompting the president to write a series of tweets doubling down on his efforts to halt the review, the official added.

Eddie Gallagher controversy: Esper fires Navy secretary, SEAL will keep Trident pin, Pentagon says

Defense Secretary Mark Esper fired Navy Secretary Richard Spencer Sunday over his handling of the case of a Navy SEAL who posed for a photo next to an Islamic State terrorist's corpse in Iraq, and the SEAL will be able to keep his Trident pin, a Pentagon spokesman said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

 

[Dadsdream]

Most of us know your resume well enough to be your talent agent. We see it at least once a day.

How about just saying what you think without the suspenseful commercial break.

NEBaghead posted his military experience right at the start of the thread, so I thought it prudent to do the same.
I've never shared any of my military experience on this board, so I thought it prudent to follow suit.
Twice a day? What? Oh, you're exaggerating for humorous effect? Oh, I see. Funny.

The CPO in question had multiple charges against him, which were subsequently proven wrong when somebody else testified they committed the crimes, but were granted immunity. That left one charge - posing with a dead Islamic State teenager for a photo.

Now, this was a common practice in some past wars. In fact, it became so common that after Desert Storm the U.S. armed forces cracked down on such things. The U.S. Army added several pages to my lesson plans stressing the immorality and illegality of such actions. The military made examples of some of the more flagrant violators.

I listened respectfully when my uncle, a Marine Corps veteran of Guadalcanal, Tinian, Saipan and Guam, scoffed and called it political correctness run amok.

As for the Seals, they've always been a tight-knit, self-policing organization, within an organization, within an organization. They operated under a strict code that precluded anybody from outside of the organization from criticizing, critiquing or passing judgement on their actions, particularly those taken in combat zones.

Posing with dead enemies is a deliberate violation of the Law of War, the Code of Conduct, not to mention being a sick, morally repugnant act that can inflame the enemy to retaliate.

Removing a sailor's trident is not a trivial matter.

The Navy Secretary was within the scope of his authority to order the removal of the pin and the reduction in rank.
The President was within his authority to grant a pardon and order reinstatement.
The Defense Secretary was within his authority to order the Navy Secretary to be removed from office.
The President has appointed an Undersecretary of the Navy to the Navy Secretary post.

As far as the right or wrong of the President's pardon, I feel great trepidation when a president who has never served a day in uniform goes against the recommendations from those who have served long and faithfully. Frankly, my gut does not like it, particularly when you're talking about elite forces like the Seals.

But then, I remember Harry Truman overruled Douglas MacArthur about nuking North Korea . . . I remember Bill Clinton denied his commanders' urgent requests to send armor into Mogadishu.

Presidents will make those calls, because somebody has to. DJT made his call. As an old soldier, I have to accept it. But, I don't have to like it.

 

[Beach Friends]

NEBaghead posted his military experience right at the start of the thread, so I thought it prudent to do the same.
I've never shared any of my military experience on this board, so I thought it prudent to follow suit.
Twice a day? What? Oh, you're exaggerating for humorous effect? Oh, I see. Funny.

The CPO in question had multiple charges against him, which were subsequently proven wrong when somebody else testified they committed the crimes, but were granted immunity. That left one charge - posing with a dead Islamic State teenager for a photo.

Now, this was a common practice in some past wars. In fact, it became so common that after Desert Storm the U.S. armed forces cracked down on such things. The U.S. Army added several pages to my lesson plans stressing the immorality and illegality of such actions. The military made examples of some of the more flagrant violators.

I listened respectfully when my uncle, a Marine Corps veteran of Guadalcanal, Tinian, Saipan and Guam, scoffed and called it political correctness run amok.

As for the Seals, they've always been a tight-knit, self-policing organization, within an organization, within an organization. They operated under a strict code that precluded anybody from outside of the organization from criticizing, critiquing or passing judgement on their actions, particularly those taken in combat zones.

Posing with dead enemies is a deliberate violation of the Law of War, the Code of Conduct, not to mention being a sick, morally repugnant act that can inflame the enemy to retaliate.

Removing a sailor's trident is not a trivial matter.

The Navy Secretary was within the scope of his authority to order the removal of the pin and the reduction in rank.
The President was within his authority to grant a pardon and order reinstatement.
The Defense Secretary was within his authority to order the Navy Secretary to be removed from office.
The President has appointed an Undersecretary of the Navy to the Navy Secretary post.

As far as the right or wrong of the President's pardon, I feel great trepidation when a president who has never served a day in uniform goes against the recommendations from those who have served long and faithfully. Frankly, my gut does not like it, particularly when you're talking about elite forces like the Seals.

But then, I remember Harry Truman overruled Douglas MacArthur about nuking North Korea . . . I remember Bill Clinton denied his commanders' urgent requests to send armor into Mogadishu.

Presidents will make those calls, because somebody has to. DJT made his call. As an old soldier, I have to accept it. But, I don't have to like it.

By far the best instructor I ever had in the military was a retired SGM, Vietnam vet.

His instruction to us was --you will not let your soldiers take trophies from dead enemy combatants. You will teach them to treat enemy corpses with dignity and respect.

The reason you will not is for your own soldiers' mental health. You will protect them from their own youthful ignorance so that 20 years from now they are not dealing with the guilt of something that could be avoided.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

NEBaghead posted his military experience right at the start of the thread, so I thought it prudent to do the same.
I've never shared any of my military experience on this board, so I thought it prudent to follow suit.
Twice a day? What? Oh, you're exaggerating for humorous effect? Oh, I see. Funny.

The CPO in question had multiple charges against him, which were subsequently proven wrong when somebody else testified they committed the crimes, but were granted immunity. That left one charge - posing with a dead Islamic State teenager for a photo.

Now, this was a common practice in some past wars. In fact, it became so common that after Desert Storm the U.S. armed forces cracked down on such things. The U.S. Army added several pages to my lesson plans stressing the immorality and illegality of such actions. The military made examples of some of the more flagrant violators.

I listened respectfully when my uncle, a Marine Corps veteran of Guadalcanal, Tinian, Saipan and Guam, scoffed and called it political correctness run amok.

As for the Seals, they've always been a tight-knit, self-policing organization, within an organization, within an organization. They operated under a strict code that precluded anybody from outside of the organization from criticizing, critiquing or passing judgement on their actions, particularly those taken in combat zones.

Posing with dead enemies is a deliberate violation of the Law of War, the Code of Conduct, not to mention being a sick, morally repugnant act that can inflame the enemy to retaliate.

Removing a sailor's trident is not a trivial matter.

The Navy Secretary was within the scope of his authority to order the removal of the pin and the reduction in rank.
The President was within his authority to grant a pardon and order reinstatement.
The Defense Secretary was within his authority to order the Navy Secretary to be removed from office.
The President has appointed an Undersecretary of the Navy to the Navy Secretary post.

As far as the right or wrong of the President's pardon, I feel great trepidation when a president who has never served a day in uniform goes against the recommendations from those who have served long and faithfully. Frankly, my gut does not like it, particularly when you're talking about elite forces like the Seals.

But then, I remember Harry Truman overruled Douglas MacArthur about nuking North Korea . . . I remember Bill Clinton denied his commanders' urgent requests to send armor into Mogadishu.

Presidents will make those calls, because somebody has to. DJT made his call. As an old soldier, I have to accept it. But, I don't have to like it.

There's a lot more to the Gallagher case than what you cited, in particular, his teammates repeatedly reported his behavior to their leadership and they turned a blind eye.

This past month, POTUS has granted clemency for three US Servicemen convicted of war crimes. As a retired serviceman, I find it reprehensible that these criminals have been granted clemency, it's a slap in the face of those that served honorably and it also place the lives of those that are still in the line of fire in increased danger. IMO, trump's actions has undermined the UCMJ by turning a blind eye to crimes that were committed by these three and has embolden those who may take further transgressions.

Trump grants clemency to troops in three controversial war crimes cases

POTUS intervenes in the cases of two Army officers and a Navy SEAL.

www.militarytimes.com

In another instance of trump undermining our military leaders, he has reversed the Navy's decision to demote and remove CPO Edward Gallagher from the Navy Seals.

Heres some backround on CPO Gallagher:

Eddie Gallagher (Navy SEAL) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

A Jekyll and Hyde portrait emerges of the SEAL accused of murdering an Islamic State prisoner

Gallagher, a veteran of eight overseas and combat deployments, is facing 14 criminal counts, including premeditated murder for allegedly stabbing to death an alleged ISIS fighter Iraqi forces brought for medical care by his SEAL Team platoon in Mosul, Iraq, in early May 2017.

www.navytimes.com

Trump Reverses Navy Decision to Oust Edward Gallagher From SEALs (Published 2019)

The president said Chief Petty Officer Gallagher, who has been at the center of a high-profile war crimes case, would not lose his membership in the elite commando force.

www.nytimes.com

 

[coldseat]

How often have presidents interjected themselves into military disciplinary cases?

Why would one even do so, does he not trust the ability and jurisdiction of military courts? If so, it seems like a much bigger problem than one soldier's case.

The problem isn't that Trump is making command decisions. We expect presidents to make those calls. It's when he's purposefully upending the regular order of things (similar to what he did in Ukrainian diplomacy) to get some sort of personal gain out of it. He keeps doing this over and over and the right just turns a blind eye to the elephant in the room. As if his reason for doing these things is purely for the best interest of the US, even in the face of obvious evidence to the contrary.

How does this episode in any way, shape or form make the military better? It doesn't, it makes things much worse in the military. Now soldiers will think they can do anything, as long as Trump would approve of it and take up their case. The destruction of America continues.

 

[MT15]

I am certain you will discount this due to the source but you asked.

Eddie Gallagher controversy: Esper fires Navy secretary, SEAL will keep Trident pin, Pentagon says

Defense Secretary Mark Esper fired Navy Secretary Richard Spencer Sunday over his handling of the case of a Navy SEAL who posed for a photo next to an Islamic State terrorist's corpse in Iraq, and the SEAL will be able to keep his Trident pin, a Pentagon spokesman said Sunday.

www.foxnews.com

Thanks, I have seen something similar since I posed the question. Except what I read said the men left convinced that Trump had decided to let the review go through. And then they were surprised by his tweets to the contrary. It was after that the supposed deal was proposed. This was my memory I’ll have to look for the article.

I‘m curious when and how Esper learned of Spencer’s offering of a deal. He was wrong to go around behind the Secretary’s back, no doubt, but his proposal of a deal is surprising to me and seems out of character.

 

[Nebaghead]

NEBaghead posted his military experience right at the start of the thread, so I thought it prudent to do the same.
I've never shared any of my military experience on this board, so I thought it prudent to follow suit.
Twice a day? What? Oh, you're exaggerating for humorous effect? Oh, I see. Funny.

The CPO in question had multiple charges against him, which were subsequently proven wrong when somebody else testified they committed the crimes, but were granted immunity. That left one charge - posing with a dead Islamic State teenager for a photo.

Now, this was a common practice in some past wars. In fact, it became so common that after Desert Storm the U.S. armed forces cracked down on such things. The U.S. Army added several pages to my lesson plans stressing the immorality and illegality of such actions. The military made examples of some of the more flagrant violators.

I listened respectfully when my uncle, a Marine Corps veteran of Guadalcanal, Tinian, Saipan and Guam, scoffed and called it political correctness run amok.

As for the Seals, they've always been a tight-knit, self-policing organization, within an organization, within an organization. They operated under a strict code that precluded anybody from outside of the organization from criticizing, critiquing or passing judgement on their actions, particularly those taken in combat zones.

Posing with dead enemies is a deliberate violation of the Law of War, the Code of Conduct, not to mention being a sick, morally repugnant act that can inflame the enemy to retaliate.

Removing a sailor's trident is not a trivial matter.

The Navy Secretary was within the scope of his authority to order the removal of the pin and the reduction in rank.
The President was within his authority to grant a pardon and order reinstatement.
The Defense Secretary was within his authority to order the Navy Secretary to be removed from office.
The President has appointed an Undersecretary of the Navy to the Navy Secretary post.

As far as the right or wrong of the President's pardon, I feel great trepidation when a president who has never served a day in uniform goes against the recommendations from those who have served long and faithfully. Frankly, my gut does not like it, particularly when you're talking about elite forces like the Seals.

But then, I remember Harry Truman overruled Douglas MacArthur about nuking North Korea . . . I remember Bill Clinton denied his commanders' urgent requests to send armor into Mogadishu.

Presidents will make those calls, because somebody has to. DJT made his call. As an old soldier, I have to accept it. But, I don't have to like it.

I was just a lowly Corporal Supply Admin. I was in the rear with the gear.
I agree with what you said. He has the right but it’s not his business and he should let the Navy take care if it’s own business.

 

[samiam5211]

I was just a lowly Corporal Supply Admin. I was in the rear with the gear.
I agree with what you said. He has the right but it’s not his business and he should let the Navy take care if it’s own business.

I wouldn’t even call it a right.

We have loaned him that authority.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

So, here I am, a Marine Corps and Army veteran, 20-year military retiree with broad experience as a US Army Quartermaster Corps and Adjutant General's Corps trainer-of-trainers, senior instructor, master assessor, for MOS 92Y40 and MOS 71L40, certified Battle Staff Trainer and assessor ASI 2S, with over a decade of classroom experience teaching Military Leadership, Military Justice, Brigade and Battalion Staff Operations and Combat Orders, but from 20 years ago.

Anybody want to know what I think about this SNAFU?

I just assume you’ll somehow come out with a pro-bone spurs defense

 

[FullMonte]

Well, I'll join in as well. I am currently (and have been for the past 29 years) a member of the Air Force Reserve (a full time member-Air Reserve Technician-for the past 22) as an Electronic Warfare Systems Avionic Technician. I worked A-10s for the first 20 years of my career, and have worked B-52s for the past 9.

I'll say that I think Trump's actions (in this particular matter) are getting very close to a dangerous area. The military has rules and regulations, and if you violate any of those rules, you are well aware that you could be disciplined for them. The president stepping in on a single incident and dictating that a branch of the military should avoid using that disciplinary system is a bad precedent.

With that said, I'll say that regardless of what happened in the trial, Gallagher's actions in the past few days alone should warrant his discharge. He has openly criticized his superiors and leadership in television interviews, and posted a photo of a dumpster fire captioned "The current state of US Navy Leadership summed up in one photo." That type of insubordination is deserving of a discharge.

 

[MT15]

I saw a man on MSNBC who is the head of a veterans organization. He put it in a way that makes sense. He said that basically what Trump is doing is laying out a choice for service men and women. Loyalty to him or loyalty to their military code of behavior. (I’m paraphrasing.) He said the Defense Secretary chose loyalty to Trump and Spencer chose loyalty to the honor of the military. He said it’s tremendously damaging for the two to diverge and they are diverging because of Trump‘s actions in these cases.

And later I heard reporting that the Trump campaign plans to have these pardoned soldiers on stage with him at various rallies and potentially when he receives the nomination at the convention. So he sees them as props for his campaign essentially. Just reinforces my belief that the man doesn’t do anything that doesn’t benefit him personally or that he cannot exploit in some way.